La vie politique sous le soleil

Quotes of the week.

2007-06-01T07:46:00.000-07:00

"Things may come to those who wait...but only the things left by those who hustle.”-Abraham Lincoln

=>Absolutely. This is what I'd stay to people like Bernstein, Van Natta,Gerth etc who think Hillary Clinton's focus and determination are bad traits. Most people have to work for everything they hav or will have in life. Some may have to work harder than others, but nothing comes for free, least of all the presidency.

---------

“If you want something said, ask a man...if you want something done, ask a woman.” -Margaret Thatcher

=> FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt was a vocal supporter of the Civil Rights Movement. FDR could only on few occasions and in indirect ways voice support of the Civil Rights because he needed the support of Southern Democrats to advance other parts of the New Deal. Eleanor became the connection to the African-American population. She met with civil rights leaders, organizers many times to discuss issues and ways to advance the movement.

-----------

“We become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions.” -Aristotle

=>This administration has not perofrmed just actions; allowing the bureaucracy to self destruct under the careful eye of its cronies (Wolfowtiz, Gonzales, Brown). This administration has not performed temperate actions, they have been an immoderate dividing force in American politics scorching critics like Kissinger, Carter, those extremely knowledgeable and experienced in foreign policy, with Iraq, and other issues. Brave actions? I'm not sure about this one, I suppose sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of freedom counts, or that could be forcing others to take brave actions.

---------

“ Frankly, I'm fed up... no, I'm weary of even having to express sympathy for Cindy Sheehan. Oh, she lost her son. Yes, yes, yes. But we all lose things.” -Rush Limbaugh

=>Rush is a big fat idiot. That's a lack of compassion for the thousands of mother, fathers, sisters, brothers and friends of Americans that have died in Iraq. Maybe he wouldn't care even if he did.

Bush reaffirms commitment to human rights.

2007-05-31T07:44:00.000-07:00

President bush recently announced that the U.S. would impose new sanction on Sudan to pressure the government to stop the genocide. Honestly, it’s about time. The failures with the Iraq War, staff performance have made it difficult for any other important issues to surface in the news. Sure, on campus we have groups of students tell other students about innocent deaths in Israel and Darfur, but that is usually one or two people with a few pamphlets, and not very effective.

The sanction directs its efforts to companies, three individuals and the oil industry overall. All of the 31companies, except one, targeted are controlled by the government of Sudan. The other is thought to be involved in weapon sales to the government. President Bush tapped Secretary of State Rice for help to strengthen international pressure on President al- Bashir. The death toll to this date is in excess of 200,000 people.
Short of forceful military action, which is not a possibility because of the situation with the current foreign policy of the Administration, there is no solution. President al-Bashir has already indicated that he is not interested in peace talks. Sudan already asked the world to disregard the efforts of the US for being “unfair and untimely.” I’m not an extreme pacifist; force is necessary at times, especially for the US as a superpower. This is one of those times, but I doubt President Bush will use force as a means of dealing with the tragedy in Sudan. He doesn’t have enough political pull at the time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18912290/

Two more books out to bring down Hillary Clinton

2007-05-30T07:14:00.000-07:00

There are two new books about to hit the shelves of stores, aimed at destroying Senator Clinton’s campaign. The books drag us back behind the long-since closed doors of the Clinton presidency, and Bill Clinton tenure as Arkansas Governor. Senator Clinton may be unfairly forced to defend the strong images she has worked to build in her presidential campaign.

"A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton" was written by Carl Bernstein who shows Clinton as a woman trying to avoid facing prosecution. Bernstein also writes that during her time as the first lady of Arkansas, she held an interview with a woman suspected of sleeping with her husband, Bill Clinton, and thought about divorce…oh wow, she thought about getting divorced from her cheating husband, that dirty liberal! So, if that’s really such a bad thing, with all the affairs JFK had, Jackie Kennedy must have been contemplating divorce everyday as his wife. To this day she is among the most talked about former First Ladies, people love "Jackie O." Berstein really is a hypocrite, he had an affair with a British politican while married to his third wife, here he is blasting Senator Clinton for contemplating a divorce. Also a college drop out, Bernstein worked at Washington Post with Yale graduate Bob Woodward to break the Watergate story. Today, the difference is that Woodward’s books, unlike Bernstein's, actually sell so much they make multiple best seller lists and he’s invited to every news, tv, radio show as a result.

The second book is also a bunch of rubbish. "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr shows Hillary Clinton as the leader of a team that made up a plan to investigate and socially damage Gennifer Flowers "until she is destroyed." Flowers publicly disclosed she had an affair with then- governor Bill Clinton. It’s the new way to get 15 minutes of fame! Any woman (or man) who publicly discloses having an affair with a politician near/during a campaign cycle has an agenda, she is looking for her 15 minutes of fame, and as a result is fair game to any campaign. Do not feel sorry for Gennifer Flower, Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky, they all received millions of dollar from Republicans and maybe even FOX News. Monica even turned her 15 minutes into 16 minutes by designing (and not selling) a line of womens purses.

Gerth and Van Natta also show how the Clintons had a plan, even before getting married, to slowly rise to power. The book points out there was a letter written by Hillary, laying out their 20-year plan that began in the 1970's. Leon E. Panetta, the former White House chief of staff, also verifies speaking to the president once about the plan. Gerth’s source? A former Clinton WH intern and girlfriend! They are Pulitzer prize winners, and their source is an ex girlfriend?

So what if there was a 20 year plan? That’s smart planning in my opinion. I have a 20-30 year plan to maybe run for office, after law school, after years as an attorney and party activist. My involvement in the Democratic Party now, a lot of it, is about networking for this reason. I see no shame in admitting that. And if some idiot is going to say that’s cruel, cold and calculated, big deal.

Basically the news here is that it took these three guys (ok, reporters!) ten years to find no news. Bravo! “Is it possible to be quoted yawning?" asked Philippe Reines, her Senate spokesman when questioned by the media.

Cindy Sheehan bows out.

2007-05-29T11:50:00.000-07:00

I like Cindy Sheehan, I don't agreee with everything she does..but overall I think she inspired a lot of women to really stay on top of what the government does. That's just as important. However, I don't know how much of an impact she had on Iraq War policy. I think that disappointed her too, she seems like a car that's running out of gas, and I know how tiring political involvement can be. While she's right to fault the Democrats for giving in yet again, she also needs to know the Democrats don't really have a lot of power right now, especially in the Senate. They have very slim majorities, and a lot of things I hoped they would be able to do, like getting troops out of Iraq, etc they haven't I think that's mainly because they don't have enough vote to override any bill that may end up getting a veto by George Bush. Democrats may want to end the war, I think many of the Dems in the Senate do but putting forward just a big fight wouldn't do any good, and would make the public think they are out destroy the Administration's agenda. Sad, but we have until Nov 2008, maybe then Democrats will be able to stop the Iraq War. They just have to be voted into office first!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18919775?GT1=9951

Political Cartoons for the week

2007-05-28T19:43:00.000-07:00

Haha! Well, it's making everyone mad because it is a culturally divisive issue. I am also on the fence, but not out support for the elephants. That's still not an excuse to stop talking about it.

So does Cheney. Saudi Arabia has strings on Cheney and his suitcase, haha. The PM looks terrified, but I guess most people would be too if they were being played by Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US all at the same time.

Political cartoons for the week.

2007-05-25T07:42:00.000-07:00

Haha! It's funny, and I actually first thought Bush would fire Gonzales soon after this story broke, but he hasn't...and now I don't think he ever will. Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling's testimony proved that. :(

For those of you that have not seen seen the Hamas Mickey Mouse commercial, see it on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8.

You tube comment: if Islam is REALLY a RELIGION of PEACE, then why do Muslims need to or have to murder innocent non-believers? Muslims only force everyone to RESPECT them, out of fear. I for one would never piss on any Muslim (NEVER!!!), simply because I value life and I'm afraid to kill or be killed.Let's face it, no matter how they explain it, MUSLIM is synonymous to FEAR/TERROR/MURDER. don't you think?

My response is well this may or may not be true, but I can point out several instances where Christians persecuted millions of innocent people and also out of fear. Just about every religion does, because this person is too young or chooses not to know their history including the Roman Empire, Germanic pagans, etc doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Bar Stool Economics & the importance of taxes

2007-05-24T01:25:00.000-07:00

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of EconomicsUniversity of Georgia

------------
I think this is an interesting parable, kind of funny actually, but very misleading. You can’t really talk about the distribution of tax policy changes without the total picture. Often conservatives implicitly deny that sales taxes (or employment tax) would have increased. Of course, when one falls for the “free lunch” fallacy, it's a myth that permeates conservative discussions of fiscal policy.What’s also fishy about this parable is the fact that the owner can cut 20% off the bill and still make a profit. Even when taxes increase like this, customers don’t face 100% of the burden; it’s shared between the owner and the customers. That’s clearly missing here.Also, what taxes pay for is missing. Using beer as the good, a good people could do without, then letting the same amount be purchased at a lower price isn’t a parable that has to do with government spending at all. Therefore we need to have taxes, otherwise my fellow classmates would not be getting Tier 1 education at UCI.

