In the wake of Senator Kennedy's death Many have called him the greatest senator of our time, some has even gone as far as to call him the greatest senator in US History; while I would not go that far he is on the short list. Here are my personal top 10:
1. Daniel Webster (Whig-MA) - Without Daniel Webster this nation would not exist today. It's that simple. The Nullification Crisis would have split this country into at least 2 had he not had the famous debate with Haynes. He was the Great Compromiser that kept this nation together in the precivil war era. Though Clay may have been the Idea man Webster rallied the support and saved the country. The only reason the US economy stayed afloat in the 19th century was because of the American System, Clay's Idea But it would have gone nowhere without the support of Webster. The only reason infrastructure developed in America is because of Webster. It is amazing that he never became president. Webster assured that this nation would remain "Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!" and for that he is the greatest senator in the history of this nation.
2. Henry Clay (Whig-KY)- Clay was the greatest thinker in the history of the US Senate. He was the main Antislavery voice in the senate in the run up to the civil war, and the compromises that kept this country together until the civil war could not have been reached without clay. He helped save the country during the nullification crisis and was to some extent the only reason Webster could be as great as he was. He also kept Kentucky from succeeding. The only reason he is not number one is the fact that the war of 1812 would not have happened without clay. even though he was speaker of the house at the time that still subtracts from his senate legacy. He was still an amazing leader.
3. Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollet (Republican/Progressive-WI)- Had he come at the same time as Webster and Clay Perhaps he would be number one but he was about 70 years too late. the only reason women have the vote is because of LaFollet. He fought corruption from the bottom to the top and was on the extreme opposition of World War I. He opposed the prosecution of Eugene Debbs (Arguably the greatest congressmen ever). Tea Pot Dome, The scandal that ruined Harding, would not have been broken if not for him. He supported Social Security 25 years before American even knew what it was. Had we listened to him there may have been no great depression. He started the progressive party which later merged with the democrats in a sense. If it weren't for the civil war he would be number one easily.
4. Ted Kennedy (Democrat-MA) - Any one who has taken any interest in politics in the last 40 years knows who Ted Kennedy is. The Civil Rights acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968 were all crusades by Teddy. There would be no Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP if not for Teddy. 18-20 Year olds wouldn't be allowed to vote without Teddy. Teddy helped the great society a great deal (this includes such things as the War on Poverty and the National Endowment for the Arts). The only reason we are on the brink of getting Universal health care is Teddy. "The Work goes on, The cause endures, the Hope still lives and the dream will Never Die" . When I get into politics, and hopefully become a senator, I aspire to be like Ted Kennedy was. I don't think I can come up with a better obituary.
5. Robert Wagner (Democrat-NY)- FDR's Right Hand Man in the senate During the most critical time in the history of the world, He helped save the US Economy in the 1930's. He tried to save many Jews from the Nazi's in 1939, but it was rejected because we were not yet at war with the Germans. He was a big Friend of Labor, and really helped save the US During The Depression and WWII.
6. Robert Kennedy (Democrat-NY)- Probably the greatest Ideological thinker this country has ever seen. Arguably the greatest politician in all of American History, among the greatest leaders the world has ever seen. The only reason he isn't number one here is because many of his greatest accomplishments were as Attorney General and Chief advisor to his older brother (JFK if you can't put 2 and 2 together). As AG He saved the world from Nuclear war, Cracked down on organized crime, and made the civil rights movement a major part of the national agenda, but i can't count any of that because he was AG and not a Senator. As a Senator he created the war on poverty, Helped the civil rights movement, was the first senator to admit his mistake in Vietnam, put alot of money towards 3rd world aid, and was a major proponent of the Great Society (which included many good things including a start towards universal Health Care, The war on poverty, Public Transportation and Funding for the arts. He is the greatest politician I can think of but not the greatest senator.
7. Stephan Douglass (Democrat-IL)- I know what most of you are thinking: "Stephan Douglass WTF?" but history often teaches us wrong about him. Yes he was a little bit corrupt, and yes he opposed Lincoln but he was NOT pro slavery by any means. He took the middle way. He was morally opposed to slavery but wanted to gradually phase it out to keep the crazys from succeeding. Funny story about that. If it weren't for his work in the senate the country couldn't have held on long enough for Lincoln to save our asses. The country wouldn't exist if it weren't for Douglass and I am going to say something bold: Douglass could have been a better president than Lincoln. I think he could have prevented the civil war while phasing out slavery by the late 1800's, and prevented the Jim Crow Laws and KKK Spring ups that happened because of Andrew Johnson's Shitty Reconstruction policies. He is controversial, but I think he was good. He was proud to hold Lincoln's hat as he was inaugurated and you can not deny that he Kept our country united after the days of Webster and Clay, and for that he makes the list.
8. Robert Taft (Republican-OH) -I completely disagree with the Ideology of Taft. He was completely wrong when it came to things like The new deal (Which he was a major opponent of) and Labor (where he, lets be honest, screwed workers worse than wallmart) but there are a few things I do admire him for. He only opposed the Keynsian part of the new deal. He supported things that directly helped the poor like Social Security and Public Housing, he was also a major leader in getting the GOP behind WWII. The one thing that I admire him most for is his stance on the Nuremberg Trials. The moral question is "Should people be punished for following orders?". I honestly don't know where I stand on that. Part of me says no but the other part answers back that these were the among worst orders ever given on the face of the earth (The Holocaust in case you don't know what Nuremberg was). He boldly answered no. He opposed the Nuremberg trials and weather or not you agree with him you have to admire him for taking that moral stance no matter how unpopular it was at the time. although I disagreed with him gravely he was an honorable and respectable senator.
9. John Quincy Adams (Federalist/Whig-MA)- as a president he sucked, but as a senator he committed the first real act of party defiance that shaped the future of the US Senate. He changed parties. It took so much balls to do that and it proved that senators were independent of the letter on their name. for that he makes the list.
10. Arthur Vandenburg (Republican-MI)- He was a conservative whack job until 1940 when he was the first GOP Senator to Support FDR's Foreign policy. If not for him there would have been no unity During WWII.
Honorable Mentions
Sam Houston (Independent-TN and TX)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Lyndon Johnson (D-TX)
Mike Mansfield (D-MT)
Two Notes
1860 Election- History forgets that the bad guy was not Stephan Douglass it was John Breckenridge. Douglass wanted to preserve the union, Breckenridge wanted to exploit Black people. Douglass was an Honorable man with at least respectable views, Breckenridge was a Douche that hated all black people more than anyone. People often mistake Douglass' Ideals for Breckenridges.
John Calhoun- He is often Cited as one of the great senators of all time, but he had some elements of craziness. He was one of the Great Compromisers along with Webster and Clay, but he was the one on the side of Slavery and He was a major Hawk During the war of 1812 so I decided to leave him off. None the less the Country would not have survived with out him and his compromises. He was still one of the Great Triumptive, and helped save the country, but he was the one on the darkside. So I left him off.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
As Obama has entered his 8th month as President, and as people have gotten more acclimated to this Administration, it has been getting clearer and clearer as to how Obama will handle things, and what issues will trip him up. One thing that is never far from my mind is that the 2010 midterm elections are coming up. Midterm elections have, historically, been a referendum on the President and the Party in Power at the time. I'll lay out the issues that I believe can or will cause problems for Obama and the Democrats going in to 2010.
Health Care, Health Care, Health Care
This has become the issue for Americans. A majority of Americans want health care reform, with many supporting universal health care or at least a public option. It's quickly becoming clear that how Obama and Congress handles health care reform will have a huge impact on their electoral chances in 2010. It should go without saying, but health care reform was the main issue that caused the Democrats to lose control of Congress in 1994. A lack of party unity, a focused and coordinated opposition, unclear expectations and uncertain results...sound familiar?
