J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Presidential candidates’ Category

Politics is a high stakes game.

At the federal level the chess matches are monumentally important as the lives of millions are at stake.

John McCain chose to play the game. He was soundly taken to game, set, match, in short order.

Exactly whose fault his loss was depends on what day of the week it is..at least according to his camp (it escapes me why they would still be discussing it):

Just when you thought Senator John McCain and his crew had finally left the scene after getting pounded last November, at least one prominent McCain operative has crawled out of his bunker long enough to blame McCain’s loss on Rush Limbaugh and conservatism.

That’s right. On January 15, 2009, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis appeared on BBC’s “Hardtalk” and credited McCain’s loss to “the Rush Limbaughs of the world who…literally almost feed the nativist attitude toward immigration reform” and the exclusivity of conservative principles.

So the McCainiacs are still trying to blame the 2008 disaster on everyone except themselves and their candidate. If you’ll remember, in the initial days and weeks after the election they were spinning the idea that it was Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s fault that McCain lost. Members of the McCain campaign dumped on her and McCain was nowhere to be seen. “Big Mac” proved to be but a “small fry” as he failed to come to her defense even once.

Senator McCain fails to realize that he never excited the Republican base.

Many moderate conservatives had no interest in him as a candidate. Perhaps this was based on prior actions of bucking his party in his own interest or simply because they did not trust him to introduce legislation which would adhere to conservative principles.

Given the choice of the two candidates many made a conscious choice to go for the known entity feeling left with little other option. I do not believe those who were not totally committed to either candidate did so wholeheartedly.

Senator McCain and his minions need to leave the stage at least as far as this past election is concerned.

It remains to be seen whether he decides to work in the best interest of the country or chooses the path he has so often, the one of self serving political ambition.

HT:hillbilly politics

Tweet This Post

Leave John McCain the candidate aside for a moment and listen to John McCain the man:

The Senator is obviously comfortable with himself and his life away from this campaign. You can just sense that he will be at peace no matter what happens on November 4th.

HT: Hot Air

Tweet This Post

Note: Reines and the Obama campaign claim he is not a part of the Obama campaign.

Don’t forget Obama’s running mate Joe Biden is on the influential banking committee (chairman) and until he was picked as the VP running mate his son was a lobbyist for the banking industry. Cozy.

Consider this when you vote.

Tweet This Post

Fred Thompson spoke yesterday evening at the Republican National Convention.

Many may have missed this either in choosing not to watch or due to the fact that two major networks decided to not extend the same courtesy to the Republicans as they did the Democrats. That’s for another day.

Watching pundits and news anchors detail a speech in its aftermath has never been my thing and frankly I don’t care what they think..I’m a big girl and capable of forming my own opinions so I have no way of passing along their temperature of the electorate following the former Senator’s speech.

Frankly, the personal attacks which have been levied against the family of Governor Palin and the vile remarks being hurled from website to website and in the media have left me very disillusioned.

If this is “politics as usual”, then I must be well out of the loop.

Then along came this speech. Guess it’s what I have been waiting for as for the first time in months I am at total peace with my decision to vote for John McCain.

The characteristics I have admired most in President Bush are humility, character and steadfastness.
No poll watcher in this man. He governed as he felt was best for America regardless of the relentless insults hurled his way.

Maybe it was early nostalgia for a man I admire, I don’t know. But somehow I dismissed the fact that many of those same traits define Senator McCain.

Thanks, Senator Thompson, for reminding me.

There was a sincerity in this speech which transcended politics.

It was one mans admiration of another and his accomplishments.

Yes, Thompson is an actor, but there was no acting on this night, in this speech. When a man chokes a bit as he describes the values which define his friend (not fellow politician) it causes me to sit up and listen.

He did, I did, and now it’s McCain/Palin all the way.

The electorate may not agree, I have no way of predicting the future and frankly don’t think there is much to be said which will sway the voters who have already come to a conclusion one way or the other.

I respect everyones right to vote their conscience without qualification and hope that no matter what the outcome we can move back in the direction of one America rather than a nation divided by partisan politics.

Tweet This Post

While being cautious in their headline by using the word “possible,” the NYT offers a sensible assessment of the current state of not just the race for the nomination but that of the party of a whole on the Democrat side of the aisle:

Certainly, no one is expecting a couple with such political skills, an extended network, history and broad appeal — not to mention fund-raising power — to disappear from the Democratic stage. Mrs. Clinton would presumably return to what could be a potentially very high-profile role in the Senate. Mr. Clinton is only 61, and never has been the kind of politician happy on the sidelines.

But Mr. Obama’s move to the brink of the nomination was fraught with symbolism and evidence of a party in transition. A first-time presidential candidate, he has so far outmaneuvered the vaunted Clinton political machine. He positioned his candidacy as a repudiation of the kind of politics the Clintons practiced and a generational break. And he drew thousands of new voters and donors into his fold, giving the party a fresh face and new energy.

“The Clintons had an important role in the recent history of the Democratic Party and will always play some role, given their success at bringing this country peace and prosperity,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who backed Mr. Obama. “But elections are about the future, not the past. It’s a new era. This is a new spirit that’s out there.”

The evidence may be mounting that Senator Clinton has very few options left to secure the nomination of her party but it was a pleasure to read an article which is not presuming to ask her to leave the race.

I see no one moving that mountain except the candidate herself and only after she is firmly convinced all of her avenues are exhausted be they in the best interest of the party or not.

Interviews with current party leaders and those who have gone before make this piece a worthwhile read.

Tweet This Post

Former Senator Santorum had my respect when he served in Washington and even after his defeat at the hands of Senator Casey, I tend to pay close attention when he speaks.

I did not always concur with Mr. Santorum but he was a strong supporter of President Bush and a reliable Republican vote on most major initiatives.