Dems rollover (again).

2007-05-23T22:54:00.000-07:00

Democrats have cut slack for President Bush once again since taking the majority in both House in January 2007. This time the House & Senate approved several billions of dollars for the Iraq war. This appropriations bill passes without the troop withdrawal timeline that Democrats passed a few weeks ago, which President Bush vetoed. Republicans were, not surprisingly, the strongest supporters continuing the war though there were a few brave dissenters. In the Senate the breakdown was 80-14, and in the House it was 280-142. The bill sets up goals for the new Iraqi government, which they must pass to receive funding from the US. President Bush can still send the money to Iraq, without any regard for their performance. So, if in the next year, the government falls apart because of the civil war and he puts in new weak democratic or authoritative leadership, as we've done in a whole boatload of other countries around the world, then the money still goes to Iraq, despite the fact no progress was made.

The article also quotes a few MCs. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio tried to hold back his tears when he mentioned the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them,” he asked.

Well, I think we now know that the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, though sadistic and murderous, really had nothing to with terrorism-specifically the September 11 attacks. So, maybe the way we defeat terrorists is by going after terrorists that attack us, like Osama Bin Laden (though I don't think this will really help, because Al Quaida will just find another leader, but it's certianly better than Iraq). The guy that provided the US with this intelligence, an Iranian spy - Chalabi - became the leader of the Iraqi government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841182/

Quotes of the week.

2007-05-22T01:03:00.000-07:00

"I know that government cannot resolve all problems. It cannot make men happy or bring them spiritual fulfillment. But it can attempt to remedy the public failures which are at the root of so many human ills." -Lyndon Baines Johnson

=> To start off on a good note, this is one of my favorite quotes from LBJ or anyone really. It characterizes how government really works. While I believe in government, the power it has to do great things for America and the world, it has limits. Too many people expect government be a quick fix to many challenges we have today and many new politcians do this too. Terry Schiavo is one example, but also outsourcing. When outsourcing was a big deal about 3 years ago, people wanted to Bush to save these jobs, and the truth is he just couldn't do it without abolishing FDR's minimum wage. I am one of the biggest proponents of big government, as LBJ was, a lot of the things that would make me happy are not things government could give me.
------------
"Taxes are like abortion, and not just because both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats. You're for them or against them. Taxes go up or down; government raises taxes or lowers them. But Democrats will not let the words "abortion" or "tax hikes" pass their lips.” -Ann Coulter

=> People like Ann know how to dish out extremist propaganda, and then in defense say the other side is full of propaganda that doesn't make sense. Democrats don't support abortion and taxes. Democrats support the right to choose for all women. You can exercise that right if you want, but you're certainly not being forced to get an abortion. Democrats are pro choice, not pro abortion. With taxes, Democrats don't support taxes, but they are just very realistic about how they deal with the economy. Taxes are sometimes raised slightly during mild recessions because the government needs money to invest and stimulate the economy. Taxes are raised during times of war (usually) to pay for that war to avoid a major recession. Taxes will have to be raised to pay off our national debt. Ann just doesn't seem to understand how taxes & the economy work.

-------------
“As I never tire of saying, heat is not the antithesis of light but rather the source of it.” -Christopher Hitchens

=>It's true, though the Bush Administration and other conservatives try to spin it the other way. Intense, heated political discourse in this country is needed. Even though Republicans had a majority in Congress when the Iraq War first started, had there been more discussion in Congress (there really wasn't, Republicanss were pretty much forced to rush it through out of support for Bush), if we still invaded Iraq, the strategy would have been different,more thought out.

-------------
"The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

=> The unemploymment has increased from when Bush first took throughout his entire first term. It seems to be unchanged in the last 2-3 years. High dropout rates have increased slightly. Tax cuts have gone tot he wealthiest 1%...so Bush policies fail the FDR progress test.

------------
"Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar” -Abraham Lincoln

=>Not anymore.

Clinton in California

2007-05-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

Senator Clinton’s campaign is putting their focus not on the debates coming up next year or the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary, like most candidates would, but on California. Her campaign has several strategists in California focusing on January 12, 2008, a day which they believe will show voters across the country that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable nominee, according to Howard Fineman.

The California primary has been moved up to February 5, 2008. Several states will be holding their primary on this day to have greater influence in the nomination process. Clinton’s campaign apparently supported Schwarzenegger’s efforts to move up the California primary. The new law also requires that absentee ballots should be sent to voters by January 8, 2008. Within the next few days, by January 12th, Clinton hopes that tracking polls by her campaign and news coverage will show she is in the lead with those first voters in the primary. These results will be made available before Iowa and New Hampshire. California has more permanent absentee voters than most other states, about 1.5 million are registered as permanent absentee voters. Campaign strategists think that most of these voters are middle-aged women, who’ve been the main target for the campaign.

Smart thinking for Team Hillary, who already has the endorsement of Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez. As Fineman points out this approach is being taken to overshadow the possibility of a poor performance in Iowa, and someone like Barack Obama winning the caucus. While Fineman and other insiders think this is a joke, it’s definitely a good plan. It’s actually on the contrary, people will care is Senator Clinton is “wiped out” in Iowa, there is a lot of media coverage on that caucus, candidates like John Edwards and Barack Obama have slim leads over Hillary Clinton in Iowa. California early primary next year provide the candidate that manages to win the state or at least look like they’re winning the state before any other votes are counted with an advantage. As a CA resident intune to politics, I have noticed Hillary Clinton being in the state more than other candidates as well. Senator Clinton’s campaign is a powerful machine, and reaching out to middle-aged female voters is likely to yield the results they are after.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18800268/page/2/

White House rejects Dems' offer for Iraq spending

2007-05-18T08:10:00.000-07:00

President Bush is unwavering in his support for the Iraq War. Democrats have made multiple attempts to negotiate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The most recent was a closed-door meeting today between Senate Democrats and top aides to President Bush. The deal was that Democrats would agree to remove billions of dollars in domestic spending from a war spending bill initially opposed by President Bush if he would accept a deadline to withdrawal combat forces from Iraq. Democrats also agreed to let President Bush waive compliance with that set deadline for troop withdrawals. The White rejected the offer saying that accepting a deadline sends the wrong signals and demoralizes troops, and even the people he in the US.

The White CoS pointed to negotiation efforts made by Republicans that received 52 votes in the Senate. This bill would have set standards for the new government in Iraq to meet as a condition for receiving funds. However the CoS failed to mentioned that Bush could easily override the proposal by demanding funds to be sent to Baghdad indifferent to the performance of the government in Iraq. So, really it wasn’t much of a concession on the part of Republicans.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18734886/

Jerry Falwell dead at 73 .

2007-05-17T07:49:00.000-07:00

Jerry Falwell, founder of Moral Majority, died Tuesday in his office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA. When someone like Falwell dies, someone who is always is in the public eye, making news, etc typically you have other speak in support of him, and that happened but not like you would expected for other religious/political figures like Billy Graham. In his prime, Falwell was a strong political force for the Republicans, and helped mobilize thousands of people for both of Reagan’s presidential campaigns. However from the mid-1990s-t his death, he started moving farther and farther right, alienating his supporters and becoming more out there. Even Conservatives were slow to offer words of praise to Falwell. Some were very critical, like Christopher Hitchens.

These are just some of things, for better or worse that I will remember Falwell for:

“AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

“Any sex outside of the marriage bond between a man and a woman is violating God's law.”

“I am such a strong admirer and supporter of George W. Bush that if he suggested eliminating the income tax or doubling it, I would vote yes on first blush.”

“If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.”

“Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.”

“Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”

“And, these Islamic fundamentalists, these radical terrorists, these Middle Eastern monsters are committed to destroying the Jewish nation, driving her into the Mediterranean, conquering the world.”

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you." –out of support for Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign

"You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord."

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Some of this is funny, and some of it is just downright offensive. It’s difficult to really say anything nice about this guy, he puts feminists, pro choicers, and gays/lesbians, atheists, and Muslims at the root of all problems in the US and sometimes in the world. Who knows if he even believed in this nonsense he was preaching.

Quotes of the week.