But it doesn't stop there: Economy!
It's a no-brainer: If the economy improves, poll numbers for the Party and President in Power go up. If the economy stagnates or goes down, so does the poll numbers. If the stimulus money doesn't get disbursed quicker, or if people don't think it's working, then there will be a problem. Presidents have resorted to desperate, short-term tactics to make the economy improve over the short term for election purposes. While I'm not saying do that, what I am saying is that people vote their pocketbook. If jobs aren't on the rise for Joe Public, then members of Congress may lose theirs.
Auto Industrial Complex
This one is also important. Cash for Clunkers was good, but having the US auto industry competitive and working again would be a big boon for Obama and the Democrats. A shift to less gas-friendly cars (like Hybrids and the like) will also make many Americans smile, since the cost of energy and gas is a major concern. Emphasizing alternative forms of energy couldn't hurt either.
War! Huh, yeah...what is it good for?
Although this one tends to be lower on the list, it's still a vital issue, both in this writer's opinion and in many others. A long, drawn-out conflict in a foreign country doesn't tend to sit well with voters, especially in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless some serious improvement is seen, and troops brought home even, this will be a festering wound barely hidden underneath everything.
That's So Gay...
Social problems like same-sex marriage and abortion will constitute a small but important part of political calculations in 2010. The Bush/Gore lawyers will be contesting Prop 8, and many states will still be considering same-sex marriage legislation. Party unity would be nice, but on this issue I would be surprised to see a consistent message.
There are
Health Care, Health Care, Health Care
This has become the issue for Americans. A majority of Americans want health care reform, with many supporting universal health care or at least a public option. It's quickly becoming clear that how Obama and Congress handles health care reform will have a huge impact on their electoral chances in 2010. It should go without saying, but health care reform was the main issue that caused the Democrats to lose control of Congress in 1994. A lack of party unity, a focused and coordinated opposition, unclear expectations and uncertain results...sound familiar?
But it doesn't stop there: Economy!
It's a no-brainer: If the economy improves, poll numbers for the Party and President in Power go up. If the economy stagnates or goes down, so does the poll numbers. If the stimulus money doesn't get disbursed quicker, or if people don't think it's working, then there will be a problem. Presidents have resorted to desperate, short-term tactics to make the economy improve over the short term for election purposes. While I'm not saying do that, what I am saying is that people vote their pocketbook. If jobs aren't on the rise for Joe Public, then members of Congress may lose theirs.
Auto Industrial Complex
This one is also important. Cash for Clunkers was good, but having the US auto industry competitive and working again would be a big boon for Obama and the Democrats. A shift to less gas-friendly cars (like Hybrids and the like) will also make many Americans smile, since the cost of energy and gas is a major concern. Emphasizing alternative forms of energy couldn't hurt either.
War! Huh, yeah...what is it good for?
Although this one tends to be lower on the list, it's still a vital issue, both in this writer's opinion and in many others. A long, drawn-out conflict in a foreign country doesn't tend to sit well with voters, especially in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless some serious improvement is seen, and troops brought home even, this will be a festering wound barely hidden underneath everything.
That's So Gay...
Social problems like same-sex marriage and abortion will constitute a small but important part of political calculations in 2010. The Bush/Gore lawyers will be contesting Prop 8, and many states will still be considering same-sex marriage legislation. Party unity would be nice, but on this issue I would be surprised to see a consistent message.
There are
Foreign Policy Pitfalls, Snake Pits, Pit Stops, and Checkpoints
Now, foreign policy, rightly or wrongly, is a make-or-break area of politics and governance. Many Presidents have been defined by foreign policy, lending their names to "doctrines" or ideas. Many of the lasting ones have been considered a success: The Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt Corollary, Truman Doctrine, etc.
And many Presidents have had their dreams dashed on the rocky shore of foreign policy problems: LBJ and Vietnam, Carter and Iran, Ford and the "Last Flight from Saigon".
Each President is unique, and each foreign policy tends to be unique. Carter's foreign policy was different when compared to Reagan's foreign policy.
Obama's foreign policy is exemplified or defined by his Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said in her opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
So, let's get our passports ready, our foreign language guidebooks thumbed through, and our money converted. We'll start with a "pit stop", and a relatively easy one.
Foreign Policy Pit Stop: Foreign Aid
Although I listed this as a pit stop (due to the fact that though foreign aid is a tangible and vital part of US foreign policy operations, it tends to be used as a sentence filler in speeches, and is fairly business-like and somewhat mundane), it could also be considered a "snake pit", due to certain groups with a political ideology and affiliation not often in keeping with multilateralism and internationalism tend to use foreign aid as a whipping boy or strawman. Anyway, foreign aid is really very simple: one country, usually fairly well-off, will give another country, usually not very well off or in dire need, monetary assistance or shipments of goods and products. It can be anything from humanitarian aid (meaning disaster relief, like shipments of water and food) to development aid (meaning money or equipment intended to promote economic and social development. It's different from humanitarian aid in that development aid is intended for long term alleviation of social problems, like hunger, poor health, lack of education and inadequate sustainable development, while humanitarian aid is for the here-and-now, emergency stuff). It is partly used as a negotiating tactic in international negotiations. You know "You scratch my back, I scratch my signature into a check for $12 billion for water purification equipment". It's often used to obtain a certain objective. Having the United States give your country a couple billion in money and an agreement to assist with border defense makes a missile shield that much more palatable.
The official "aid" person in the United States Government is, surprise, the Director of Foreign Assistance AKA the USAID Administrator (USAID stands for "United States Agency for International Development0. USAID Admin is a position equivalent to the Deputy Secretary of State. According to the State Department's website, the vision statement for the DFA is as follows:
And many Presidents have had their dreams dashed on the rocky shore of foreign policy problems: LBJ and Vietnam, Carter and Iran, Ford and the "Last Flight from Saigon".
Each President is unique, and each foreign policy tends to be unique. Carter's foreign policy was different when compared to Reagan's foreign policy.
Obama's foreign policy is exemplified or defined by his Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said in her opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted. We must use what has been called “smart power”: the full range of tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural -- picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation.
With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence, who was born a slave and rose to become one of the great voices of his time, declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.” The same truth binds wise women as well.
The President-Elect has made it clear that in the Obama Administration there will be no doubt about the leading role of diplomacy. One need only look to North Korea, Iran, the Middle East, and the Balkans to appreciate the absolute necessity of tough-minded, intelligent diplomacy – and the failures that result when that kind of diplomatic effort is absent. And one need only consider the assortment of problems we must tackle in 2009 – from fighting terrorism to climate change to global financial crises – to understand the importance of cooperative engagement.
I assure you that, if I am confirmed, the State Department will be firing on all cylinders to provide forward-thinking, sustained diplomacy in every part of the world; applying pressure and exerting leverage; cooperating with our military partners and other agencies of government; partnering effectively with NGOs, the private sector, and international organizations; using modern technologies for public outreach; empowering negotiators who can protect our interests while understanding those of our negotiating partners. There will be thousands of separate interactions, all strategically linked and coordinated to defend American security and prosperity. Diplomacy is hard work; but when we work hard, diplomacy can work, and not just to defuse tensions, but to achieve results that advance our security, interests and values.
Secretary Gates has been particularly eloquent in articulating the importance of diplomacy in pursuit of our national security and foreign policy objectives. As he notes, it’s not often that a Secretary of Defense makes the case for adding resources to the State Department and elevating the role of the diplomatic corps. Thankfully, Secretary Gates is more concerned about having a unified, agile, and effective U.S. strategy than in spending our precious time and energy on petty turf wars. As he has stated, “our civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long,” both relative to military spending and to “the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.” And to that, I say, “Amen!”