He has offered the following in defense of the candidacy of Senator McCain, relaying his thoughts as to why Conservatives should support his candidacy:

Anyone who knows me knows that I don’t shy away from offering my two-cents on the issues of the day, particularly in presidential races. And anyone who has heard me talk about the presidential race over the last few months knows that I’ve had, shall we say, some serious reservations about John McCain’s candidacy.
I’ve disagreed with him on immigration, global warming and federal protection of marriage. I’ve taken strong exception to his view that the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research. But disagreement on such issues is one of the reasons we have presidential primaries – so each party’s voters can sort out the issues and personalities and choose the candidate who best reflects their collective view. Republicans have done that. Now the question for conservatives is whether McCain fits the Reagan Axiom that someone you agree with on 80 percent of the issues is your friend, not your enemy.

Of all the issues confronting the United States today, none is more important than our nation’s security. Although these issues don’t dominate our news as they once did, we cannot forget that without a safe and secure country, all other issues don’t matter.

McCain is clearly the candidate with the capacity, judgment, experience and will to confront America’s enemies. He’s served our country honorably – heroically – in war. I served eight years with him on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I can assure you he knows our military. Importantly, he also knows our enemies. He understands their capabilities and their aims. He will not sugarcoat the human or financial commitment and cost needed to defeat this enemy.

The most important social issue is life. Yes, I often wished McCain would have joined me on the Senate floor in debating Barbara Boxer on issues like the partial-birth-abortion ban. In the end, with the exception of embryonic stem-cell funding, he always voted for life and stood for the culture of life. In short, he’s been a reliable vote on life issues, which are critical to conservatives.

Many conservatives have given McCain poor marks for his involvement in the Gang of 14. I was in leadership pushing hard for a showdown with the Democrats on using the “Constitutional Option” to end their filibuster of judicial nominations. The Gang of 14 broke the impasse, and it probably was for the best. I was the one counting votes on that issue, and I was much less certain of success than others. In the end, the Gang deal resulted in numerous confirmations of qualified conservative jurists.

On judges, McCain has repeatedly made clear that he will, as his Web site states, “only nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.” Sounds good to me.

Yes, I disagreed with McCain’s opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. But I give him credit that he now thinks we must make those tax cuts permanent to boost our now-struggling economy.

And, yes, McCain has been a thorn in the side of many of us who supported important appropriations earmarks for our states. But he’s always objected with principled consistency.

This is but one example of McCain’s character – the kind of character I want in the person who answers 3 a.m. phone calls at the White House.

Whether you agree or disagree with the former Senator, the balance of the article makes further good points in regards to McCain’s candidacy. If you have a few moments, you might want to check it out.

Tweet This Post

Senator McCain may have an uphill climb no matter which candidate the Democrats eventually nominate, however, he might do well not to get personally involved in the process.

Jay Homnick at The American Spectator writes on this topic:

Speaking of sports, an odd-couple tag team has been pounding Barack Obama over the last two weeks, privately citing contradictory reasons for the onslaught. On one side we have Hillary Rodham Clinton hammering away at his putative elitism; she sugarcoats her poison pills by earnestly asserting to fellow Dems that she must save the party from the inevitable election loss that would ensue upon an Obama nomination. Her unlikely sidekick is John McCain, who tends to echo Hillary’s critique du jour. He in turn tells his colleagues that he expects that Mrs. Clinton would be an easier opponent to rout.

Me thinks this is a case of trying to do too much on the part of Senator McCain. It is generally good advice to politicians that they should not be diverted into trying to interfere with the other side in its candidate selection. More often than not, these attempts at mischief and manipulation come back to bite one in the end. Trying to divine the relative strengths of potential opponents is a mystical pursuit that not only undermines good faith, it often sabotages good works. This is a hiatus in the process where McCain can be totally positive while the Democrat contenders are forced to be mean; he should be building up his nice-guy cred now and let the other guys come off as hyenas.[Emphasis, mine]

Senator McCain has his own set of difficulties on which he should be focusing. First and foremost he must work to solidify a base which continues to teeter on the brink due just to his nomination. Many continue to look daily for reasons those in the GOP should reject their nominee and at times with good cause.

McCain may well be correct. Mrs. Clinton might be the easier opponent to defeat, after all, many Republicans will go to the polls not to vote for the Arizona Senator but against the one from New York,
which on its face is no consolation.

Then again that old cliche “be careful what you wish for” might just rear its ugly head.

Tweet This Post

When I saw the title of this article, my first inclination was to not take the time to read the copy. It appeared as another run of the mill, pros and cons of the candidates piece.

Well, appearances were deceiving and I found myself engrossed in all three pages of Mr. Miller’s work. He has captured (with a bit of past history included) exactly the feeling I think many have in relation to this election cycle:

It seems clear that Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or Senator McCain will soon become the next President of the United States. Barring a catastrophe of a different sort, this is almost certain to happen to the United States –- which we enjoy calling the most powerful and most important country in the world. While perhaps jingoistic, if this view were totally off the wall the entire world would not be watching with as much fascination as it seems to be (of course, they may just be watching an amusing spectacle, like a cock fight). This makes the basic question even more important than otherwise — if only because others seem so to view us and base some of their policies on this thesis.

Why Clinton, Obama or McCain? There are more than three hundred million people in the U.S., and obviously many of them have the requisite Constitutional qualifications. It is not worth calculating the actual number, but whatever the number may be, it is humongous. I would be willing to bet that there are many millions who are constitutionally qualified and that there are thousands, if not millions, who would make far better presidents than any of the current crop, based on experience, ethics, humility and common sense. As Diogenes discovered, finding an honest person is not easy -– even with a lantern and even if there are scads of such people. We we are stuck with these three, quite possibly because nobody with more experience, ethics, humility and common sense would want the job or even accept it, except based on a rare sense of duty. Or, perhaps, because Diogenes is no longer with us.

At least a modicum of humility is essential, and few people who want to be president have much. There is none to be seen in Senator Clinton, but perhaps a little in Senators Obama and McCain.

Especially if you are among those not sold on any one of the three choices which have been presented to us at the moment (and unfortunately voting out of a sense of duty and partisanship), I don’t think you will be disappointed in the balance of this piece.