2007-05-16T15:55:00.000-07:00

“Freedom is not enough.” – LBJ

=> No it’s not. This idea must be applied to Iraq though. While the Iraq people may be “free,” Iraq’s future as a strong democratic society does not look good. With the current civil war going on, it’s almost like an anarachy, because the only political leadership figures in Iraq, and the government structure wouldn’t exist without the protection of the US military. Freedom wasn’t enough in 1800s in the US either, it didn’t mean blacks were treated any better when they became free than when they were slaves.

----------

“It was accountability that Nixon feared.”-Bob Woodward

=>Alberto Gonzales falls in the same boat.

--------
“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”- Mahatma Gandhi

=> Or what politics is. True, but that doesn’t change the fact that I wish it didn’t have much to do with politics. Morals are one thing, but you can have morals regardless of which religion you follow if any. While it’s important to know a candidate and how that person develops their political view and makes decisions, religion shouldn’t exclude you from politics in a democracy. JFK, for example is the first and only Catholic POTUS (Kerry would have been the second, if he won), and Mitt Romney could possibly be first Morman POTUS. You do not see Hindus, Buddhists or even Cathloics really in elected political office today. And for better or worse, you probably will not see a Muslim holding elected political office in the US for many years.
------

“Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives” –Paul Wellstone

=> I like to believe this, most of the time I do, and I think most people do. It’s difficult to have faith in our system when we live in a money-driven capitalist society.

----------
“Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.” - Ronald Reagan

=>Good examples: Dan Quayle, Trent Lott, Bill O’Reilly

Blair steps down as PM

2007-05-15T18:37:00.000-07:00

Prime Minister Tony Blair recently announced that he will be stepping down as Prime Minister and Labour Party leader. Blair, whose record in office is noted for negotiating peace with Northern Ireland, and supporting the United States in multiple conflicts in the Middle East, has spent over ten years as Prime Minister. Blair has described himself as a social democrat and has raised taxes, introduced a minimum wage, tuition fees and strong identification card legislation in Parliament. In a brief speech, Blair stated “I may have been wrong. That’s your call,” regarding his support, after 9-11, of Afghanistan and later Iraq.

I think he was wrong, but then I guess it’s not my call, I’m not a British citizen. I liked Blair as an international leader, before Iraq, after he banned fox hunting, when he was very supportive of India's tsunami crisis, and when he had more of a focus on diplomacy as opposed to intervention. Blai enjoys reasonable popularity among the voters and members of the Labour Party. Blair's departure is the first of any British MP since the 1970s to be at a time of his choosing.

Blair’s political representative pointed out that Blair would continue to serve in the House of Commons in Parliament until the next expected election in 2009, unless he was given “a major international or United Nations job.” It’s interesting Blair thinks he’s qualified, but honestly out of the world’s current or recent leaders, I think Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac or even Bill Clinton would be better...all three have had a strong relationship with the UN and international community, and have been involved with several peace negotiations, some of which were successful.

While Blair may say it's been long enough, it's clear to me that the bad situation in Iraq really pushed him to leave office of PM. US policy in Iraq probably won't change though. Blair has been a very close and fierce ally for President Bush (in addition Australian PM John Howard, of course). While you may think this would pressure him to change course in Iraq, Bush has never held high regard for international support of his foreign policy. That won't change now, even with Gordon Brown, the likely successor to Blair, who has a much more anti-Iraq point of view.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18573547/

Another resignation from the DoJ.

2007-05-14T17:58:00.000-07:00

Alberto Gonzales may be sticking by his original story, but others around him aren’t. In the wake of a few major resignations like Kyle Sampson (CoS to Gonzales) and Monica Goodling (White House liaison officer), the No.2 guy (Deputy Attorney General) at the Department of Justice announced his resignation earlier today. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in a letter to other top officials at the DoJ said “The financial realities of college-age children and two decades of public service lead me to a long overdue transition in my career,” making no mention of the firing of the US attorneys. Aides pointed out that McNulty has been planning this for months, but the firings controversy just pushed it along.

I doubt it, McNulty left because he though he’d have to. Especially after giving a testimony where he claimed at least one of the attorneys, Bob Cummins from Arkansas was let go to make room for a friend of Rove’s. This leaves Gonzales in a difficult situation. Despite the President’s support, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Chuck Schumer in particular have started a motion to have a vote of (no) confidence. If this is successful, and it looks as if it may end up that way because several moderate Republicans in the Senate have indicated their disappointment with Gonzales, then President Bush will be under a lot of pressure to let go of him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18663645/

VA Tech graduation ceremony

2007-05-11T20:34:00.000-07:00

Congratulations VA Tech Class of 2007!

Today the Virginia Tech held a graduation ceremony for the class of 2007. This step to move forward comes in the shadow of a tragedy, the shootings from a few weeks ago. The shooter killed 32 students, making the worse campus shooting in the US history. However today, the students were able to honor their fallen classmates as many victims received degrees posthumously. Many speakers (and attendees) wept openly and paused during their speeches.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18620026/

International trade and a possible recession here in the US

2007-05-11T08:27:00.000-07:00

Bipartisan international trade agreement and possible recession in the US as a result

Congress and the White House have reached an agreement of international trade policy. House speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that this bipartisan deal aim to put labor and environmental standards at the center of international trade agreements. The new plan is said the lower the effects globalization has on poor nations such as Mexico with its many maquiladora factories and hazardous working conditions for mostly women laborers. Labor needs to be the center if trade debates because labor is always suffering as a result of trade agreements. Women at maquiladora factories travel on foot for 1-2 hours to work for American companies, where they’re required to handle dangerous chemicals for about $6 per day, and no health benefits. In most southeast Asian countries like Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore and India in similar working conditions, wages were about $3 per day 2-3 years ago, and in some of those countries today workers are being paid $ 2 per day. US trade policy needs to try to correct this trend.

Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve (now it’s Ben Bernanke) a sifnicant possibility that the economy of the United States would fall into a recession this year. Earlier this year Greenspan shocked the markets when he first made this announcement, but just recently added on the one-third chance of the recession happening.

There has been a lot of concern in international political economics about the rise in Chinese currency as a result of the large amount of resources flowing into the country (i.e. labor/employment, outsourcing from Europe and other western nations). Their currency is also increasing due to their many international investments, especially in the US. One example is that US took out several billions of $ in loans to pay for reconstruction of New Orleans from China a few years ago. China’s increased role in the US economy (along with a huge increase in foreign investments in the past few year from several countries) , was discussed in Congress last week, and rightly so. Investments from China in the US and American companies outsourcing to China could pull down worker productivity, probably not by much because the US is still the largest economy in the world.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/10/news/economy/trade_agreement.reut/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/11/news/newsmakers/greenspan.reut/index.htm

Funny political quotes

2007-05-10T07:47:00.000-07:00

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -Ann Coulter on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

=>No surprise, it's Ann Coulter again. This statement actually generated a lot of controversy and media attention (which was probably Coulter's goal in the first place), resulting in backlash against Coulter. I don't think she ever formally apologized though the widows and other reporters (not Sean Hannity of course) called upon her to do so, and I wouldn't expect her to either.

------------------------
"This week, on Tuesday night, in an ironic turnaround, Iraq brought regime change to the U.S." -Amy Poehler, on the 2006 elections

=> This was from the Weekend Update segment of SNL. While the Democrats won last year because of the situation in Iraq, it was not a large enough victory to bring about real change in Iraq policy :\

-------------------------
"You still have to vote for us 'cause my opponent is a slug, and they're going to tax you into the poorhouse. On the way to the poorhouse, you'll meet a terrorist on every street corner. And when you try to run away from that terrorist, you will trip over an illegal immigrant." -Bill Clinton, on the Republicans' 2006 campaign strategy

=> Hahaha. While you're running away from the terrorist, you will also end up passing several abortion clinics. :)

------------------------
"I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating." --Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on Vice President Dick Cheney

=>To be fair, Cheney's approval is now up to 25% in recent 2007 polls! Yay for Cheney.

---------------------
"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." -Republican Mitt Romney

=> What makes this funny is that Romney later admitted that he's been hunting once when he was 15. Of course Romney's remarks received a lot of applause from gun loving conservatives.

----------------------
"A year ago, my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my Vice President had shot someone. Ahhh, those were the good old days." -President Bush at the Radio-TV Correspondents' dinner

=> It still is in the 30s!

The polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
See the video: http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&amp;amp;amp;amp;cdn=entertainment&tm=10&gps=239_135_1276_855&f=21&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=9&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DNNrsTDPmPhQ

The secret meeting...

2007-05-09T07:29:00.000-07:00

NBC reported a scret meeting took place in the White House with President Bush and 11 top aides.

Tim Russert's take

[O]ne said “My district is prepared for defeat. We need candor, we need honesty, Mr. President.” The president responded, “I don’t want to pass this off to another president. I don’t want to pass this off, particularly, to a Democratic president,” underscoring he understood how serious the situation was.