President-elect Obama has emphasized that the State Department must be fully empowered and funded to confront multi-dimensional challenges – from working with allies to thwart terrorism, to spreading health and prosperity in places of human suffering. I will speak in greater detail about that in a moment.
We should also use the United Nations and other international institutions whenever appropriate and possible. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have understood for decades that these institutions, when they work well, enhance our influence. And when they don’t work well – as in the cases of Darfur and the farce of Sudan’s election to the former UN Commission on Human Rights, for example – we should work with likeminded friends to make sure that these institutions reflect the values that motivated their creation in the first place.
We will lead with diplomacy because it’s the smart approach. But we also know that military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed, as a last resort.
All the while, we must remember that to promote our interests around the world, America must be an exemplar of our values. Senator Isakson made the point to me the other day that our nation must lead by example rather than edict. Our history has shown that we are most effective when we see the harmony between our interests abroad and our values at home. And I take great comfort in knowing that our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, also subscribed to that view, reminding us across the centuries: “The interests of a nation, when well understood, will be found to coincide with their moral duties.”
So while our democracy continues to inspire people around the world, we know that its influence is greatest when we live up to its teachings ourselves.
Senator Lugar, I’m going to borrow your words here, because you have made this point so eloquently: You once said that 'the United States cannot feed every person, lift every person out of poverty, cure every disease, or stop every conflict. But our power and status have conferred upon us a tremendous responsibility to humanity.'"
So, let's get our passports ready, our foreign language guidebooks thumbed through, and our money converted. We'll start with a "pit stop", and a relatively easy one.
Foreign Policy Pit Stop: Foreign Aid
Although I listed this as a pit stop (due to the fact that though foreign aid is a tangible and vital part of US foreign policy operations, it tends to be used as a sentence filler in speeches, and is fairly business-like and somewhat mundane), it could also be considered a "snake pit", due to certain groups with a political ideology and affiliation not often in keeping with multilateralism and internationalism tend to use foreign aid as a whipping boy or strawman. Anyway, foreign aid is really very simple: one country, usually fairly well-off, will give another country, usually not very well off or in dire need, monetary assistance or shipments of goods and products. It can be anything from humanitarian aid (meaning disaster relief, like shipments of water and food) to development aid (meaning money or equipment intended to promote economic and social development. It's different from humanitarian aid in that development aid is intended for long term alleviation of social problems, like hunger, poor health, lack of education and inadequate sustainable development, while humanitarian aid is for the here-and-now, emergency stuff). It is partly used as a negotiating tactic in international negotiations. You know "You scratch my back, I scratch my signature into a check for $12 billion for water purification equipment". It's often used to obtain a certain objective. Having the United States give your country a couple billion in money and an agreement to assist with border defense makes a missile shield that much more palatable.
The official "aid" person in the United States Government is, surprise, the Director of Foreign Assistance AKA the USAID Administrator (USAID stands for "United States Agency for International Development0. USAID Admin is a position equivalent to the Deputy Secretary of State. According to the State Department's website, the vision statement for the DFA is as follows:
Ensure the strategic and effective use of foreign assistance resources to respond to global needs, make the world safer, and help people better their own lives by supporting programs that:
- Advance human rights and freedoms;
- Promote sustainable economic growth and reduce widespread poverty;
- Promote and support democratic, well-governed states;
- Increase access to quality education, combat disease, and improve public health;
- Respond to urgent humanitarian needs;
- Prevent and respond to conflict; and
- Address transnational threats.
And that was your crash course in foreign aid! Tune in next time, when I tackle a "snake pit" and a "pitfall"!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Kennedy: Gone But Never Forgotten
This writer is sure that all of you are aware of the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, (D-Massachusetts) at the age of 77. He had been diagnosed with brain cancer, and had been battling it for months. In spite of the diagnosis, he attended and spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and had been fighting for health care reform, a cause celebre of his.
With the death of his sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, one of my personal favorite Kennedys because of her drive, passion, and creation of the Special Olympics, and now himself, the only remaining sibling of the nine children of Ambassador Joseph and Rose Kennedy is Jean Kennedy Smith, the second-to-last born, and was appointed United States Ambassador to Ireland by Bill Clinton in 1993, where she served for 5 years.
Ted Kennedy was a wonderful person, and he will sorely be missed. Although O'Reilly meant it in a mean-spirited fashion, I can think of no greater honor than to call a true piece of health care reform legislation a "Ted Kennedy Memorial Bill" or Law.
With the death of his sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, one of my personal favorite Kennedys because of her drive, passion, and creation of the Special Olympics, and now himself, the only remaining sibling of the nine children of Ambassador Joseph and Rose Kennedy is Jean Kennedy Smith, the second-to-last born, and was appointed United States Ambassador to Ireland by Bill Clinton in 1993, where she served for 5 years.
Ted Kennedy was a wonderful person, and he will sorely be missed. Although O'Reilly meant it in a mean-spirited fashion, I can think of no greater honor than to call a true piece of health care reform legislation a "Ted Kennedy Memorial Bill" or Law.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Everytime I look at you, I don't understand. Why'd you let the things you did get so out of hand?
"Jesus Christ, Superstar", from the 1973 movie of the same name
Unlike my colleagues on this blog, both of whom are great people, my political perspective is different. I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and had been ever since 2005. (I've always admired her, though. Bill I liked, but I preferred Hillary). I only came around to Obama right before the convention in Denver. I couldn't in good conscience support McCain (although, to some extent, I could understand the PUMA viewpoint), and I badly wanted a Democrat to win. I was as jubilant as ever on November 4th. I was at this conference in Sacramento, lobbying the State Board of Education, so there were a lot of politically active people there as well. Anyway, it was about 9:00 or so when we got the results, and people were yelling and jumping up and down and just generally carrying on. Then the Prop 8 results came in, and the mood was dampened a little bit. Now, although I joke that I'm asexual (which might be true), I consider myself more bisexual. To be told that 52% of Californians don't believe that myself and other members of the LGBTQ community should have the freedom to choose to marry hurt. And the fact that it happened the same night as Obama being elected President really sucked.
Looking back, I have to admit that November 4th serves as a metaphor for his Presidency so far:
Bittersweet
He promised hope and change and a new way forward. He said "Yes, We Can" and "Si, Se Puede". He raked in larger crowds and larger amounts of money.
And yet, once he was elected? Not so much. Now, I understand that Candidate and President are two different things, but come on. He talked about bipartisanship, which is wonderful. However, BOTH SIDES have to want bipartisanship. And, I would hope it was clear, but the Republicans don't seem to really want bipartisanship. And yet he continues to "compromise"!
Mister President, allow me to speak candidly directly to you. Presumptuous of me, I know, but indulge me. STOP ACTING LIKE A SENATOR!
SENATORS compromise on legislation. PRESIDENTS should not. SENATORS need to make things palatable. PRESIDENTS stand firm.
For a while, it looked as if Obama was going to sacrifice the public option on the altar of bipartisanship. Then, loads of angry progressives bombarded Congress and the White House with e-mails and phone calls, and the public option is back. The message? "STAY ON HIM, AND PROTEST AND COMPLAIN AND FORCE HIM TO NOT BUDGE".
As a member of the LGBTQ community, I was wary of Obama's "I'm a Christian, but civil unions are okay" stance, and had hopes that he would at least realize that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. (Personally, it's an "I'll be Civil when I've got ALL my Rights" issue) However, when his Department of Justice came out and defended DOMA, that's the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996 (Click here for the WikiArticle on DOMA), it surprised and angered many in the community. And many gay Democrats who were big donors BOYCOTTED a DNC meeting where Biden was the keynote speaker. The LGBTQ community has always sided with the Democrats, but it's almost a case of "battered spouse syndrome", to quote The Advocate magazine. We get politically screwed, only to come back with wallets open. And while there are quite a few Democrats who are full supporters (Kirsten Gillibrand, Barbara Boxer, etc.), Obama has disappointed us again and again.