Tweet This Post

Thirty five years ago tomorrow the man who aspires to be our next President of the United States was released from captivity in Vietnam and returned to his homeland.

Watch as in this new campaign ad those who have known him well offer their assessment of the Senator McCain.

Duty, Honor, Country. Thank you Mr. McCain for enduring hardships most of us could never imagine and finding the strength to do so in the name of America.

Military service is not a qualification to be POTUS and should never be looked upon as such. In the past few weeks though I have watched with interest as the democratic candidates attempt to format a campaign predicated on the “mood” of the country.

Let’s be nice to each other this week and go for the jugular the next. We’ll agree to the rules the DNC sets forth for states such as Florida and Michigan until it no longer meets our needs and then we’ll change horses in mid-stream. Maybe race and gender baiting will work..sure it will give us opportunities to show we can be contrite when necessary. We won’t provide too many specifics on our programs we wish to see legislated as that might open the door to our opponent to challenge that which many already know is not feasible. It’s all about power first..then people. And when all else fails a tear shed here or there should do the trick.

I see nothing genuine about any of the above. Those who do, (and I have friends who prefer one candidate or the other on the democratic side) never seem to be able to be specific about what it is that draws them to Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

The same applies when I ask them to please specify what it is they dislike about President Bush. The illegal war argument is old, and besides it is easily pointed out that one of the Senators voted for the war while the other voted against. If you support the former then you had better really dig deep and figure out what her position is on any given topic as on Iraq it is ever changing. Should you prefer Senator Obama, just ask yourself what happens when an immediate withdrawal from Iraq takes place. If you answered chaos and demoralization of our forces then you would be right.

Make no mistake, I am less than thrilled across the board with the choices we have been presented in this election cycle. But as it stands now, I will support the man who understands Duty, Honor, Country and not those who pontificate about hope, change and empty promises.

Video HT:Hot Air

Tweet This Post

The earmarks secured by the two Democratic Senators running for the Presidency:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year’s spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

The earmarks secured by the Republican Senator running for the Presidency:

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.

Should this be a campaign issue? You betcha!

Tweet This Post

As for the endorsement made by ~J~ today, I do happen to agree that Fred Thompson is the best of the candidates available for selection in South Carolina.

That being said, after reading this post it answered a question I have asked of myself many times.

What is it that I am looking for and not finding this time around that convinces me these folks are fit to be Commander in Chief?

After watching debates, (on both sides of the aisle), listening to stump, concession and acceptance speeches, and generally observing all candidates, I have been left feeling uninspired. Worse yet, I find myself weary of the entire process.

After reading Rick Moran’s piece containing some of the finest words ever spoken by such a diverse group, I think I found the answer to my question.

What’s missing is patriotism. Not the rah-rah kind. And no, I am not infering that any one of these individuals is not a patriot. I don’t want someone to wrap themselves in the flag and sing God Bless America at every campaign stop.

Listen to these candidates. Not just right or left, conservative or liberal. Where is the spirit in any which has the ability to unite an entire population not only in this Presidential race but well beyond?

What has happened to promoting America’s strengths and not just harping on her weaknesses? Why in the world is there so much negativity constantly spewn by these men and one woman? I have to fix this, I have to fix that. This is wrong, that is wrong. No answers to any of the negatives of which they speak..just empty words.

We’ve all heard this phrase in most all presidential elections, “When I am elected President………..I will……….Nice words..but just that. Showing you have the ability to affect those ideas once elected..whole different ball game.

For me, I think I am still searching for that genuine patriot. The one who puts this country above his or her own politics.

Right now, Fred Thompson is the closest I can find. He, at least attempts to show the United States of America in a positive light, problems and all. Hope and Change are nice words. Congress will have much to say about either.

Believing in this country and its population are quite another.

Tweet This Post

A must read “Letter to the Candidates” from Sgt. Hook.

HT:Lone Wolf at Blackfive where he writes:

Sgt. Hook has a Letter to the Candidates that should go to every politician, not just those running. It is well worth reading, and well worth sharing. It also echoes a message that I was asked to send by multiple enlisted soldiers this last embed. Note, enlisted: not officers, not senior NCOs, but enlisted. Grunts, line animals, the guys on the sharp end. The guys who are walking among and working with Iraqis every day and helping them not just rebuild, but build new and better lives and communities.

Sgt. Hook is active duty and currently serving his second tour in Iraq.

While we may not be exactly his target audience, I agree with Lone Wolf. This letter is definitely worth sharing.

If you have a spare moment, please take a look.

Tweet This Post

The sixty four dollar question.

While watching the endless pundit blather on TV tonight after the Republican Michigan Primary and Democratic Nevada Debate and reading the various opinion meisters commentaries online, I had one of those rare zen moments of simplicity. It all comes down to a simple question:

Who would you like to be in the White House if Pakistan fell to al Qaeda and the Islamists gained control of its nuclear arsenal?

Read the rest here.

Tweet This Post

All this pandering to certain groups, be they special interest, racial, religious, or gender related when involved in a Presidential race, has become ridiculous.

Just because I am a woman, does not obligate me in any fashion to vote for a female, and being caucasian most certainly does not negate my voting for an African American if I feel he or she is the most qualified to run this country.

Is there a reason that someone of the Jewish persuasion would not be qualified to sit in the Oval Office? How about an Asian or a Hispanic? Soon we will be required to trace the bloodlines of each candidate and if there is a nationality which doesn’t leave us feeling warm and cuddly, well then that candidate certainly is not capable of being the leader of the free world.

You know the stereotypes. The Irish, well maybe they drink too much, those Germans are known to have a stubborn streak. If your ancestors come from Poland..well we all have heard the jokes, and on and on and on.

What is happening to us? Are we more interested in a persons color than his qualifications? Have we been reduced to candidates who use their religion in ways not seen before to win elections? Should a woman have an advantage just because..well she’s a woman?