Brian, the Republican congressman then went on to say, “The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any credibility. It has to come from Gen. Petraeus.” The meeting lasted an hour and 15 minutes and was, in the words of one, “remarkable for the bluntness and no-holds-barred honesty in the message delivered by all these Republican congressmen.”

Some comments from the meeting:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME):
“Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don’t see that as viable.” [LA Times, 5/3/07]

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN):
“I think we’re still in a fairly toxic political environment,” said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who opposed the president’s troop buildup but voted against the Democratic withdrawal plan. “And I think it will continue like this for a while. That’s the reality.” [LA Times, 5/3/07]

President Bush, from the recent veto battle is more politically isolated on Iraq than ever! Despite spending weeks using his bully pulpit to blister war critics with rhetoric about “abandoning troops” and “timetables for retreat,” public opinion has shifted further away from his position, and conservatives in Congress are breaking ranks. Democrats couldn't bring about a change in Iraq policy, and it doesn't look like Republicans will be able to either.

House Dems' proposal for Iraq

2007-05-08T19:14:00.000-07:00

House Democratic leadership appears to be embracing an Iraq bill put together by David Obey and John Murtha. There's no doubt in my mind we'll be debating this bill furiously for as long as it's on the table, but an introduction: The bill would provide funding into July, at which point a vote on withdrawal would be held.

The White House has not yet used the word "veto" in addressing the bill, though as you may imagine they're hardly embracing it.

Rep Boehner is wrong though....the men and women in uniform don't need looked upon as children. It's really the rubber-stamp Republicans that ruined, or spoiled President Bush. High time someone stepped in and set some limits on that...but I still have doubt on how much oversight this Congress will accomplish....because Bush will veto any such legislation, and Dem majorities aren't strong enough to override the veto. :\

French in OC

2007-05-07T23:45:00.000-07:00

I also met a few of Assembl yman Jose Solorio's staffers. One of them said she spoke to Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido in French earlier in the evening. Oh that Pulido - he is such a Francophile. I wonder how he feels about a conservative getting elected President of France? Sacrebleu!

Sarkozy wins!

2007-05-07T13:41:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Nicolas Sarkozy was elected President of France. Hungarian born Sarkozy is the leader of the main center-right political party in France, Union for a Popular Movement. In round two of voting (France has a similar voting method to Louisiana, where there is a second round for runoffs), with 53% of the vote, he defeated Socialist candidate Segolene Royal, who had 47%. Turnout in this French election was remarkably high, around 87%.

President Bush promptly offered his congratulations to Sarkozy just minutes after the official results. Sarkozy’s victory is a definitely a good thing for the US and it’s relations with France. Under Chiraq, US-France relations have been somewhat shaky throughout the course of the Iraq War. Chiraq was vocal in his opposition to the war and refused to provide military support (though he later sent French military to Afghanistan), causing the Capitol Building cafeteria to famously renamed its French fries to “freedom fries.” Sarkozy, though opposed to the Iraq war, is considered more pro American than any other candidate.

Sarkozy promised economic growth, cutting taxes, revising labor laws (unions are much more influential in France), and strong immigration reform. He also vowed to bring global warming to the forefront of international politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR2007050600216.html

Obama is given secret service protection

2007-05-04T14:57:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama was just recently placed under secret service protection. Exciting for supporters, who may think it boosts his status in the primary, as an even better alternative to Hillary Clinton. The article points out the John Edwards and John Kerry were placed under secret service protection around the same time, in February 2004. Obama is getting the secret service protection 9+ months early. I do not think it will have much effect on the campaign, because like Chertoff and other authorities say it wasn’t the result of a specific event or threat. Obama may have requested it because a specific threat, but I do not think he was approved for that reason. Jesse Jackson was also given secret service protection early on in his campaigns in the 1980s.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/obama.protection/index.html

The GOP Presidential candidates debate

2007-05-03T23:10:00.000-07:00

The GOP Presidential candidates participated in a debate today at the Ronald Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley. The candidates were: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Duncan hunter, Jim Gilmore, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo. The main theme throughout the debate was Ronald Reagan’s optimism, every candidate wanted to make sure this legacy survived.

Giuliani was asked how to continue Ronald Reagan’s (RR) Morning in America, Giuliani’s response was with RR’s optimism, because RR built on strengths of America, and did not run it down. Yes, these are all Republicans, and this is the RR library, but RR did his fair share of running down America, his entire trickle down policy did just that. RR’s deficit exceeded $200 billion, and the way the US moved past this was by raising taxes (there were some spending cuts, but it was really the tax increases that deserve the credit). Giuliani thinks that America has the greatest healthcare system in the world…how is that possible with nearly 50 million people uninsured? And what are the strengths of this program that we use to fix this problem? The sky-high profits HMOs make?

Giuliani also thinks that the Iranians took one look into the eyes of Ronald Reagan and decided to release hostages in 1981. If Iranians released their American hostages because of Ronald Reagan, it’s ridiculous to think it was because they had an awakening after looking into his eyes. Their decision to do so had to do with Reagan’s past connections to Iran than anything else (he would also later sell arms to Iran).

The one thing I like that Giuliani said was that no party has a monopoly on virtue or morals. A lot of the candidates tried to make that case. For example, Romney argued that the heart of the Republican Party is the American family; the US should have more marriages before babies. Well, I think the American family is at the heart of the Democratic Party; it should be at the heart of every political party. Democrats care about keeping families healthy, educating our youth, securing jobs, how is this not at the core of every American family? It’s nonsense, and what makes it worse is that Romney thinks that only Americans with a religious faith have moral and values. I think the average person cares about their family and their friends not because a religious text tells them to, but because these people are important to them. Those people that do not have a strong religious faith can certainly have morals and values.

I like that Tommy Thompson think the Iraqi government should vote on whether or not the US should stay in Iraq. If they vote yes, if you give us legitimacy, and if they vote no, the US should leave. One problem: Iraq will most certainly vote to keep the US in Iraq because it’s our resources, our soldiers, and our taxpayers money that funding their civil war. Why would they want to fight this themselves when they will most likely become the next Israel…their day-to-day existence will forever be dependent on our military support. Ron Paul said that Ike was elected to stop Korean War, and Nixon was elected to stop the Vietnam War. This is true, but both of these presidents first escalated the war before employing a cut and run policy. If Paul supports a cut and run policy, then I think he should be consistent and apply this to Iraq as well.

Huckabee on the economy: Republicans should not win in 2008 if they cannot prevent mass outsourcing of jobs. According to this logic, Hillary Clinton will be the next president. Globalization can’t and shouldn’t be prevented; it has a lot of benefits. The interdependency of the economies of different countries is generally a good thing, but it also includes labor. If the Republican Party is pro business, then how can they not support what’s in the best interest of business=>increasing profits by cutting costs. If Republicans have their way, and the 12+ million illegal immigrants are deported, there will definitely be more outsourcing. Huckabee will alienate a lot of potential supporters in the party.

According to McCain, there is a dangerous shift to the left in this country with regards to the appointment of Supreme Court justices. WTF? The current Supreme Court is like this: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens. The entire membership of this court ranges from conservative to moderate, not to liberal.

As promised from my blog on the Democratic presidential candidates debate, I found a stupid question in this debate. Chris Matthews asked each candidate to respond to this question: Would the election of Hillary Clinton be a bad thing because Bill Clinton would be back in the White House? Someone like Hillary Clinton, I think, would be the dominant force behind her decisions, it’s just stupid to think that Hillary’s win will be a third term for Bill Clinton. This is a stupid question for another reason; I (every reasonable person should) know what the response will be from every candidate=> YES! How could someone expect Huckabee or McCain or Romney to say that Hillary Clinton’s victory would be a good thing? Also, why is Hillary Clinton the focus of the Republican debate? The Democrats last week were not asked about any of the Republican candidates. Are Republicans supposed to choose a candidate to nominate in 2008 based on their Hillary platform? Whoever hates Hillary the most gets the nomination? I think Huckabee would win the nomination with this reasoning.