So, on health care and gay rights, he's had mixed opinions and mixed results. In regards to the economy, he's done a little better, but the Troubled Asset Relief Program for the banks and the stimulus plan haven't fully worked, and there hasn't been any weaning of corporate welfare.
Foreign policy, my forte, is where he's done a lot of good. My only real complaints in regards to foreign policy are Iraq and Afghanistan, simply because they're both quagmires to some extent (Afghanistan is the place where big powers go to get their asses kicked and and lose, and Iraq...well, I could spend a whole post on Iraq, and I probably will). Oh, and torture and Guantanamo Bay, which I will also mention in another post.
If I had to give him a grade so far, it'd be a C-.
EDIT: I had forgotten about his nomination and appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Because of that, I'll revise my previous grade of a C- for him and up it to a B-.
Unlike my colleagues on this blog, both of whom are great people, my political perspective is different. I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and had been ever since 2005. (I've always admired her, though. Bill I liked, but I preferred Hillary). I only came around to Obama right before the convention in Denver. I couldn't in good conscience support McCain (although, to some extent, I could understand the PUMA viewpoint), and I badly wanted a Democrat to win. I was as jubilant as ever on November 4th. I was at this conference in Sacramento, lobbying the State Board of Education, so there were a lot of politically active people there as well. Anyway, it was about 9:00 or so when we got the results, and people were yelling and jumping up and down and just generally carrying on. Then the Prop 8 results came in, and the mood was dampened a little bit. Now, although I joke that I'm asexual (which might be true), I consider myself more bisexual. To be told that 52% of Californians don't believe that myself and other members of the LGBTQ community should have the freedom to choose to marry hurt. And the fact that it happened the same night as Obama being elected President really sucked.
Looking back, I have to admit that November 4th serves as a metaphor for his Presidency so far:
Bittersweet
He promised hope and change and a new way forward. He said "Yes, We Can" and "Si, Se Puede". He raked in larger crowds and larger amounts of money.
And yet, once he was elected? Not so much. Now, I understand that Candidate and President are two different things, but come on. He talked about bipartisanship, which is wonderful. However, BOTH SIDES have to want bipartisanship. And, I would hope it was clear, but the Republicans don't seem to really want bipartisanship. And yet he continues to "compromise"!
Mister President, allow me to speak candidly directly to you. Presumptuous of me, I know, but indulge me. STOP ACTING LIKE A SENATOR!
SENATORS compromise on legislation. PRESIDENTS should not. SENATORS need to make things palatable. PRESIDENTS stand firm.
For a while, it looked as if Obama was going to sacrifice the public option on the altar of bipartisanship. Then, loads of angry progressives bombarded Congress and the White House with e-mails and phone calls, and the public option is back. The message? "STAY ON HIM, AND PROTEST AND COMPLAIN AND FORCE HIM TO NOT BUDGE".
As a member of the LGBTQ community, I was wary of Obama's "I'm a Christian, but civil unions are okay" stance, and had hopes that he would at least realize that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. (Personally, it's an "I'll be Civil when I've got ALL my Rights" issue) However, when his Department of Justice came out and defended DOMA, that's the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996 (Click here for the WikiArticle on DOMA), it surprised and angered many in the community. And many gay Democrats who were big donors BOYCOTTED a DNC meeting where Biden was the keynote speaker. The LGBTQ community has always sided with the Democrats, but it's almost a case of "battered spouse syndrome", to quote The Advocate magazine. We get politically screwed, only to come back with wallets open. And while there are quite a few Democrats who are full supporters (Kirsten Gillibrand, Barbara Boxer, etc.), Obama has disappointed us again and again.
So, on health care and gay rights, he's had mixed opinions and mixed results. In regards to the economy, he's done a little better, but the Troubled Asset Relief Program for the banks and the stimulus plan haven't fully worked, and there hasn't been any weaning of corporate welfare.
Foreign policy, my forte, is where he's done a lot of good. My only real complaints in regards to foreign policy are Iraq and Afghanistan, simply because they're both quagmires to some extent (Afghanistan is the place where big powers go to get their asses kicked and and lose, and Iraq...well, I could spend a whole post on Iraq, and I probably will). Oh, and torture and Guantanamo Bay, which I will also mention in another post.
If I had to give him a grade so far, it'd be a C-.
EDIT: I had forgotten about his nomination and appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Because of that, I'll revise my previous grade of a C- for him and up it to a B-.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Next Republican Presidential Candiate (Part 3)
The following is part three of an extended series of posts that will analyze possible candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. These posts will take a look and who is likely to win the Republican Presidential Nomination, not the general election. While 2012 may be long ahead, I will make these predication as practical and logical as possible.Today I will talk about two dark horse candidates, these may be names you are completely unaware of. Mississippi Govonor, Haley Barbour and former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Marco Rubio.
Haley Barbour
In all honesty, Barbour doesn't have too much going on for him at all. He does have executive experience which most successful presidential candidates have. He's also a strong conservative which the base loves. In the mid 1990s he was RNC chairman, a rather effective one too. He's from the south, which will be great in the primary election. He also comes off as charming, and he's not that old (he'll be 64 in 2012). On the flip side Barbour has a lot going against him. He's overweight and has a very thick southern accent, and while it's terrible, many Americans associate those things with a lack of intelligence. Among his party, he's unpopular. In July 2009, a Rassmussen Reports poll indicated that 34% of registered Republicans have a favorable view of him. However, 37% dislike him, which is the highest unfavorable percentage among 5 other possible Republican candidates for 2012: Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty. Also, 21% of GOP voters would least like to see Barbour win the party nomination in 2012. Seriously, when you are losing to Cheney, there's a problem, but who knows, maybe he could change his image. There are also strong allegations that Barbour has personally profited from Hurricane Katrina recovery. Barbour has also received harsh criticism for his refusal to approve a bill to increase the cigarette tax and decrease the grocery tax passed the state House of Representatives. Mississippi currently has the third-lowest cigarette tax and the highest grocery tax—while being the poorest state in the country. Also Fred Thompson's campaign finance investigation found that Barbour, as RNC chair, was involved in illegally raising money from overseas sources.
Marco Rubio
Rubio is what I like to call the Obama of the GOP. Not only because he is very attractive and a minority (Cuban decent) but because he is very charismatic. Compared to every other possible candidate I've done so far, this guy blows them out of the water when it comes to speaking, the only one who comes close is Romney. I mean when I heard this guy speak, I knew this guy could possibly be some serious trouble for Obama down the road. He's also very young (he'll be 42 in 2012), don't forget, youth represents change. He is a very strong fiscal conservative, which the base will eat up. He also doesn't have any dirt on his record, and he's popular in his state, which is a big swing state. On the negative he has no name recognition, and if he doesn't become Senator in 2010 (he's running against Crist) he basically has no chance in hell. He also has no executive experience. He's a poor fundraiser, and like Bobby Jindal, he's Cathloic which could be a problem with the Evanglical base.
Conclusion
So there you have it, two dark horse candidates. Barbour is highly unlikely, and he really doesn't have anything going on for him. While his personality may seem charming, he's known around town to be quite corrupt. Plus he's an old fat white southerner, which is an image the GOP wants to get away from. But who knows, dark horses can get elected, and even win the presidency (Look at Franklin Pierce). Rubio is a serious force to be reckoned with if he becomes Senator. In fact, if he becomes Senator, and he chooses to run, I would put all my money on Rubio. But again, that's a big if, Crist will probably win the seat anyways. It doesn't mean Rubio will be out though, just down.