Resumes on issues are becoming overshadowed by all the gobbledy-gook that is enveloping these primary races.

Some candidates skip one state or another looking only at what they consider the “big prize.” Last I looked, a president is elected for all the people, not just those who can produce the delegates necessary to win a nomination.

Speaking for no one but myself, when I walk in that booth to make my choice for an office as important as President of the United States, all this campaign nonsense is the furthest thing from my thoughts. Yes, ones stand on the issue are important, but so are sincerity, a moral compass and tenacity.

Do I believe not only what you say but who you are? Can I trust that what you have told me in the past is true and not empty words spoken simply to garner votes?

Are you genuine or no more than the shell of a politician reaching for the prize? Will you stand up for what is right for the entire country no matter the cost to yourself or the career you hold dear?

When it applies to the United States Military, have you always shown the respect which is due these men and women who you may one day have to commit to battle?

As President, would the Constitution be your guide in the appointment of judges to all courts, ideology aside?

Do you have the humility to not take credit for every “good” which happens and the ability to not blame others when things go awry?

This list could go on to infinity and I’m sure by now you get the idea.

We will all continue to write on these candidates all the way through election day and I would hope, sooner or later, they will all give us something positive to take with us as we make this most important decision.

It is fair to point out differences in each candidate, but those should not be based on superficial things but rather on character and issues.

When they step in the mud, it is fair to criticize, even harshly if deserved..after all, it is the only way we can answer those important questions we all have when selecting a Commander in Chief.

Tweet This Post

Thomas Sowell offers his thoughts on the election of our next President:

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Among the Republicans, there are misgivings about the track record of each of the candidates, especially those who have shown what Thorstein Veblen once called “a versatility of convictions.”

There are fewer reasons for misgivings about Fred Thompson’s track record in the Senate but more reason to be concerned about what his unfocused and lackluster conduct of his campaign might portend for his performance in the White House.

When it comes to personal temperament, Governor Romney would rate the highest for his even keel, regardless of what events are swirling around him, with Rudolph Giuliani a close second.

Temperament is far more important for a President than for a candidate. A President has to be on an even keel 24/7, for four long years, despite crises that can break out anywhere in the world at any time.

John McCain trails the pack in the temperament department, with his volatile, arrogant, and abrasive know-it-all attitude. His track record in the Senate is full of the betrayals of Republican supporters that have been the party’s biggest failing over the years and its Achilles heel politically.

Among all the rah-rah rallies, numerous debates, campaign slogans and stop, something is missing in this election for the most powerful office in the world.

While people jump on and off bandwagons, read tea leaves into what it taking place inside individual campaigns and the candidates speak endlessly of change, a number of Americans are still asking one very important question.

Who among these candidates is not only qualified but well rounded enough to lead us through the coming years? Yes, we will survive as a nation no matter who sits in the Oval Office..we have proven that through the worst and the best.

Maybe the choice in the end will simply be the best of the worst.

Tweet This Post

For most of the population, if you missed important meetings, numerous days of work (without a viable reason) or did not carry out the responsibilities of your job I doubt very much you would be employed for very long.

Not so for members of Congress according to this post at Evangelical Outpost:

Can a Senator or Congressional Representative do their job as a legislator if they never show up for work? Ask the ten legislators currently running for President. Each has continued to collect their $165,200 salary while missing votes during the current Congress:

John McCain has missed 218 votes (53.3%)
Joseph Biden has missed 146 votes (35.7%)
Christopher Dodd has missed 140 votes (34.2%)
Barack Obama has missed 139 votes (34.0%)
Sam Brownback has missed 134 votes (32.8%)
Duncan Hunter has missed 321 votes (28.8%)
Tom Tancredo has missed 311 votes (28.0%)
Ron Paul has missed 276 votes (24.8%)
Hillary Clinton has missed 76 votes (18.6%)
Dennis Kucinich has missed 126 votes (11.3%)

Federal law requires the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House to deduct the pay of congress members who are absent without just cause (and, no, running for President is not a valid excuse). Each of these candidates should refund the portion of their salaries that were due to campaign related absences.

There is much more at the link, but I found the above paragraph rather intriguing. It would certainly be interesting to know if any of the candidates throughout the years, not only in this election cycle, have refunded any of their salary due to campaign absence.

I think I probably know the answer already, but it would be nice to think that there are those who would honor the law and return monies which they have not earned. Or, maybe there is a loophole in this law which allows them to earn taxpayer dollars while not actually carrying out the duties with which they have charged by their constituents.

It’s just another one of those unknowns, and will probably remain so, when it comes to politics today.

Tweet This Post

Well, it’s Thursday and I have searched the news sites, read through the blogs I frequent and looked through the on-line news magazine articles offered.

Maybe it’s me, but I have found nothing which is not old, rehashed news laced with a new opinion here or there.

Seriously, how many ways can you say we have won/lost in Iraq?

Can your head handle one more day of Iowa and New Hampshire apparently being the only two states in the Union?

Is there life beyond the Bush Administration and will the next President undo all the evil this one man has bestowed upon this country?

What did Hillary, Fred, Obama, Mitt, John, Mike, Ron, Rudy etc….say yesterday. Did they say/do it to everyones satisfaction? What was their “body language?”

Do I want Hillary as the next President of the United States, no way, but I don’t see anyone out there at this moment who excites me much. I am tired of polls, candidates, speeches which are filled with empty words and promises tied to these endless campaigns. No new news, just the same old tired stuff.

Will we have a full blown energy crisis in this country..one where people cannot afford to heat their homes or put gas in their car and still afford to buy groceries or medicine? Beats me, I haven’t heard much from our elected officials on this issue.

Social Security..nah, leave that alone. It’s almost Christmas..we can’t act on this hot button issue lest we upset an important voter block in this country..instead when it is ready to go belly up, well maybe then we’ll have to deal with it, but certainly not now and not while this President is in office.

Poverty in the US. Dare not touch that one. We need those people to be poor so we can exploit them in the next election.