Ghosts of Mississippi

2007-05-02T14:36:00.000-07:00

This movie from the late 1980s was a true story about an investigation regarding the murder of a civil rights activist in the 1960s by Klansmen. A Klansmen (Earnest Gilbert) who witnessed this murder was too afraid of his fellow Klansmen to testify. The story is becoming news once again when it was recently found that he gave a tv interview before he died about the other Klansmen involved and specs of the murder. Of the names he mentioned, only one is still alive today after the case was re opened. Prosecutors (representing civil rights groups, and living relatives of the slain activist) are trying to get the court to allow them to show this interview as evidence that famed Klansmen James Seale (the only person mentioned by Gilbert that’s still living) killed the activists. What makes this interesting, I think, is the timing, it’s right after the large scale immigration rallies took place all over the US. It shows as a result of these deep racial tensions, the US is not a melting pot like some people like to believe, it’s a salad bowl.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:YRrDFqy4vxoJ:rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_us/~3/113645394/index.html+%22May+2%22,+2007+cnn+news&hl=en&amp;amp;amp;ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
Interview transcript: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2826063&page=1

Immigration rallies today

2007-05-01T00:26:00.000-07:00

I didn’t mention this in my blog but after Virginia Tech I was thinking within a few weeks immigration would be the main focus in politics, today it was…but I’m not really sure if it was because of Virginia Tech. Densely populated cities known for their immigrant populations like Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago, New York were the sites of protest to the immigration reform package proposed by President Bush in March.

Immigration is a complex issue, and I find myself on the fence. I can sympathize with both sides, I have relatives who are decent, hardworking people, and they have been waiting over 10 years now to get approved for a green card and become American citizens the legal way. I would love for this to happen, but I doubt it will, especially after 9-11, and now illegal immigration. However, the government cannot order the immediate deportation of all 12 +million illegal immigrants. If actually happened, it would have disastrous effects on our economy, especially CA’s economy (it’s the 7th or 8th largest in the world in terms of GDP=>$1.5 trillion), a good portion of the 12 million are in California. American workers are not getting marginalized because of this massive importation of cheap labor…Americans would not take the jobs the illegal immigrants in SoCal work for the same wages. Working in a strawberry field, gardening/landscaping in the 100 degree California summer for minimum wage. If the US were to deport this new labor force, that wouldn’t create jobs, in fact it would push outsourcing. If US companies cannot get the low cost labor in the US, they will simply leave and look for it in some other country, like Mexico. Mexico will get thousands of jobs, because of our immigration policy.

A better worker visa program must be worked out though because the current proposal forces illegal immigrants to after working here in the US for sometime to go back to Mexico and then apply for citizenship. I do not think these applications for citizenship should take preference over those who have been waiting for 10 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18411370/page/2/

Quotes of the week

2007-04-30T13:05:00.000-07:00

"I have the feeling about 60% of what you say is crap." --"Late Show" host David Letterman, to FOX News' Bill O'Reilly

=> I have a feeling 95% of what O’Reilly says is crap.

See the video clip: http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crooksandliars.com%2F2006%2F01%2F04%2Fletterman-to-oreilly-quot60-of-what-you-say-is-crapquot%2F

------------------
“I've been to Africa three times. All right? You can't bring Western reasoning into the culture. The same way you can't bring it into fundamental Islam.”

=> This is part the crap that makes up 95% of what Bill O’Reilly says.
----------------
"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster." –Ann Coulter

=>Lol! This is probably the only time I even remotely agree with Ann Coulter. I do not think it’s as black as white as she makes it out to be. However, I don’t understand the people that split tickets or vote for a different party every election year. In most cases, issues do not change that suddenly. Divided government more often than not is ineffective. In 2006, Americans voted for Democratic Congressional candidates primarily for one reason: to change policy in Iraq. Well, it’s been several months, have any major policy shifts happened? No! The timeline bill, if it hasn’t been already, will get vetoed. If Americans are willing to elect George Bush and then re-elect him after the disaster in Iraq, giving Congress to the Democrats won’t help. In a divided government, Congress either roles over and plays dead like it did in the Reagan era, or its efforts like the current Congress with it’s timeline bill hold little political value.

-------------------

America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America, which had encouraged them most, had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts.- James Madison

=>Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone say that immigrants (legal or illegal) are taking all the jobs away from middle class Americans. Many immigrants from Mexico and other countries take low paying, physically straining jobs that no middle class American would want. Americans losing their jobs do so not to immigrants, but laborers that live in other countries and are willing to work for $1 per day.
--------------------
“I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it ‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the environment. I’ll save that name – someday I might find a plant that eats poor people and minorities.”- Anonymous

=>Lol!

A respectable politician (it's not who you think it is!)...

2007-04-27T22:45:00.000-07:00

A few weeks New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine was injured in a car accident. Corzine was sitting in the front passenger seat without a seatbelt while the vehicle was moving at around 90mph (it puzzles me that it was reported later that the vehicle was moving at only 70mph). The two other people involved, a state trooper and Corzine’s aide were seriously injured. However, Corzine suffered numerous broken bones, including an open fracture of the left femur, broken ribs, a broken sternum, a broken collarbone, and a fractured lower vertebra. He also received a large cut on his face, which required repair by a plastic surgeon. Ironically, Governor Corzine was traveling to his official residence in Princeton to meet with Don Imus when the accident occurred. This was after the comments made by Imus about the women’s basketball at Rutgers, but I think it was before Imus was fired.

The main point of this blog entry is that Corzine, a multimillionaire, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs is paying for his medical expenses with his own money. Expenses including the hospital stay, helicopter assistance, etc would normally be covered by NJ’s health insurance for all state employees. The actual cost has not been released but it is expected to be in excess of a few hundred thousand dollars. Corzine could easily have turned to his health insurance, but rightly decided it was a burden NJ tax payers did not need to bear. Corzine is a respectable public servant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042701192.html?nav=hcmodule

Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina

2007-04-26T22:18:00.000-07:00

Today there was a debate between the Democratic Presidential candidates for 2008. The candidates vying for the DNC’s nomination that participated in this debate were: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel. Well, there’s definitely a lot to say about the candidates and the overall debate. I think the best performers so to speak, were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I was surprised with the negativity in this debate, and I think most of it was directed towards Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, I think had to defend her record more than any other candidate, and hers is NOT the most controversial. Maybe that’s just politics, but many times other candidates were asked questions that I think prompted them to present themselves as alternate to Clinton as opposed to clearly identifying themselves as the best candidate. Stupid questions get asked in every debate. For example in 2004 Kerry was asked in a debate with George Bush, if he could in the camera, into the eyes of every Americans and “promise” not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200K. In today debate, one of these questions was why do Republicans supposedly put so much money (they do not!) into helping her campaign and hoping Clinton wins the nomination. These are stupid questions because the responses to these questions are known before they get asked. What was Kerry supposed to say on national TV; yes he would raise taxes on the poorest Americans? And Hillary was supposed to say Republicans publicly support her campaign because they like her platform? It’s nonsense. Yeah, negativity is part of campaigns, but still, that in my opinion is a sign of weakness. I think because of these attack questions, she did not have the most rehearsed answers as many voluntary polls from MSNBC, CNN, and FOX news websites. Despite this, I think Hillary Clinton showed a different side of herself, not the cold, calculated politician that the media and Republicans make her out to be. Her emphasis on change I think resonated with many viewers.

Second, I usually consider myself to be well informed, but I had no idea one of these guys was actually a candidate! Alaskan Mike Gravel served in the US Senate during the Vietnam War, and was primarily known for his efforts to remove American troops from that region. This guy was very interesting, I thought. Just due to the sheer fact that I had no idea who he was, I paid a lot of attention to him throughout the debate. His

Barack Obama also did well. His response to the question about the candidates’ biggest professional regrets really impressed me. He responded that at the time he was elected, the Terry Schiavo/right to die issue dominated the news. His regret was that along with other members of the House and Senate of both parties, he supported the effort to allow the government to intervene in a matter that should be decided privately by families. Most of the other candidates’ responses dealt with their initial support of the Iraq war (except in the case of Kucinich, who pointed out his consistent opposition to the war). Obama, I think showed himself as less of a fluff candidate, though I still think he lacks substance compared to the others, Clinton in particular.

The debate did not help or hurt anyone else, in my opinion. In my opinion, Edwards was never a front-runner, but many people consider him to be. After tonight he still isn’t a frontrunner. Kucinich is an interesting character; his opposition to Iraq from the beginning was pretty much the only thing he said. He also claimed that tonight’s debate is going to bring Americans to his campaign because they will see the importance of a near immediate withdrawal and impeachment of Cheney. That’s not going to happen. Completely irrelevant to the debate, but relevant to his campaign is his decision to hold a black tie fundraiser in Huntington Beach the same night Hillary Clinton held a black tie fundraiser with Bill Clinton at Ron Burkle’s Beverly Hills mansion, for a minimum $2000 per plate contribution, but Kucinich’s dinner was a $25 suggested contribution event. Chris Dodd was so boring to listen to, he was the opposite of Kucinich and Gravel-no emotion at all. Joe Biden is a brilliant statesman, but has no chance at the nomination. Tonight I like that he addressed the stupid Hillary question I discussed above. The last candidate, Bill Richardson’s defense of an earlier comment about why he was late to call for the resignation of Gonzales was weak. Richardson tried to say that Gonzales was trapped by an aggressive Bush agenda, and his being Hispanic was the reason for Richardson’s delay. I do not buy into this, and I hope others don’t believe it. Gonzales became AG maybe because he was qualified, but also because of his political affiliation, and probably past financial support for the Republican/conservative agenda (same reason RFK became AG in 1960, it happens).