Haley Barbour
In all honesty, Barbour doesn't have too much going on for him at all. He does have executive experience which most successful presidential candidates have. He's also a strong conservative which the base loves. In the mid 1990s he was RNC chairman, a rather effective one too. He's from the south, which will be great in the primary election. He also comes off as charming, and he's not that old (he'll be 64 in 2012). On the flip side Barbour has a lot going against him. He's overweight and has a very thick southern accent, and while it's terrible, many Americans associate those things with a lack of intelligence. Among his party, he's unpopular. In July 2009, a Rassmussen Reports poll indicated that 34% of registered Republicans have a favorable view of him. However, 37% dislike him, which is the highest unfavorable percentage among 5 other possible Republican candidates for 2012: Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty. Also, 21% of GOP voters would least like to see Barbour win the party nomination in 2012. Seriously, when you are losing to Cheney, there's a problem, but who knows, maybe he could change his image. There are also strong allegations that Barbour has personally profited from Hurricane Katrina recovery. Barbour has also received harsh criticism for his refusal to approve a bill to increase the cigarette tax and decrease the grocery tax passed the state House of Representatives. Mississippi currently has the third-lowest cigarette tax and the highest grocery tax—while being the poorest state in the country. Also Fred Thompson's campaign finance investigation found that Barbour, as RNC chair, was involved in illegally raising money from overseas sources.
Marco Rubio
Rubio is what I like to call the Obama of the GOP. Not only because he is very attractive and a minority (Cuban decent) but because he is very charismatic. Compared to every other possible candidate I've done so far, this guy blows them out of the water when it comes to speaking, the only one who comes close is Romney. I mean when I heard this guy speak, I knew this guy could possibly be some serious trouble for Obama down the road. He's also very young (he'll be 42 in 2012), don't forget, youth represents change. He is a very strong fiscal conservative, which the base will eat up. He also doesn't have any dirt on his record, and he's popular in his state, which is a big swing state. On the negative he has no name recognition, and if he doesn't become Senator in 2010 (he's running against Crist) he basically has no chance in hell. He also has no executive experience. He's a poor fundraiser, and like Bobby Jindal, he's Cathloic which could be a problem with the Evanglical base.
Conclusion
So there you have it, two dark horse candidates. Barbour is highly unlikely, and he really doesn't have anything going on for him. While his personality may seem charming, he's known around town to be quite corrupt. Plus he's an old fat white southerner, which is an image the GOP wants to get away from. But who knows, dark horses can get elected, and even win the presidency (Look at Franklin Pierce). Rubio is a serious force to be reckoned with if he becomes Senator. In fact, if he becomes Senator, and he chooses to run, I would put all my money on Rubio. But again, that's a big if, Crist will probably win the seat anyways. It doesn't mean Rubio will be out though, just down.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Health Care Style Part 1 of whatever
Let's take a look at some of the lies being told about health care, mmkay? (Thank you to MoveOn.Org for the facts about the lies about health care. They are where I'm getting some of the information)
I'm going to start with number one, the "death panels".
Here's an example of a typical DP claim:
"I heard that President Obama wants to go around and kill my grandma! These death panels are mandatory, and you have to choose how you get killed! I ain't gonna go along with that!"
WRONG!
If you read Section 1233 of the reform legislation, there's mention of "Advanced Care Planning Consultation" (here's a link to the section in question. No mention of death panels here, sadly, just lots of parliamentary and legislative talk: http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/hr3200-sec1233.pdf)
Just to quickly summarize, all this would do is allow people to say what sorts of things they want done in case they die, and allow for the family to understand their wishes. It's supposed to make things easier on everyone, and is not supposed to push people to death or anything like that at all.
I mean, seriously? If the government wanted us to die, they'd deregulate everything hazardous, force McDonalds to have a "minimum"fat content, and put radioactive material in toothpaste.
Oh, and then announce the UN as the one-world government.
I'll continue this...or will I?
I'm going to start with number one, the "death panels".
Here's an example of a typical DP claim:
"I heard that President Obama wants to go around and kill my grandma! These death panels are mandatory, and you have to choose how you get killed! I ain't gonna go along with that!"
WRONG!
If you read Section 1233 of the reform legislation, there's mention of "Advanced Care Planning Consultation" (here's a link to the section in question. No mention of death panels here, sadly, just lots of parliamentary and legislative talk: http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/hr3200-sec1233.pdf)
Just to quickly summarize, all this would do is allow people to say what sorts of things they want done in case they die, and allow for the family to understand their wishes. It's supposed to make things easier on everyone, and is not supposed to push people to death or anything like that at all.
I mean, seriously? If the government wanted us to die, they'd deregulate everything hazardous, force McDonalds to have a "minimum"fat content, and put radioactive material in toothpaste.
Oh, and then announce the UN as the one-world government.
I'll continue this...or will I?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Best Idea I've heard all week
Let the GOP Filibuster. Call their bluff. Either get behind health care reform or pay the consequences.
91% of Americans Suport Health care reform in some form. if a single entitie assures that dosen't happen Watch out.
The Republicans can whine and cry and compare Obama to Hitler all they want but at the end of the day, When they filibuster, eventually they will cave and just look bad. So let them do it,
91% of Americans Suport Health care reform in some form. if a single entitie assures that dosen't happen Watch out.
The Republicans can whine and cry and compare Obama to Hitler all they want but at the end of the day, When they filibuster, eventually they will cave and just look bad. So let them do it,
Thursday, August 13, 2009
5 Things The Media Over Hyped And Wouldn't Shut Up About This Year
The Aftermath of the Iran Election
Yeah, I know what your thinking, the turmoil in Iran is a serious deal, and world politics are important. Yeah, that's true, but the entire week before Jackson's death, the media wouldn't drop Iran. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, it was all about Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, and riots. There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time too, I mean, at Obama's press conference that week, over 80% of the questions were about Iran. What ever happened to the economy, or health care, or even the War in Iraq.
Twitter (and other social networking websites)
Tweeting, twittering, twating, I just don't care. Seriously, CNN just won't shut up about it. Hearing about Newt Gingrich's horribly short hand and slang, Sarah Palin's Facebook or Rachael Maddow raving about twitter. I think it's so funny when the daytime CNN anchors beg for people to tweet them or when Don Lemon reads a name like "sassygirl86" and stumbles over horrible myspace grammar.
Swine Flu Outbreak
N1H1 or Swine Flu or whatever you want to call about it. The media just over hyped it to death, you got millions of people dying from malayria, and 1000s dying from the regular flu but when a few dozen people catch the N1H1 virus, everyone goes crazy. I don't really get it, and I never really did, seriously flu masks were selling crazy for those two weeks.
The Beer Summit
Race is a serious problem in America, and the Gates arrest was something that the media should have talked about. But Obama getting involved and hosting a beer summit was laughable. And Fox News complaining that Obama wasn't drinking an American beer, and CNN mentioning how it was funny that Biden was drinking a non-alcoholic beverage was just silly. I wonder who coined the term beer summit, I think the name was realy why the media hopped on the story.
Obama's Family
Obama's family is cool, and sometimes I like to hear about them, but the media takes it too far sometimes. Seriously, I don't care about Michelle Obama's arms, yeah they are nice, but people telling her to cover them up is outrageous. The media analyzing what she wears and the Huffington Post raving about all her outfits just confuses me. She is an educated woman who is very successful and all the media wants to talk about is what she wears. And Malia and Sasha Obama are in the media way too much considering their age. Am I the only one who realizes how every time David Shuster mentions the Obama children he has to mention the Jonas Brothers too? One time he was talking about how they probably were talking about the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana at the cafeteria. Another time, Shuster couldn't shut up about a doll one of the girls had. And MSNBC talking about what they were eating for lunch, I mean, seriously if I were the President I would tell the media to lay off my kids.