Immigration, , whoa boy. I’d like a nickle for every word written on this issue just within the last six months. But action, nah, those are “voters” too. Complaining is paramount, let’s just make the “other guy” look bad.

Maybe Wolf Blitzer will make some news in Las Vegas. I can’t imagine it will be anything new but it will be written and over written and explored to infinity.

Thanks to those who will do it, as I will read but if it is anything like what I’ve seen of late, the words may become another big blur. Excuses made for some, others faulted for the tiniest mistake. Ready, set, pounce. Same old, same old.

I’m as guilty as the next guy of this. I admit there have been times I have waited for that next mistake or that gaffe..gee that makes a good story..but how many times can it be told?

Guess what I’m trying to say is that I will wait..wait for something positive to come out of this Congress so I have my faith restored that the electorate did the right thing in 2006. Wait for the nominees to be selected by their respective parties and then scrutinize them further.

I’ll wait for the day when collectively we can respect the Office of the POTUS, not because the press tells us to do so due to their bias but because we know it is part of the strength of America.

I’ll continue to read until I find something fresh and new that doesn’t have the words OJ, Britney, Lindsey or some other “famous” person as the headline.

As we head into this week before Thanksgiving, I’ll wait, but I won’t be writing on events political which have been written a hundred times. I will look for stories of compassion and which are uplifting.

After all, that’s what I thought made us so great as a nation.

Tweet This Post

Many seem to feel indifferent toward all of the present Presidential candidates. I know I have wrestled with the current choices myself.

Perhaps Michael Barone hit the nail on the head with respect to this quandry in his latest piece at Real Clear Politics.

“Pray take away this pudding,” Winston Churchill commanded one night at dinner. “It has no theme.” Our two political parties, facing the first election in 80 years in which neither the incumbent president nor the incumbent vice president is running, are similarly bereft of themes. Or, to put it more precisely, neither has a convincing narrative of where we are in history and where we should be headed next.

He’s right, at least in my way of thinking. I have seen or heard very little which convinces me this will not be an election in which many of us make our selection based on who we believe is the lesser of two evils, not the one who will lead this nation in a manner one might expect.

Barone elaborates, first on the Democrats:

Today’s parties lack such narratives. The Democratic Party is all about, well, listen to its rhetoric. It’s all about opposing George W. Bush and all his works. But where to go from there?

Domestically, Democrats seem to be reviving the FDR narrative: Expand government to help the little guy. Some thoughtful Democratic strategists argue that although this view was discredited by the stagflation and gas lines of the 1970s, voters are once again ready for more government, and they can cite some poll results in support of that proposition. And it’s true that the median-age voter in 2008 will have no vivid memories of the 1970s.

And now, the Republicans:

The Republicans are no better. Many say the party must go back to Ronald Reagan, and the Reagan narrative is at least of recent vintage. Reagan taught that government had grown overlarge and must be cut back and that America must be the assertive champion of freedom and democracy. The problem is that none of the Republican presidential candidates occupy Reagan’s place on the political spectrum, and the problems we face are not those that confronted Reagan in 1980.

We no longer have 70 percent tax rates and oil price controls; we no longer face the symmetric threat of Soviet communism. The problem of overlarge government — the threat that entitlements will gobble up the government and the private economy — is real but remote. Our foreign adversaries are asymmetric, with a small but worrying potential of inflicting vast damage, and they are not entirely vulnerable to conventional military or diplomatic pressures.

History teaches many lessons, but we should not be content with candidates running on others laurels or the issues facing those who have served in the past.

What’s necessary is that one candidate have that defining moment which convinces voters they have the vision necessary to lead this nation..so far, for me at least, that moment has not arrived.

Tweet This Post

There is a short quiz available at WQAD which aligns the taker with the Presidential candidate it finds to be the most suitable match.

I ran across this while reading Jules Crittenden and must say I agree with his thoughts no matter what the results of this quiz produce.

In fact, I’m a one-issue voter. Whoever is not the Democratic candidate. And I expect to vote in the primary for whoever I think has the best shot, regardless of their position on ancillary issues.

There was a time I did not feel that way. If a Democrat presented a platform which I felt would do well by America I would give that person an equal chance to secure my vote. No more. I do not want to see America governed by those beholden to Moveon.org and George Soros.

Anyhow, the quiz is kind of neat so if you get a chance, take a look..who knows maybe you’ll be surprised by the candidate it selects for you. It was dead on right with the candidate I lean towards at this moment.

Tweet This Post

I was interested in this LA Times opinion piece by Matt Bai yesterday, mainly because it’s something I have never thought about.

His argument is that a large segment of the country is moving west and yet the Democrats are still picking candidates from the Industrial states and the South to run for president.

As pundits have already noted more times than John Edwards has uttered the words “two Americas,” Democrats may well make history this presidential season by nominating, for the first time, either a woman or an African American. What the party will not do next year, however, for the 39th straight time since the massive territory of California won its statehood in 1850, is to select a nominee who hails from the West Coast.

For the record, Sen. William Gibbs McAdoo of California came closest, having narrowly lost the nomination twice in the 1920s. But, frankly, he was no more a Californian than Hillary Rodham Clinton is a New Yorker. Other than that, the nearest the party has come to nominating a true Westerner in the last century would be South Dakota’s George McGovern or Texas’ Lyndon Johnson, neither of whom would likely have known the Pacific Ocean had it carried them away while they were sleeping.

This is a telling omission. The Democratic Party, still tightly tethered to its 20th century zenith and the governing agenda that grew from it, continues to look to politicians from the old-line industrial states (New York, Illinois) and the manufacturing and farming South (North Carolina, Tennessee) even as unassuming San Jose quietly replaces Detroit on the list of the 10 largest American cities. In fact, since the modern party was born in Martin Van Buren’s time, Democratic politics at the highest levels has always been controlled by a power axis joining urban Easterners with populist Southerners.

