“Where’s the shared sense of sacrifice?” asked council member Rodger Koopman, an Air Force veteran, “If you do support the troops, be willing to suck it up just a little bit.”
If you give up go to this link to find out.
Archive for the 'politics' Category
Recently it has been revealed that Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Wright has some very divisive racial views. He attacks white Americans and advocates a new separation of the races. Obama has been a member of this man’s church for twenty years or more. He claims Rev. Wright is has been his spiritual mentor for many years. He also claims he did not know Wright’s views and had never heard him speak the way he did about whites.
It would be the height of ignorance to believe Obama did not know his pastor’s racial views. To accept the premise of Obama’s ignorance leads to only one conclusion, Obama is so naive and blind to those around him that he would not make a good leader. It is like Ulysses S. Grant. He was a great leader but was not aware of the corruption of his friends. We can ill afford another president of that caliber.
The proper conclusion to draw is that Obama knew about his pastor beliefs. That leaves you with one of two conclusions, either he believes the same way Rev. Wright believes or he is truly is a tolerant man who looks past his friends flaws. If he believes Rev. Wright’s hat speech then he is unfit to be president as he will find a majority of the people of this nation repugnant. If he is truly tolerant of other people’s opinions then he may be a decent leader but would invite similar controversies in the future. Again, the nation would be in a situation where every move the President makes will be questioned because of his associates (see Tony Rezco).
This commentary by Hendrik Hertzberg offers an interesting idea for John McCain’s running mate. One I would have never thought of. The second half of the article talks about Condoleezza Rice as perfect running mate for McCain.
Personally I would love to see J.C. Watts get into the picture. He is conservative, speaks his mind, and would be historical, he’s black.
Okay, the Democrats National Organization set rules for primaries. The states that broke those rules would have their delegates thrown out of consideration during the convention. Hillary was the only major candidate to leave her name on the ballot in those states, though the other candidates could have their name written in. Florida and Michigan break the rules and there votes are discounted. The 2,025 delegate figure the Democratic candidates are trying to reach does not include those two states. Now, since the election is so close, those two states could swing the nomination to one of the two candidates. The states are also now crying to have their votes counted. What to do? The party wants new primaries paid by the state. The state said it would hold new primaries if the Democratic National Convention would foot the bill. Neither is budging. They want the other to pay.
The solution I embrace is being called the Solomon Solution. Take the delegates from the states and split them evenly between Obama and Clinton. The two states would then have a zero net effect on the primary. This would be the punishment, they have no influence on the nomination, but there delegates would still be seated and they would be represented at the convention. It is simple and easy, but will never happen.
Sorry, it has been a while since I posted. My wife has been sick, I have been sick, I lost my part-time job, etc… So far 08 has been a bummer. Things are looking up though. We seem to be coming out of the worst of it and hopefully things will start looking up soon.
A lot has happened since I last posted a topic. John McCain is now the Republican nominee for president. It looks like he may chose Mike Huckabee as running mate though names, such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have also been floated as possible VP candidates. I know McCain is not the staunch conservative many in the party want as their candidate but he strikes me as a practical man who looks at problems and tries to solve them based on reality not ideology. An example, the reality of illegal immigration is there is no good way to stop it short of militarizing the border. There are ways to staunch the flow. But there are by some estimates 20-30 million illegal immigrants in the country now. There is no viable way to remove them. There needs to be a way to absorb them into the populace. McCain realizes this. He is in favor of tightening the border but also wants to find a way to bring the rest into the fold, as it were. On other issues he seems to bring the same practicality to the table. I can support a man who is willing to look at the reality of the situation and move to fix it in practical ways instead of someone who has an ideological vision whose actions would end up harming the system more than helping it. The government needs healing and I don’t believe that will happen with any other candidate.
So far there is no clear winner for any party, though several that obviously are not going to win their nomination. The biggest test is still yet to come since the waters are so murky. We shall see.