I hope you guys enjoyed this post. As a contrast, expect a post from me about 5 things the media doesn't talk about enough in the not to distant future.
Yeah, I know what your thinking, the turmoil in Iran is a serious deal, and world politics are important. Yeah, that's true, but the entire week before Jackson's death, the media wouldn't drop Iran. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, it was all about Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, and riots. There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time too, I mean, at Obama's press conference that week, over 80% of the questions were about Iran. What ever happened to the economy, or health care, or even the War in Iraq.
Twitter (and other social networking websites)
Tweeting, twittering, twating, I just don't care. Seriously, CNN just won't shut up about it. Hearing about Newt Gingrich's horribly short hand and slang, Sarah Palin's Facebook or Rachael Maddow raving about twitter. I think it's so funny when the daytime CNN anchors beg for people to tweet them or when Don Lemon reads a name like "sassygirl86" and stumbles over horrible myspace grammar.
Swine Flu Outbreak
N1H1 or Swine Flu or whatever you want to call about it. The media just over hyped it to death, you got millions of people dying from malayria, and 1000s dying from the regular flu but when a few dozen people catch the N1H1 virus, everyone goes crazy. I don't really get it, and I never really did, seriously flu masks were selling crazy for those two weeks.
The Beer Summit
Race is a serious problem in America, and the Gates arrest was something that the media should have talked about. But Obama getting involved and hosting a beer summit was laughable. And Fox News complaining that Obama wasn't drinking an American beer, and CNN mentioning how it was funny that Biden was drinking a non-alcoholic beverage was just silly. I wonder who coined the term beer summit, I think the name was realy why the media hopped on the story.
Obama's Family
Obama's family is cool, and sometimes I like to hear about them, but the media takes it too far sometimes. Seriously, I don't care about Michelle Obama's arms, yeah they are nice, but people telling her to cover them up is outrageous. The media analyzing what she wears and the Huffington Post raving about all her outfits just confuses me. She is an educated woman who is very successful and all the media wants to talk about is what she wears. And Malia and Sasha Obama are in the media way too much considering their age. Am I the only one who realizes how every time David Shuster mentions the Obama children he has to mention the Jonas Brothers too? One time he was talking about how they probably were talking about the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana at the cafeteria. Another time, Shuster couldn't shut up about a doll one of the girls had. And MSNBC talking about what they were eating for lunch, I mean, seriously if I were the President I would tell the media to lay off my kids.
I hope you guys enjoyed this post. As a contrast, expect a post from me about 5 things the media doesn't talk about enough in the not to distant future.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Health Care
Health Care Reform has been a major part of the democrats agenda for 65 years. Time after time the democrats have failed to deliver on their promises to bring true reform. Why do we have any reason to think 2009 is going to turn out better than 1994?
For one the democrats super majority adds to our confidence. In 1994 the Democrats only had 56 Seats, in 2009 They have 60. Though some of them may be moderate no one wants to be "the Senator that killed Health Care". You may get a Democrat or two voting against health care, like Nelson (D-NE) or Lincoln (D-AR), but in the end they will have the votes. I believe that if they can't get Nelson they can get Snowe (R-ME), If they can't get Lincoln they can get Collins (R-ME), If they can't get Leiberman (I-CT) they might even be able to get Lugar (R-IN). And even after the true moderates you could get a surprise or two. Voinivich (R-OH), McCain (R-AZ), Corker (R-TN) and Gregg (R-NH) are all Semi-moderates that could go for health care reform. This puts democrats at 67 Potential votes. And then you have another potential vote in Charlie Crist. His Appointment could easily be a moderate, or even a conservative place holder that will support health care reform. This puts the democrats at 68 Possible vote. as long as they get 60 of these They will have the votes.
Also the public's support for health care will help the wheels to turn. Don't be fooled by the bogus numbers that only 50% of Americans support Obama's Health Care Plan. Most Americans Don't even know what it is. The truth is that 71% of Americans support reform in some form. If the congress can't do something that 71% of our citizens support we need to seriously rethink our form of democracy.
Finally the fact is we need to do it. 1 in 6 Americans are uninsured. If these people have major health problems our answer to them is "Fuck you, what are you going to do about it?". Even people who have health insurance have problems getting vital surgeries approved. Preexisting conditions can cause people to choose between selling their house and dying. Every Western European country and Canada have systems that work. We are stuck in the dark. Insurance cost are rising to a projected $25,000 a year. This will bankrupt our country. things need to be done.
Though it may be frightening right now, at the end of the day I think we will have real reform.
For one the democrats super majority adds to our confidence. In 1994 the Democrats only had 56 Seats, in 2009 They have 60. Though some of them may be moderate no one wants to be "the Senator that killed Health Care". You may get a Democrat or two voting against health care, like Nelson (D-NE) or Lincoln (D-AR), but in the end they will have the votes. I believe that if they can't get Nelson they can get Snowe (R-ME), If they can't get Lincoln they can get Collins (R-ME), If they can't get Leiberman (I-CT) they might even be able to get Lugar (R-IN). And even after the true moderates you could get a surprise or two. Voinivich (R-OH), McCain (R-AZ), Corker (R-TN) and Gregg (R-NH) are all Semi-moderates that could go for health care reform. This puts democrats at 67 Potential votes. And then you have another potential vote in Charlie Crist. His Appointment could easily be a moderate, or even a conservative place holder that will support health care reform. This puts the democrats at 68 Possible vote. as long as they get 60 of these They will have the votes.
Also the public's support for health care will help the wheels to turn. Don't be fooled by the bogus numbers that only 50% of Americans support Obama's Health Care Plan. Most Americans Don't even know what it is. The truth is that 71% of Americans support reform in some form. If the congress can't do something that 71% of our citizens support we need to seriously rethink our form of democracy.
Finally the fact is we need to do it. 1 in 6 Americans are uninsured. If these people have major health problems our answer to them is "Fuck you, what are you going to do about it?". Even people who have health insurance have problems getting vital surgeries approved. Preexisting conditions can cause people to choose between selling their house and dying. Every Western European country and Canada have systems that work. We are stuck in the dark. Insurance cost are rising to a projected $25,000 a year. This will bankrupt our country. things need to be done.
Though it may be frightening right now, at the end of the day I think we will have real reform.
A quick note
Unemployment dropped to 9.4%. This is only the 2nd time unemployment has dropped since April 2008. So the economy is starting to have a few bright spots.
Friday, August 7, 2009
"A Tale of Two Johns: Part Two"
Not too long ago, I presented you all with the first fruit of my labors, Part One of the fascinating saga of not keeping it in your pants, "A Tale of Two Johns", dealing with Democrat John Edwards. I now bring you Part Two, dealing with Republican John Ensign.
And what a fascinating part this is.
"I go by the name of the King Adrock..."
Senator Ensign released a statement on June 16th of 2009 that announced that he had been having an affair sometime in the period between December 2007 and August 2008. On the same day, his wife issued the traditional political wife's "I love my husband and we're working out the problem", as if it's something as benign or innocent as him leaving his boxers on the floor or not rinsing out his coffee cup. So far, nothing out of the ordinary. Woman he had an affair with? On his campaign staff. He resigns from his unpaid leadership position in the Senate Republican Caucus. Still par for the course so far.
However, things get juicier when it turns out that the woman's husband is also on the Senator's staff. The husband had sent a letter to Fox News prior to Ensign's announcement. It turns out that Ensign had continued to go after the woman even after people like Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okie) had told him to stop. Senator N-Sync, it turned out, had his parents give the woman, Cynthia Hampton, and her husband $96,000. He also gave their 19-year-0ld son a position on the RNC payroll as a "policy consultant".