And yet, under the surface, something is in fact changing in the party’s geographic balance. The candidates may give the impression of a party centered east of the Mississippi, but, in every other way, the Democratic universe is tilting West. The shift is most obvious in Congress, where industrial-state Democrats such as Charles Schumer and Rahm Emanuel now answer to a couple of Westerners, Harry Reid of Nevada and Nancy Pelosi of California. Its effect is even more profound at the activist level, however, where the power and energy in Democratic politics now runs increasingly along an East-West current.

When Richard Nixon ran for president the first time he lost his home state of California. Ronald Reagan, I believe, won it both times.

Republicans have always had a hard time winning in California, not because there are no Republicans or conservatives there, but because the larger cities make up the majority of the population and they are largely Democratic cities.

The same holds true for Washington state and Oregon.

Republicans have to pick up some western states in order to win the presidency, and not getting California consistently means they have to pick up a large chunk of the electoral votes in the west.

Colorado seems to be turning purple if not blue. If it goes blue we have to look elsewhere for their electoral votes with the presidential elections being as close as they have been the last few cycles.

On the other hand, with the Democrats having to win all the big states, or at least most of them, it means there is more fertile ground for Republicans and losing one small state isn’t as hard for them as losing a state with a lot of electoral votes is for the Democrats.

Maybe it’s time for the Republican party to start to invest campaign dollars into the larger western states to see if they can pick off a couple, while still hanging onto the campaign strategy for electoral votes that has helped them win the White House all but three times since Truman.

Your thoughts?

Tweet This Post

What a wonderful feeling it must be to have yourself surrounded by people who believe you have the ability “to mesmerize any human being.”

Former President Clinton is attempting to sell his wifes possible presidency on the premise that world leaders love her and she will save us from the debacle which he must believe has been President Bush.

“Every African leader I talked to, every single one when I was there, without any prodding from me, said, ‘For God sakes, I hope Hillary wins. We don’t like disliking America here,’” Bill Clinton said at a fund-raiser for her last month.

“I called the outgoing French president, and he said, ‘Oh, tell me Hillary’s going to win. I’m so tired of disliking America,’” Bill Clinton told the crowd.

Bill Clinton also quoted the immediate past prime minister of Singapore as saying, “‘Please tell me Hillary’s going to win. We need America leading the world again.’”

So, with all of these foreign countries facing their own internal problems and many staring terrorism in the face as we are, their main focus is returning a Clinton to the White House?

Hold on a moment though, there is a twist.

Aides to Jacques Chirac, the former French president, and Goh Chok Tong, Singapore’s former prime minister, told The News they could not confirm Bill Clinton’s assertions -and, they said, it’s general policy to stay out of other countries’ elections.

and:

Aides to the Clintons refused to provide a full list of the global leaders allegedly supporting Hillary Clinton. But records show Bill Clinton met with Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete and Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika in July, just weeks before he boasted that “every African leader” he talked to voiced hope his wife would win.

Officials from both countries said neither president has expressed public support for Hillary Clinton. A Tanzanian official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it would be a mistake to interfere in the U.S. election.

So where is the truth? Does it lie with the former president, or all of these foreign leaders who appear to deny his assertions? Well, just ask a former aide to the president and a member of Senator Clinton’s staff and he will clarify the issue for you.

Jay Carson, who served as an aide to Bill Clinton and is now working for Hillary Clinton, initially told The News that Bill Clinton has “never cited specific countries” whose leaders support his wife.

When The News provided Carson with the former President’s quotes, he replied, “Sen. Clinton visited 82 countries as First Lady and is beloved around the world because people everywhere know she’ll end America’s current policy of cowboy diplomacy,” he said.

Carson also said the former President stood by his statements.

The News repeatedly asked Carson to supply confirmation from these leaders. Carson did not.

Well, that answers all the questions doesn’t it. Case closed.

HT: Betsy Newmark

Tweet This Post

I can’t find anyone yet who is excited about the presidential prospects of either party.

I’m going to talk about the three frontrunners in each party in this post.

First, the Democratic frontrunners.

1. Hillary Clinton

She comes with a lot of baggage. Most people don’t really trust her to be honest with us should she achieve the office of President of the United States.

Her ties to Norman Hsu bring back bad memories of campaign finance scandals of her husband’s administration.

Her talk of medical insurance reform brings back scary thoughts of Hillarycare that went nowhere fast when she brought it up the first time.

She has in her campaign’s employ one Sandy Berger, who was caught stuffing papers from the National Archives and admits to destroying said papers.

What was Berger trying to hide from us at the behest of the Clintons?

I sometimes think of the Clintons as being their own little crime family.

2. Barack Obama

An empty suit. Need I say more?

No experience in national politics except two years in the Senate.

3. John Edwards

Another empty suit, only with nice hair.

He earned his money as a trial lawyer suing doctors and pharmaceutical companies, thereby helping to drive up the cost of medical insurance for everyone.

His only experience in politics has been one term in the Senate, in which he spent about 1/3 of that term running for president and then vice-president.

He was unable to carry his home state for John Kerry and would have lost his Senate seat had he run again.

Now the Republicans:

1. Rudolph Giuliani

Current frontrunner. Socially liberal but tough on terror. Experienced as a U.S. Attorney and the Mayor of New York City. Was mayor during 9/11 and conducted himself well under trying circumstances.

Has not been very successful in marriages and carries baggage there.

Is for abortion but is also a firm supporter of the War on Terror.

Probably would not object to same-sex marriages.

It depends on whether your social concerns out-weigh your national security concerns.

2. Fred Thompson

Was special counsel to Watergate Committee. Came up with the famous “What did the president know and when did he know it?” question and revealed the White House tapes while questioning Alexander Butterfield.

Served one and a partial term as Senator from Tennessee, then went into acting full-time.

Announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show, which made a lot of Republicans angry at the gamesmanship.

Running as a conservative, but we don’t really know his positions yet. We’ll have to reserve judgment until we hear him in a debate and read up on his positions.