As to who should be allowed into the debates at any given time. I would agree with those who say any party sponsored debate should include all candidates from that party, but the situation in NH was a forum and debates set up by private, although news, organizations. Those organizations have the right to set the criteria for any debate or forum they chose to have. As independent, private organizations they have the freedom to include or exclude anyone they chose, just like any private company or individual has the right to determine who they will hire or hang out with. The fact they were news organizations does not change that fact, in my opinion. Plus I think the criteria they set for the debate was fair and open. The fact that some candidates did not meet the criteria does not change the validate of the debate.
p.s. I watched part of a Ron Paul speech on CSPAN last night, I do agree with a lot of what he has to say, but I think he speaks of an ideal world that will never be a reality, as much as I wish it would become one.
One story I heard this morning was about Congress passing legislation or at least considering legislation that would change the way the Alternate Minimum Tax is used. This would reduce the tax burden for many middle class tax cut. At the end the reporter said Congress was trying to find ways to offset the “cost” of the bill. There is no cost to the bill. It is a reduction of revenue. That I might have accepted but not the word cost. A cost is money spent, this is money not received. I think what bugs me about the story is it seems the government feels it has an implicit right to any and all of our money so that if for some reason they can’t collect it then it is a cost. I am sure if it wasn’t political suicide the government would love to take all our money. Then they would have the ultimate power since they would control what services we could and couldn’t receive, which is what I think is the ultimate goal of the government.
Yesterday I speculated on the need for unifying figures in revolutions. The issues in Iraq and Afghanistan are modern day examples of how revolutions can not work without a single unifying leader that many citizens can back in any attempt to overthrow and form a new government. In Iraq there was loosely organized resistance against the ruling government. When the Americans invaded to help the resistance there was no person to pull the people to in forming the new government. The resistance ended up with compromise candidates that have only minority support. In Afghanistan there was a promising figure in Ahmad Shah Massoud but he was assassinated before the invasion. The resistance again had to settle for a compromise candidate that was weak in ineffectual. What is happening now in these countries? Confusion and splintering. Without the help of the American government supporting them the leadership of both countries would fall.
What do all revolutions need? A person that the majority of revolutionaries are willing to follow. If you look at all the revolutions in the past, those that succeeded and those that failed, you will see the need for a leader. In Cuba there was Castro, in Russia there was Lenin, in China there was Ze Dong, in England there was Cromwell, in France there was Napoleon, in America there was Washington, in Rome there was Caesar, in South America there was Bolivar. The theme continues through the ages, strong, unifying leaders help bring about revolution. Many of these revolutions started with a ground swell of support from the people, led by their charismatic leader against a government they viewed as being against their interests. It didn’t hurt that many of the people were able to get support for their fight from an outside source that opposed some aspect of the government the revolutionaries were fighting.
Failed revolutions are marked by little or weak unification. The American Civil War is an example of a weak unification, little cooperation happened between the seceding states. This lead to an inability to coordinate an offensive or defense to drive the Northerners to surrender. The French revolution against Louis XVI had too many competing groups with no unified vision of the future to last. The revolution that occurred in Cuba, with the help of the Americans at the Bay of Pigs, failed because there was no figure that could ralley the support of the common people against Castro. If a revolution has no strong leader, then it is doomed to failure.
Tomorrow, what this has to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.
My friend Jerm and I had a wonderful conversation last night. We discussed politics and society, all kinds of things. One subject I wanted to discuss was faithfulness of the candidates. One of the issues I have with candidates, like Giuliani, is their infidelity with their wives. Many people will say this is a personal issue, but, in my opinion, it highlights a problem with a candidate. My question is, if they can not be faithful to the promises they made to the people they professed to be the closest to them, the ones they loved and made a major promise to when they married, how can I be sure they will be faithful to the promises they make me as a voter? So the candidates that have had multiple marriages or have had many affairs are not the people I want to support.