"I don't wear a cup nor a jock...I bring the shit that's beyond bizarre..."
Weird enough for ya, yet? It gets even more weird.
It turns out that Senator En-Side is a member of a secretive Christian political organization informally known as The Family (more on that possibly later). Anyway, the Family intervened and told him to stop. With the help of Senator Cold Burn, they essentially kidnapped Senator En-sipid and made him write a letter ending the affair. At some point Senator Encinal got away and phoned Cynthia and told her to disregard the letter. The next fucking day(!!!!!) he flies out to Vegas to be with her!
And he voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton!
Why his affair matters
It's for basically the same reasons as John Edwards, only more so. The GOP, and Senator Ensign, have made family values and traditional living and all that other neo-Fifties crap a part of their platform. They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. They harp and harangue about this sort of shit...and then they get caught with a prostitute. (However, as long as the prostitute or person is female, tis okay).
Also, it's not just the affair itself, it's the intervention of The Family (sounds Mafia-esque). I know that teachers everywhere will hate me for this, but use Wikipedia to look up The Family. Ties to third-world dictators, belief that members are above the law...it's downright eerie.
Political Prospects
I'm gonna have to say that En-sightful is lucky to keep his Senate seat, and that any hope of higher office is squelched...at least until people forget. Which they've probably begun to.
And what a fascinating part this is.
"I go by the name of the King Adrock..."
Senator Ensign released a statement on June 16th of 2009 that announced that he had been having an affair sometime in the period between December 2007 and August 2008. On the same day, his wife issued the traditional political wife's "I love my husband and we're working out the problem", as if it's something as benign or innocent as him leaving his boxers on the floor or not rinsing out his coffee cup. So far, nothing out of the ordinary. Woman he had an affair with? On his campaign staff. He resigns from his unpaid leadership position in the Senate Republican Caucus. Still par for the course so far.
However, things get juicier when it turns out that the woman's husband is also on the Senator's staff. The husband had sent a letter to Fox News prior to Ensign's announcement. It turns out that Ensign had continued to go after the woman even after people like Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okie) had told him to stop. Senator N-Sync, it turned out, had his parents give the woman, Cynthia Hampton, and her husband $96,000. He also gave their 19-year-0ld son a position on the RNC payroll as a "policy consultant".
"I don't wear a cup nor a jock...I bring the shit that's beyond bizarre..."
Weird enough for ya, yet? It gets even more weird.
It turns out that Senator En-Side is a member of a secretive Christian political organization informally known as The Family (more on that possibly later). Anyway, the Family intervened and told him to stop. With the help of Senator Cold Burn, they essentially kidnapped Senator En-sipid and made him write a letter ending the affair. At some point Senator Encinal got away and phoned Cynthia and told her to disregard the letter. The next fucking day(!!!!!) he flies out to Vegas to be with her!
And he voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton!
Why his affair matters
It's for basically the same reasons as John Edwards, only more so. The GOP, and Senator Ensign, have made family values and traditional living and all that other neo-Fifties crap a part of their platform. They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. They harp and harangue about this sort of shit...and then they get caught with a prostitute. (However, as long as the prostitute or person is female, tis okay).
Also, it's not just the affair itself, it's the intervention of The Family (sounds Mafia-esque). I know that teachers everywhere will hate me for this, but use Wikipedia to look up The Family. Ties to third-world dictators, belief that members are above the law...it's downright eerie.
Political Prospects
I'm gonna have to say that En-sightful is lucky to keep his Senate seat, and that any hope of higher office is squelched...at least until people forget. Which they've probably begun to.
The Next Republican Presidenital Candiate (Part 2)
The following is part two of an extended series of posts that will analyze possible candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. These posts will take a look and who is likely to win the Republican Presidential Nomination, not the general election. While 2012 may be long ahead, I will make these predication as practical and logical as possible. I will discuss the pros and cons of two potential candidates today, Florida Governor, Charlie Crist and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney.
Charlie Crist
Charlie Crist is a very strong candiate and is definatly on the radar. He has a bi-partisan record which most voters, even party members like. Crist is also seen by the media as an intelligent person, and a very rational politician, he's also a good public speaker. He is also a very popular govonor, in a big state, the Flordia delegates would be in the bag for him. Crist is planning on running for Senate in 2010, and if he wins, he'll be able to say he has legislative and executive experience, something very few candidates have both of. Recently, Senator Mel Martinez of Flordia has announced that he will be resigning his position which means Crist gets to replace him. Crist could appoint himself, or someone he could easily beat in a primary next year and hopefully beat the Democratic nomination (most likely African American Congressmen Meek). However, like evry candiate, Crist does have some drawbacks. He is sort of a moderate, which in a presidential primary isn't the best thing. There are some serious rumors that Crist is a homosexual, which doesn't help in the Republican base, though these rumors are not necessarily true, I do think Crist's sexuality will be a factor in his potential presidential run, and the media will talk about it.
Mitt Romney
Romney is obviously a front runnner, many Republicans say that if he were the nominee rather than McCain, Barack Obama would not be president now. Romney is very popular among fiscal conservatives which is a great thing in a presidential primary. He also is an excellent fundraiser, and he has a lot of money himself, he should have no problems with money. He is an excellent debater, probably the best debater in the 2008 Presidential Primary debates, and a great speaker too. Romney has a few problems however. for starters, he's a Mormon, which for many Evangelical voters is a strong negative. In Iowa, Romney lost to Huckabee, even though he out spent him 20 to 1 (also don't forget, Mitt didn't get second to McCain, Huckabee did). I personally believe this was because he was a Mormon and many voters in the primary were uncomfortable with that which is a shame. Romney also did horribly in the South, which is a major problem. Of course, being a multi millionaire isn't something many voters can relate to, and he's beginning to get a little old.
Conclusion
Crist is an obvious front runner even if he doesn't become a Senator, defiantly keep an eye out on him. Romney might be the most overrated candiate of all, because although he's qualified and what not, him being a Mormon will haunt him forever. But I certainly wouldn't count out Romney (expect to possibly see him on the bottom of the ticket). Don't put your money on Romney, put it on Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
Charlie Crist
Charlie Crist is a very strong candiate and is definatly on the radar. He has a bi-partisan record which most voters, even party members like. Crist is also seen by the media as an intelligent person, and a very rational politician, he's also a good public speaker. He is also a very popular govonor, in a big state, the Flordia delegates would be in the bag for him. Crist is planning on running for Senate in 2010, and if he wins, he'll be able to say he has legislative and executive experience, something very few candidates have both of. Recently, Senator Mel Martinez of Flordia has announced that he will be resigning his position which means Crist gets to replace him. Crist could appoint himself, or someone he could easily beat in a primary next year and hopefully beat the Democratic nomination (most likely African American Congressmen Meek). However, like evry candiate, Crist does have some drawbacks. He is sort of a moderate, which in a presidential primary isn't the best thing. There are some serious rumors that Crist is a homosexual, which doesn't help in the Republican base, though these rumors are not necessarily true, I do think Crist's sexuality will be a factor in his potential presidential run, and the media will talk about it.
Mitt Romney
Romney is obviously a front runnner, many Republicans say that if he were the nominee rather than McCain, Barack Obama would not be president now. Romney is very popular among fiscal conservatives which is a great thing in a presidential primary. He also is an excellent fundraiser, and he has a lot of money himself, he should have no problems with money. He is an excellent debater, probably the best debater in the 2008 Presidential Primary debates, and a great speaker too. Romney has a few problems however. for starters, he's a Mormon, which for many Evangelical voters is a strong negative. In Iowa, Romney lost to Huckabee, even though he out spent him 20 to 1 (also don't forget, Mitt didn't get second to McCain, Huckabee did). I personally believe this was because he was a Mormon and many voters in the primary were uncomfortable with that which is a shame. Romney also did horribly in the South, which is a major problem. Of course, being a multi millionaire isn't something many voters can relate to, and he's beginning to get a little old.