3. Mitt Romney

Former governor of Massachusetts, stepped in and fixed the Salt Lake City Olympics. Attractive, but almost too cute by half.

Has flip-flopped on the issues from his stances on abortion when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate to now.

What does he really stand for? Who knows but Mitt Romney?

Just another pretty face.

So here we have six candidates for the nation’s highest job, and so far I can’t get excited about any of them.

I want to be able to vote for someone who shares my values on abortion, the War on Terror, same-sex marriage etc. and not just against another candidate.

Feel free to discuss your choices in the comments section.

Tweet This Post

Polls seem to be confirming what most of us already know: we don’t feel warm and fuzzy over the prospect of having Hillary Clinton as our president.

You know how we feel about polls on this blog, so take it for what it’s worth.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has the highest negative ratings of any presidential candidate in the 2008 race, can add another voter designation to her image: the coldest.

The Gallup Poll recently asked voters to rank the candidates on a “feeling thermometer,” in which zero was the coldest and 100 was the warmest. The New York senator and Democratic front-runner was the “most polarized” of all the candidates in either party, according to the poll.

“Nearly as many Americans say she leaves them cold as say they feel warmly about her,” Gallup said.

The article notes the core of Mrs. Clinton’s support is in her party, which is good enough to get the nomination, but what about the general election?

I was asked today who I thought was a good enough candidate to be our president, and I had to answer I didn’t know because I really haven’t paid attention to the issues favored by the various candidates. I also said I was sure I would crawl naked over frozen ice on crushed glass in a blizzard to make sure I got to the polls to vote against Hillary Clinton.

I’m tired of voting against someone and hope I can find someone to vote for instead.

Tweet This Post

Betsy Newmark has what I consider to be among one of the best “suspicions” of the week incorporated into this piece, simply entitled, Hillary Clinton’s Experience.

“I suspect that a lot of Americans are still not comfortable with the idea of an unelected First Lady having substantial influence in government policy, particularly foreign policy choices. And a focus on her role as First Spouse raises questions about what her husband’s role would be in an Hillary Clinton adminstration.”

Bravo! In a simple four sentences, Ms. Newmark has spoken for many average Americans.

Check out the rest of this post and while there, take a minute to look at the referenced material from Michael Crowley especially if you are one who questions the “experience” of Senator Clinton.

Tweet This Post

For those who have anticipated the entrance of Fred Thompson into the Presidential race, the wait is over. I posted this while watching the Fox News Republican debate so please forgive the brevity.

At 7:57 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday, while taping “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” for broadcast later in the evening, Fred Thompson finally said: “I’m running for president of the United States.”

The studio audience responded with thunderous applause.

Thompson rejected the notion that he has waited too long to get into the race for the White House.

“People treat politicians sort of like the dentist — they don’t have anything to do with them till they have to,” he said.

The balance of the story is available at Politico.

More on Senator Thompson entering the field of candidates here.

Tweet This Post

I wish that they would get some new campaign slogans instead of the constant regurgitation of the same old topics. They all do it.

“Islamic terrorists are at war with us,” Rudy Giuliani told about 300 people at a synagogue in Rockville, Md., one evening in July. He likes to say it that way — that they are at war with us, not the other way around. “They want to kill us,” he warned a group in New Hampshire the same month. “They hate you,” he told a woman in Atlanta.

Giuliani says he understands terrorism “better than anyone else running for President,” and he certainly talks about it more than anyone else. “Basically, what he’s selling is, ‘As dangerous a world as this is, I can make it safer,’” says G.O.P. pollster Frank Luntz. So far, it seems to be working. Giuliani has been the consistent front-runner of the Republican candidates in most national polls through August.

By framing his campaign this way, Giuliani has raised an interesting question. What does it actually mean to understand terrorism? His supporters might find the question absurd. He owns terrorism, they say. The entire world watched on television as Giuliani led New York City through the aftermath of a terrorism attack. To his opponents, the answer is equally plain: he has no foreign policy experience, and he talks about terrorism as if it’s an enemy country on a continent only he knows how to find.

But being a victim of terrorism, or the steely leader of a recovery, is not necessarily the same as understanding terrorism. Nor is foreign policy experience all that matters. So how would Giuliani actually prevent, contain and respond to the next major terrorist attack in the U.S.? What is his vision for what he considers the existential challenge of our time?

This much is indisputable: Giuliani knows what it means to be a victim of terrorism, to lose old friends in an avalanche of violence and spit the dust of a skyscraper out of his mouth in a new, blackened world. He understands the urgency of speaking to the American people after an attack — and not circling above the ruins in Air Force One. He knows how to grieve and go to work at the same time.

But before 9/11, Giuliani spent eight years presiding over a city that was a known terrorist target. A TIME investigation into what he did — and didn’t do — to prepare for a major catastrophe is revealing. In addition to extraordinary grace under fire, Giuliani developed an intimate knowledge of emergency management and an affinity for quantifiable results. On 9/11, he earned the trust of most Americans; one year later, 78% of those surveyed by the Marist Institute had a favorable impression of Giuliani. This magazine also named Giuliani its Person of the Year in 2001. Assuming he can keep it, trust is a priceless resource in psychological warfare.

The evidence also shows great, gaping weaknesses. Giuliani’s penchant for secrecy, his tendency to value loyalty over merit and his hyperbolic rhetoric are exactly the kinds of instincts that counterterrorism experts say the U.S. can least afford right now.

Story

Tweet This Post

I know I’m a Democrat but I love this guy. He seems to give off a persona of honesty and I like that.

– What success Mike Huckabee has found as a presidential candidate stems largely from his homespun charm – a folksy populism that gets heads nodding when he muses about the Lava soap his skin had to endure during a childhood filled with more want than wealth.

But if the former Arkansas governor wants to find greater success and become a first-tier player in the Republican primary race, he faces having to turn his wise-cracking image on its head and start trying to turn attack dog.

And that transformation has already begun.