Club Fray!

2007-04-25T11:30:00.000-07:00

Slate is an internet magazine that has articles about all sorts of topics, arts, life, food, politics, etc. It was orginally started by Microsoft & is now owned by Washington Post (WP) & Newsweek. Slate has a really nice discussion forum called the Fray, which I post in all the time. Part of the Fray is Club Fray, which you can post in by invitation only from an editor (usually based on previous posts) at Slate or WP. I've been reading Slate articles and making posts for about seven years now. I really like it, get a lot of replies, and it can get into very heated discussions quickly though. Some posters are nice.

I was invited to post in Slate's Club Fray recently! A lot of Slate & WP writers post in Club Fray, not the regular Fray for the above reason. To see my posts, go to Slate.com, then discuss. In the regular Fray forums I post in politics, fighting words, jurisprudence & election scorecard. In Club Fray, I post in News & politics. My post name is: Narayana.

Healthy Pets Act

2007-04-24T21:25:00.000-07:00

Today the California State Assembly passed AB 1634, which was introduced by Lloyd LEvine orf Los Angeles, a bill which would require the spay/neuter of all dogs over 4 months of age. A breeder's license may be obtained, but for an outrageous fee, and must be renewed every year. Failure to comply could result in major fines or you could potentially lose your dog. This is one of the few times I split with my party, and can't stand PETA . Levine has a great record of defending animals rights in the Assembly, and I have supported his other bills. AB 1634 is an invasion of privacy and property rights, a form of animal cruelty with misguided & potentially disasterous consequences.

People should be free to own pets. Just as women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, people should be able to choose for themselves to spay/neuter their dogs. The state in this case is intruding too far into the personal lives of its people, and quite frankly, it's disgraceful. Pet ownership should not be regulated in this way.

The main justification for AB 1634 is that there are too many purebred dogs in shelters. This is completely erroneous, most dogs in shelters are wolves, or mixed breeds. Most dogs end up in shelters because some irresponsible jerk let their dog run all over the neighborhood, get lost, hit by a car, breed to anything. Or there are the really ignorant people that want to breed dogs to teach their children about the miracle of life. Once born they have difficulty finding them homes. These poor puppies are also usually mixed bred and end up in shelters.

I understand wanting to have less dogs in shelters, but this is not the way to do it. It punishes responsible pet owners and breeders. Now people like me who love their dogs, walk them, take care of them, keep them healthy with regular vet visits and truly make my dogs live happy lives, these people are being penalized with excess fines and fees. I compete in dog sports-agility, obedience and conformation with my dog. I know many people who do this for fun, and some who do this sort of work; handle dogs, as a career. The passage of this bill will be a huge blow to the careers and enjoyment of many Californians.

Even those who do not compete enjoy these sports. Animal Planet gets millions of viewers nation wide when it airs the annual Eukanuba Tournament of Champions show live from Long Beach. Only intact dogs can be shown, so the passage of this bill will be a disappointment to the millions of spectators in California and around the country.

AB 1634 is also supporting animal cruelty. The bill states all dogs must be spayed/neutured by 4 months of age. However, most vets (including the vet I take my dog to) advise pet owners to wait until at least 6 months of age to spay/neuter one's dog. The reason for this (especially in males) is that by the time a dog is 6 months he will be fully matured in the development of the eurethra. If the dog is neutered/spayed before it has matured, you could be seeing issues down the road with urinary track problems.

In a purely economic sense, this bill in inefficient. There are about 8-10million pet dogs in California alone, and about 1 in every 3 households in the US has a pet dog. Access to pet dogs becomes very limited as less people will be able to breed them. After this happens, the price of a puppy or any age dog will greatly increase and those who have obtained licenses will charge whatever price they feel like. In effect this is monopolizing the pet market. People will be unable to afford dogs, and a black market for pets will come about, the average dog will cost $5000+.

In a purely political sense, this bill is unjust. It punishes responsible pet lovers/owners, encourages animal cruelty and limits our freedom as US citizens.

California is often considered a pioneer in many public policy areas. What California does, many other states will usually follow, just look at the initiative process. Therefore, this bill must be stopped, in the Appropriations Committee before it gets to a floor vote. I encourage any pet owner or enthusiast to write to your local Assemblywoman (or Assemblyman) soon.

Quotes of the Week

2007-04-23T23:15:00.000-07:00

More quotes

"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and thepoliticians as a joke." —Will Rogers

=>Wow, this is insanely relevant to politics today even though it was spoken 30+ years ago. Comedians are being taken very seriously, look at Imus, and more recently JV and Elvis from CBS. With the huge credibility gap Bush and many Congressional Republicans created in the handling of the war in Iraq, people are finding it difficult to take what national political figures like MCs and the President seriously.

-------------------
"If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." -Harry S Truman

=>Well, if that's true, then I've got a head start :). Remember Clinton got a chocolate lab and named it Buddy during the height of the Lewinsky investigations? His approval ratings went up after the dog's first photo op. Oh, and Gerald Ford had a golden retriever he named Liberty in the post Nixon pardon era. Yay for the patriotic dog names!

-------------------
"It's the most important decision I've had to make since 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax." - Arnold Schwarzenegger when deciding to run for CA Governor

=> How could you compare being Governor of the largest state in the union to bikini wax I'd take the former anyday!

--------------------

"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it."- Clarence Darrow

=>I don't believe it. Today, anyone that could raise $20million+ in 3 months has this chance and should consider running, which is why I don't consider it. :\

Gun violence revisited.

2007-04-20T22:50:00.000-07:00

Case #1

Today a NASA contract worker brought a handgun inside a building Friday at the Johnson Space Center (Houston, Texas) and shot a hostage then killed himself. There was a second hostage, he survived. This happened only a few days after the deadliest school shooting in the US. Police reported that the gunman had some disagreement with the hostage, which is was not like VA Tech's case since Cho killed 32 people, which we now know was done in part to avenge Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from Columbine.

What's interesting is that JSC authorities report that they reviewed their security system, and emergency procedures in lieu of the VA Tech massacre. The gunman was on good standing as an employee of Jacobs Engineering, as many (roommates, other students) assumed Cho to be.

Case #2

A 49 year old man shot his 26 year old wife before shooting himself. He also fired at one of three young kids in his house at the time, who were getting ready for school. The couple was married for 6 months. This was in Detroit, a city with one of the highest crime rates in the US. The kids are staying with relatives now. First of all, I feel so bad for these kids, they had to watch their father kill their mother, then himself. Secondly, I don't know why a 26 year old woman would marry a 49 year old man. Maybe he was rich, but the MSNBC article does not provide the husband/shooter's income, so it's unclear if she was trying to be the next Anna Nicole.

Gonzales hearings.

2007-04-19T22:45:00.000-07:00

Today Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came before the Senate to testify regarding the recent, seemingly political firings of US attorneys. The hearing was a disaster (for Gonzales), he is toast and could end up resigning in the next 2-3 weeks. Not surprisingly the best part of the hearing was during Schumer’s questioning. Schumer called Gonzales on all his contradictions with the hearing of his CoS Kyle Sampson. During the hearing Gonzales told Senator Feinstein that Carol Lam, one of the US Attorneys was fully aware of the reason she was being asked to resign. Not so, according to Lam and Sampson, who told the Senate that she was not directly notified by anyone in a leadership position at the DoJ. Gonzales’ past statements, both at the hearing, and before the hearings, show that Sampson was in the center of all the action. Most of the responsibilities you would assume Gonzales to have taken on himself seemed to have been delegated out to Sampson. If Gonzales really didn’t have anything to hide, he should have blasted Sampson's testimony, and given a correct account of the reasoning & events leading up to Lam’s firing.

These are high stakes, the reputation of the DoJ and Gonzales are on the line. However, what he actually did was to refuse to comment on Sampson’s hearing. Apparently, according to Gonzales, it’s the responsibility of Congress to discuss the DoJ’s concerns with US attorneys; he kept referring back to how there was clear communication. If Gonzales really believes that, then he really isn't a good AG, it’s the DoJ’s responsibility to communicate any concerns it’s having with US attorneys regarding their performance. He lied to Feinstein as well. Carol Lam was either notified, or not notified, which means either Sampson or Gonzales lied. I think it was Gonzales, just based on his responses, he was much more defensive, he often gave vague answers.

Gonzales often would say that he could only report on what he could recall, and that he couldn’t recall certain meeting, and didn’t remember going to certain meetings. For these same meetings, Sampson testified that Gonzales was in fact at those meetings, and the two spoke about each attorney during this meeting when Gonzales essentially approved the plan to review their records in greater detail. Eevery Senator at the hearing- Sessions, Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein, etc, except maybe Orrin Hatch drew on the inconsistencies between statements made by Gonzales and Sampson, which is good, it’s probably easier to find out why these US attorneys were dismissed. Again if Gonzales was telling the truth, and there really were no political reasons for the firings, then I do not see why he didn’t say that Sampson’s testimony was wrong, and his account was correct.

From these hearings, I think Gonzales knew and is lying. There’s no way he didn’t know what was going on, at least the political reasons. He made the final decision to approve the firings. However, I do not think he was very familiar with these records, which is why he didn’t give a lot of specs about the individual cases of each attorney when asked to do so. That’s probably why he had such difficulty justifying the decision with the amount of involvement he personally had in the decision. Kennedy asked about this too, and all Gonzales said was that he didn’t know why some attorneys were fired, but he trusted Sampson’s judgment, but he also contradicted Sampson testimony when he said that Lam knew that DoJ had concerns about her policy.

Transcripts are available on MSNBC.com.

Multimedia Manifesto

2007-04-18T23:00:00.000-07:00

It's now known what Cho Seung-Hui was doing in the two hours between the shootings at Virginia Tech. He complied what Brian Williams refers to as a "multimedia manifesto," in which he included videotapes, photographs, and writings mailed to the MSNBC office in New York. The interesting part is that it was delayed a day because of an incorrect street and zip code, but once in New York, it was immediately taken to MSNBC.

MSNBC has taken a lot of hits for showing this material on the national news. There are arguments about the sensitivity of this material, the emotional state of those affected, giving in to the shooter's demands, etc. Well, this is sensitive material, and it may stir up emotions, but that doesn't even matter.

If it wasn't aired, the families/friends of those killed should have been able to access it, actually, everyone in the Virginia Tech community should have. The general public, however, also deserves to see this material. The massacre happened at Virginia Tech, which is a public university; therefore it is in the interest of the public to know more about the situation, the shooter's motives (since, everyone interviewed claimed he was so quiet ad so much of a loner that they didn't know his name, personality or anything about him). I don't know how much this evidence will contribute to the investigation or prevention of future shootings, but I think MSNBC did the right thing. They used good judgment, showed the material properly by expressing their understanding of the sensitivity of the material and its timing but also their responsibility as journalists.

On the other hand, gun control has also been discussed as a way to prevent future shootings. I doubt this will help. There are still irresponsible people out there that will have a decent background in order to access guns, but then give the guns to, or leave them in a place easily accessible to kids. For example, Cho was able to buy the guns because his background check showed he didn't have a history of violence. However, Cho was institutionalized for the possibility of having a mental illness, which is not allowed for people buying guns. Therefore, his background check should have prevented him from buying the guns.

The NRA often takes the heat for crises like VA Tech, and Columbine, etc. I am certainly not a follower of the NRA, but they are just exercising their rights in the Constitution. The Constitution in many cases is very vague in terms of its wording, perhaps this was done intentionally by the Founders, but that is another debate for another time.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, the NRA simply interpreted it to mean that anyone should be able to keep and bear arms. Others interpret it to mean militias only, and since we don't have militias anymore, then people shouldn't have guns. Both make sense, the capitalization of particular words like "People, " adds to the confusion, who are these people? My guess is that they were militia men. There is another version ratified by the states in which different words are capitalized, like "Militia," and "Arms" but not people. Jefferson, Madison and many of the other Founders argued that the Constitution must be changed to reflect the values and ideas of its time. Jefferson went so far as to argue that the Constitution must be dissolved and created from scratch with EVERY new generation. Madison & Hamilton make similar arguments in the Federalist Papers. It could be argued that with the increased gun violence of our time that the Second Amendment and other parts of the Constitution are out of date and should be changed. However this won't happen until the make up of the Supreme Court also changes, especially with President Bush's two recent appointments. Replace Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito with Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, then Roe will be safe and the 2nd Amendment can be discussed.

Quotes of the Week

2007-04-17T17:53:00.000-07:00

Some quotes...

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." —Ronald Reagan

=>Well, it took care of itself enough to become a massive debt, which certainly took care of Bush Sr in '92. :\

--------------
"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?" —Marion Barry,former mayor of Washington DC

=>LOL! Well, it's sort of their Constitutional right, this guy needs to re-read Article 1.

--------------
"The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control."- Ann Coulter

=>The OC REgister editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only two answers, regardless of the question. The answers are: love guns, love God.

Note: I have actually read the OC Register's editorial page.

-----------
"It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening" -Jerry Falwell

=>"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass" -Barry Goldwater. I agree.

Virginia Tech massacre

2007-04-16T18:00:00.000-07:00

Today a terribly shocking tragedy took place when a gunman opened fire at Virginia Tech University. At this point 32 are said to be dead and dozens more wounded. I’ve been checking for new details frequently throughout the day. I remember thinking the 12 students killed in the Columbine shooting eight years ago was so many people at the time, but this is unbelievable. I was in shock this morning when I woke up and turned on the news just as the story was breaking.

The United States’ most precious natural resources are its people. The young people killed today were the future of our country. To see them getting struck down like this is truly heartbreaking. My condolences go to the students and families of Virginia Tech. I think the main focus now should be on making sure all parents and families are promptly notified about the safety of their kids.

David Shuster from MSNBC mentioned the possibility of multiple shooters, but from the interviews I’ve seen with witnesses identifying the shooter in both locations, that doesn’t seem possible. However, I am sure there will be several new developments in the coming days, so we’ll see what happens.

The shooter was an Asian male studying at the university on a student visa. The shooting started with a fight between this man and his girlfriend. Apparently, she was the first person killed. I’ve read articles describing the shooter as an organized gunman, with excessive amounts of ammunition, quickly reloading the clips. What could have motivated this person to first kill two people, think it over for two hour, and then go on a bloody rampage killing another 30 people? I don't know, and I don't think any really knows, except for the shooter.

Lets hope that the investigation will be thoroughly and swiftly executed. Please keep these families in your thoughts in the coming days.

The Money Factor

2007-04-13T19:08:00.000-07:00

2008 Fundraising Totals:

Democrats
Hillary Clinton, $26 million
Barack Obama, $25 million
John Edwards, $14 million

Republicans
Mitt Romney, $23 million
Rudy Giuliani, $15 million
John McCain, $12.5 million

This list represents candidates from both parties for who’ve raised over $10million in the in the first quarter (Jan-Mar). There were only three in both parties, but I will point out that that New Mexico Bill Richardson is under $10million by around $500,000. Hillary Clinton, not surprisingly, is the top fundraiser of all Democratic candidates.

Compare the winners in presidential elections:

Bush (2000) $193,088,650
Gore (2000) $132,804,039

Bush (2004) $292.6 million
Kerry (2004) $253.9 million

This is all from OpenSecrets, and I couldn’t find data for primaries in those years (FEC databases take way too long to download), but clearly money is a good indicator of one’s success in politics. It’s good news for Democrats though, because two Democratic candidates are raising more money than any of the Republican candadates. I’m surprised Romney is doing so well (I thought the divorce/scandal from some years back would really hurt him in the primary), I think a lot of people were expecting McCain to emerge as the frontrunner as Clinton did. This is only the first quarter though.

This is really disappointing for a democracy, especially when we pride ourselves on having to the government. So, what can be done? Well, to start, the money=free speech doctrine from Buckley v Valeo can be overturned. If money truly equals free speech, then some people are better represented than others; some have more opportunities (and better opportunities) to have their voices heard, to impact public policy. More importantly, limiting contributions from other people and groups (and not doing the same for contributions to one’s own campaign) makes politics a playground for the rich. That's the last thing we want to do. Here in California, you have to be prepared to spend $10million for make a competitive bid for Governor, $6-8 million for a competitive US Senate bid, and $.5-1 million for a competitive campaign for Congress. Luckily, it’s not at the point where you absolutely have to be independently wealthy to even consider running for Congress, US Senate or Governor, but it’s getting really close to that point. Democracy needs to be brought back to the American people.

Imus

2007-04-12T09:02:00.000-07:00

Don Imus, host of a radio show today was fired by MSNBC for referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy headed hoes.” MSNBC’s announcement comes after a two-week suspension of his show.

It is not clear to me why this comes as a surprise to people though, Imus has a long track record for making racist and sexist comments. Over 20 ago, he referred to an African American PBS anchor (Gwen Ifill) as a “cleaning lady” and an African American sports (Bill Rhoden) columnist as “NY Time quota hire.”