Without naming names, Huckabee is using his second-place finish at the Iowa GOP’s straw poll Aug. 11 to take aim at Mitt Romney, the winner at Ames.

In media appearances and on the stump, the normally sunny Huckabee is using barbed language to portray Romney as a politically expedient and wealthy spendthrift who can’t relate to the day-to-day problems of average Americans.

“Here’s a guy who didn’t just become pro-life to run for president,” Huckabee said of himself at a dinner of 100 Republicans gathered here last week for spaghetti and meatballs and political rhetoric. “Here’s a guy who didn’t just read the latest issue of NRA magazine and decide he’s going to be for the Second Amendment.”

Story

Tweet This Post

Privacy? There’s no such thing as privacy when you running for the highest office in the land.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Rudy Giuliani is testing many traditional political rules in his presidential run, perhaps in no way more than in his effort keep his personal faith and family life out of the race.

On the stump in Iowa recently and in New Hampshire last week, the former New York mayor was asked about Catholicism and his frayed relationship with his children. Both times he said, in effect, that he’d keep his private life private.

“I’ll talk about it appropriately and in a way to preserve as much as I can the privacy of my family and my children, which I think any decent person would,” he told reporters at a stop at a diner here on Friday.

Giuliani urged voters “to concentrate on the public things that I’ve accomplished” before turning fire on the media: “See how much do newspapers really have to probe into these things, or how much of it is being done really for reasons that have nothing to do with measuring public performance.”

The GOP front-runner has been the subject of detailed articles examining his wife, Judith, and his difficult relationship with his two college-age children, Andrew and Caroline.

But it’s not just family matters that Giuliani is wary of delving into. Asked about his religion, Giuliani noted that he has discussed it — but then added that “even parts of that are personal.”

His calculus is obvious. He has been married three times and cheated on his second wife. His children have publicly distanced themselves from him. If and when he attends Mass, he can’t take communion because his second marriage was not annulled. And he contradicts church teaching by backing abortion rights.

Naturally he’d rather talk about the taxes he cut as mayor.

Story

Tweet This Post

Politico has an interesting post talking about all the candidates pretty much singing off the same page according to party:

Ever think that presidential candidates sound pretty much the same?

It’s an inevitable by-product of the rigors of this race and additional, unique pressures facing each party.

Republicans must rhetorically pick their way around President Bush’s unpopular policies and, almost by definition, end up focusing on the few Bush mantras that voters seem to still like. It’s no coincidence that the one Bush phrase some in the GOP field are echoing, “follow us home” (or “follow us here”), refers to the one issue on which the GOP still retains an advantage over Democrats: fighting terrorism.

Democrats are more guilty of succumbing to the perils of habit. For the third cycle in a row, they are running on basically the same issues, using the same consultants, against the same opponent: George W. Bush.

The problem with this is that President Bush is not running and will not be president after noon on January 20, 2009.

Of course policies are going to change in 2009 regardless of who gets elected president, so running the same campaign for the third time when you lost it twice already seems to be the definition of insanity: doing over and over again the same thing, expecting a different result.

Here’s another piece of interesting information:

Another reason why Democrats sound the same is because of a seemingly widespread habit of ticking through a laundry list of issues – education, health care, middle-class tax cuts, the environment – in explaining to voters how they’ll provide them with a better future.

Don’t forget Social Security and Mediscare.

The Politico piece picks on Republicans too, but we’ve heard the same song from the two parties for so long (even when they had the White House they didn’t always deliver) why should we believe it all now?

I don’t want slogans or campaign songs. I want to hear a candidate’s real talk about solutions to real problems described in real terms and not the utopia they wish for. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats.

I’m tired of the same tried and true lines they use every four years and every four years the voter still doesn’t know what he or she is going to get when pulling the lever in the voting booth.

I don’t want 30 second sound bites posing as debates, but real debates with a moderator for time only and not asking questions that are favorable to one candidate or another.

Let the candidates duke it out and see how they are judged by the populace.

Isn’t that the way it was done once upon a time?

Tweet This Post

I guess if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire you think you have the right to ask a candidate any personal questions you care to ask.

Well, on Thursday Rudy Giuliani let it be known that some questions are off limits.

DERRY, N.H. (AP) – Republican Rudy Giuliani said Thursday that people should “leave my family alone” when asked by a New Hampshire woman why the presidential candidate should expect loyalty from voters when he doesn’t get it from his children.

Giuliani has a daughter who has indicated support for Democrat Barack Obama and a son who said he didn’t speak to his father for some time. His ugly divorce from their mother, Donna Hanover, was waged publicly while Giuliani was mayor of New York. Giuliani has since remarried.

Answering questions at a town-hall meeting, Giuliani was asked why he should expect loyalty from GOP voters when his children aren’t backing him.

“I love my family very, very much and will do anything for them. There are complexities in every family in America,” Giuliani said calmly and quietly. “The best thing I can say is kind of, ‘Leave my family alone, just like I’ll leave your family alone.’”

His comments were greeted with a smattering of applause from the audience of about 120 people. Giuliani urged them to judge him based on his performance as mayor and a federal prosecutor, and he launched into a list of his successes such as reducing crime and welfare and prosecuting organized crime figures and drug dealers.

When I step into the voting booth to vote for someone I am voting for person whose name is on the ballot.

I’m not voting for his or her spouse, parents, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, grandparents, great-grandparents, or cousins.

Every family has its problems and not every child is especially supportive of either or one parent, especially if that child is still quite young and in his or her early 20s.

Ronald Reagan’s two children with Nancy had a running feud going with their parents during his entire presidency and before and after, but it didn’t affect the job he did as president.

Judge the candidate by his or her record and not by his or her relationship with his or her children, because in five or ten years those children more than likely will defend their father to the death.

It’s none of my business what goes on in a candidate’s family and it’s none of the business of the woman who was rude enough to ask the question. Neither is it the business of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire who get to be in the spotlight once every four years, and they don’t always pick a winner.

Tweet This Post