It’s difficult to say whether or not he deserved it. Even though it was obviously very rude, he is a comedian, and comedy can often time offend people. His free speech rights should be protected. Imus’ show had a strong following, and if his comments truly offended his viewers, then they should simply stop listening. There plenty of people and groups I think things would be better without, the KKK, NBPP, NRA, Phyllis Schlafly, etc but that is not why we have democracy, it’s like Justice Kennedy pointed out, the First Amendment is often inconvenient, but that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government, or in this case, society, of its obligation to tolerate speech

He probably could have avoided being fired. He made one apology after another showing his weakness, specially after the Rutgers athletes started making public appearances to respond. Imus should have come out and said it’s a comedy show, and the show is supposed to be funny, sometimes jokes can go too far and offend people, which in this case they did. Imus did this, but he should have stopped there without so many apologizes, perhaps then there wouldn’t have been as much public outcry, and sponsors wouldn’t have left, and he wouldn’t been dismissed. The story would have been over with the next day. Imus need to take lessons from Dan Rather, who made similar mistakes some tie ago when dismissed by CBS for incorrectly reporting President Bush’s National Guard service.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/11/imus.rutgers/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quotes of the Week

2007-04-11T21:30:00.000-07:00

Some interesting political quotes:

---------------
“Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason.” – Anonymous

People that say this and actually believe it really do not know anything about politicians and how politics works in the US. There is nothing wrong with career politicians. Actors, athletes, wrestlers, body builders turned politicians (with the exception of a few) look nice perhaps, but it's nice to have someone in office that's really given serious thought to government, public policy, and you can tell the person is very much invested in public service.

-------------
“A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.” - Dan Quayle

Wow, what was GHWB thinking in 1988? Other than picking up a few votes in the midwest, I have no idea.

-------------
“Politics is more difficult than physics.” - Albert Einstein

Yeah, it really is, probably because there are no set rules and formulas to give you the right answer.

-------------

“Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you.” – John Adams

Today's trouble would be Iraq. I still maintain that Saddam Hussein was never a serious threat to the US compared to the leaders of other countries, our time, money and resources could have more wisely spent. President Bush troubled a sensitive region in the Middle East, and now we are in a lot of trouble with an $8trillion debt and 3000+ Americans dead.

---------------
“Too bad ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.” - Henry Kissinger

Actually, I think it’s the other way around. “Politician” isn’t some dirty word, politicians are public servants elected to represent the interests of a group of people in government. Most of them do that.

----------------
“A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular.” - Adlai Stevenson

Short and to the point. President Bush declared Iraq a free society a few years ago. I’m not sure how safe it is to be a Kurd or Sunni there. :\

----------------
"What's Al Gore up to these days? Four hundred pounds....Did Al Gore actually swallow Michael Moore?" -Ann Coulter, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference

First of all, Gore was never 400lbs. William Howard Taft actually was close to 400 lbs, Gore looks nothing like Taft. Second, doesn’t she have ANYTHING better to do? Dinner with Hannity?

---------------
“If you are not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.” -Katherine Harris

She is in the ten percent of politicians giving the other 90 percent a bad reputation. How are people like her getting elected to the House of Representatives and almost to US Senate?!?!?!

---------------
“In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” –FDR

This is very relevant to politics today. Iraqis must be willing to fight to achieve and keep their freedom, the US cannot and should not continue fighting their civil war.

Obama and the other Dem candidates

2007-04-10T23:41:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama is without a doubt a well-educated, informed, politician with a seemingly grand agenda. His remarkable upbringing and coming to American thanks to then President Kennedy, is like the “America Dream,” in the most idealistic sense. However Dickerson brings up a good point, Obama may present nicely and look like an attractive candidate with his words, but what he lacks is substance and experience.

The three big frontrunners are Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Actually, I personally do not think Edwards is a frontrunner, but many people do. Hillary Clinton is like the Microsoft of this race, she is the big, established candidate with a track record, what some may consider to be polarizing. Barack Obama is like the new start up company that’s fresh, exciting, ambitious and innovative. John Edwards is like the company that's doing enough just to stay in business, or to stay somewhere in the ballpark to have some chance at the nomination. I think he's hoping for Clinton & Obama duke it out so he can emerge as the alternative.

Hillary Clinton is not making Obama’s mistake. If you recall in 2004, there were rumors and tons of media talk about her running that year, but she had said she wouldn’t consider running for President until she completed ATLEAST one full term in the Senate. I remember her saying that in multiple press conferences, news shows, etc. That was a very smart move because her time in the Senate was a great opportunity for to make herself stand out as an independent political figure, especially when you’re married to an ex-president, that’s important.

Back to Obama, I am not trying to be critical of his ambition, I think it’s great, I have a lot of ambitions myself, political ambitions. Being President of the United States is a big deal though, there are no requirements for this, but I think a presidential candidate should have extensive experience in public service. Notice I did not say “office” because for example with Hillary she was very much involved with education issues as First Lady or AR and then spearheaded a health care campaign as First Lady of the US, these, in my opinion are experiences that will really help her throughout her campaign.

I could go back in history and compare presidents from both parties and their experience level. Look at someone like LBJ, the last career politician-type president I think, unfortunately. It’s unfortunate because people shouldn't be so turned off by career politicians, at least they would have some idea what they’re doing as president. Just compare someone like LBJ to say Carter, or Bush 43. LBJ was a master at making deals, getting things done, he pushed more legislation through Congress in the 1964-5 session than any Congress has done before that and to this day. Experience and political savvy are good things, it brings results, and it makes government effective. Poor Carter, he seems like a nice guy and he did get some important things done like the Camp David accord and giving the Panama Canal back, but his administration was a mess. He either couldn’t or simply chose not to work with Congress in anyway. O’Neill couldn’t stand him for this reason; he alienated Democratic leaders, and didn’t have support from Republicans either for a lot of his policies. He never even put much effort into this thinking that the so-called “right thing” would be enough to bring the two parties together. You can see that in Bush 43 today. Bush 41 didn’t have this problem, he faced a Democratic Congress, true, but he knew the importance of a relationship with Congress,, and did a lot of negotiating with taxes, civil rights, etc.

Washington DC system, while it may have its flaws, in terms of political figures and power is an establishment, a different culture of sorts, and any President must know this, and must be able to turn this around a gain support for their agenda. Brains, ambition and idealism will not do the trick on their own, and that’s currently where Obama is at this point, so I think we’ll just have to watch him in the news and see how it works out in the next few months. After at least a full term in the senate, maybe more, I think he would be a better candidate. I always hoped Wes Clark would run for AR Governor or Senate to get his foot in the door. This happened to Wes Clark in 2004 as well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2163796/fr/flyout

California and 2008 primary

2007-04-09T21:00:00.000-07:00

California's 2008 primary was moved up from its usual time in June to February 5th. This is an almost 4 month move up, which is supposed to give California a greater, more influential role in the outcome of the 2008 primaries. I commend the Governor's efforts, but I am not sure how much this will help.

The 2008 primary season will be much different than 2004 or even earlier years not just because of California, but several states are moving their primaries. South Carolina has moved it's primary to January 29th, supposedly in an effort to have African-Americans better represented. That's not really effective though, because South Carolina as a whole does not represent the US very well, and if the goal is to give African-Americans better representation in the primary process, well there's plenty of other states with substantial African-American populations. States like Louisiana and Mississippi have an almost 50% greater proportion of African-Americans than South Carolina, according to the latest BLS statistics.

The Nevada caucus moved up to January 19th to give the Hispanic voters more influence, but again there are states with a greater proportion of Hispanics, like California & Texas. New Mexico's population is 45% Hispanic compared to Nevada's 22%.

Besides these, New Hampshire & Iowa are still first. I think it's an unfair system because the people living in these two states are NOT very representative of most Americans. Since these are small states, campaigning takes place on a much more personal scale, while it sounds appealing, it's actually a bad thing. It's impractical, this is a presidential election, for candidates to go meet & shake hands with nearly every person in the state for a mere 3 delegates from NH & IA? Why do middle class whites on the east coast get this opportunity, and larger states like CA and even Texas do not? It is very undemocratic in my opinion to give this much influence to one small sector of the US population- lower middle class whites. CA has more delegates/electoral votes (general) than every state west of the Mississippi River combined (excluding Texas), it should be more influential in the nominating process as well. It is more practical for candidates to spend their time in states like CA, TX & NY because they would be reaching out to not just more people, but also more diverse people in the same time.

CA's influence even with this move up to February 5th, is further weakened by the fact that 10+ states are moving their primary to the same day. CA should be the second, or maybe even first primary without other states holding their primaries on the same day.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/california.primary/index.html