Conclusion
Crist is an obvious front runner even if he doesn't become a Senator, defiantly keep an eye out on him. Romney might be the most overrated candiate of all, because although he's qualified and what not, him being a Mormon will haunt him forever. But I certainly wouldn't count out Romney (expect to possibly see him on the bottom of the ticket). Don't put your money on Romney, put it on Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
"Birth" of a Problem
Now, it's not a recent occurrence, this "birther" bullshit. You know, the group of conservatives who feel that Barack Obama was born overseas and is not a U.S. citizen and thus cannot and should not serve as President. It had died down a little, but now, with the appearance of a new "Kenyan" birth certificate, it has heated up...although the certificate has a few "errors", like the fact that the city the hospital is in isn't part of Kenya until years later, or that the country it is from doesn't exist in that name also until years later.
However, the factual problems aside, there is a more concerning aspect of this whole birther movement. Let's break it on down:
Ideology, Ideology, Ideology
According to a poll conducted by Research 2000 study done for the website Daily Kos, only 42 percent of Republicans polled believe that President Obama was born in the United States. 30 percent of those polled said they weren't sure, and 28 percent said they didn't believe he was born in the United States. A combined 58 percent either don't believe or aren't sure if he was born in the United States! In comparison, 93 percent of Democrats polled and 83 percent of Independents believe that President Obama was born in the United States.
Even with the overwhelming evidence of President Obama's birth in Hawaii, the fact that a bare plurality of Republican respondents believe that he is a natural-born US citizen should be and is concerning. However, when you look at the results by region, it just gets worse.
Location, Location, Location
I'ma take y'all on down to the South, wherein we'll catch ourselves a glance at these heeyah poll results. Even taking Democrats and independents into count, only 47 percent of respondents from the South believed that President Obama is a natural-born US citizen. Conversely, when you look at the results from respondents in the Northeast and Midwest, the people who believed he was born in the US was over 90 percent.
I'm not racist, but...
This is, quite frankly, fucking scary and deadly serious. The birther movement has exposed an ugly fact about America: There is still racism and intense bigotry and hatred in our country. Now, you may ask what racism has to do with this. I can almost hear what you're saying:
"Now, the Republicans may be using this as a political ploy. They obviously don't agree with him. But racism, Sean? Where is this coming from?"
Let me explain. During the election, this claim was raised. However, many people seem to forget that Senator John McCain (R-Bedrock) was also accused of not being born in the United States, due to the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (The Wikipedia article on the PCZ has an explanation of citizenship issues that's pretty good). Those claims and calls for McCain to drop out or show his certificate dropped very fast.
However, Obama is constantly being plagued. If Obama was named Barry O'Bannon and was as pale as Fred Armisen or Amy Poehler, would we be having these issues? Let me answer: NO.
It's a concerted effort to undermine and demean the first black President of the United States. It's racially motivated, and an ugly reminder of not just how far we've come, but how far we still have to go.
And the problem with the rhetoric is that it's getting more acrimonious. The man that shot up the church of liberals, the man who killed Dr. Tiller, the man who shot up the Holocaust Museum...they all believed in this, and other fringe theories. It won't be long before something much worse occurs. Should something happen to Obama or his family...well, the United States will see rioting and violence and chaos surpassing Watts and Dr. King's death. I hate to sound so dire, but the Republican Party, and America, is fast coming to a moment of reckoning.
Let us hope that day comes without event.
However, the factual problems aside, there is a more concerning aspect of this whole birther movement. Let's break it on down:
Ideology, Ideology, Ideology
According to a poll conducted by Research 2000 study done for the website Daily Kos, only 42 percent of Republicans polled believe that President Obama was born in the United States. 30 percent of those polled said they weren't sure, and 28 percent said they didn't believe he was born in the United States. A combined 58 percent either don't believe or aren't sure if he was born in the United States! In comparison, 93 percent of Democrats polled and 83 percent of Independents believe that President Obama was born in the United States.
Even with the overwhelming evidence of President Obama's birth in Hawaii, the fact that a bare plurality of Republican respondents believe that he is a natural-born US citizen should be and is concerning. However, when you look at the results by region, it just gets worse.
Location, Location, Location
I'ma take y'all on down to the South, wherein we'll catch ourselves a glance at these heeyah poll results. Even taking Democrats and independents into count, only 47 percent of respondents from the South believed that President Obama is a natural-born US citizen. Conversely, when you look at the results from respondents in the Northeast and Midwest, the people who believed he was born in the US was over 90 percent.
I'm not racist, but...
This is, quite frankly, fucking scary and deadly serious. The birther movement has exposed an ugly fact about America: There is still racism and intense bigotry and hatred in our country. Now, you may ask what racism has to do with this. I can almost hear what you're saying:
"Now, the Republicans may be using this as a political ploy. They obviously don't agree with him. But racism, Sean? Where is this coming from?"
Let me explain. During the election, this claim was raised. However, many people seem to forget that Senator John McCain (R-Bedrock) was also accused of not being born in the United States, due to the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (The Wikipedia article on the PCZ has an explanation of citizenship issues that's pretty good). Those claims and calls for McCain to drop out or show his certificate dropped very fast.
However, Obama is constantly being plagued. If Obama was named Barry O'Bannon and was as pale as Fred Armisen or Amy Poehler, would we be having these issues? Let me answer: NO.
It's a concerted effort to undermine and demean the first black President of the United States. It's racially motivated, and an ugly reminder of not just how far we've come, but how far we still have to go.
And the problem with the rhetoric is that it's getting more acrimonious. The man that shot up the church of liberals, the man who killed Dr. Tiller, the man who shot up the Holocaust Museum...they all believed in this, and other fringe theories. It won't be long before something much worse occurs. Should something happen to Obama or his family...well, the United States will see rioting and violence and chaos surpassing Watts and Dr. King's death. I hate to sound so dire, but the Republican Party, and America, is fast coming to a moment of reckoning.
Let us hope that day comes without event.
Generic Ballot/Party Identification
I feel guilty writing about this because this site has yet to discuss the major issue of the day: Health Care, but there is a statute of limitation on polls and I will still be able to talk about health care tomorrow and next week.
On Monday a major poll came out and it is bad news for the GOP. Some polls have started to show a come back for the republican party. Some generic ballot polls have even showed them leading the democrats. An NPR Poll showed the GOP ahead 43%-42%, and today the Rasmussen tracking poll (Which in 2008 leaned to the right and again seems to be trending that way) Shows the Republican party ahead of the Democrats by 5 (43%-38%). These polls would give the GOP reasons to be optimistic for 2010 and maybe even 2012. Well on Monday Gallup put a major strain on their optimism.
Gallup did a 50 state party Identification poll with a HUGE Sample Size. 160,000 People were polled, compared to just 425 in the NPR Poll. This huge sample size brings the Margin of Error down to just .24%. This poll showed that there are only 4 Strong red states compared to 30 (Including DC) strong blue states. The Electoral vote for 2008 under such an election would be 353-15 (The Map changes in 2012). Further more it shows 37 Leaning or Strong blue states compared to just 5 Red (439-24). and if you want to do a whole map there are 43 States where Democrats hold an edge and just 6 Where the GOP does (2 Tied). On the 2008 Electoral map this translates to a landslide victory of 500 to 30 (8 Tied) For the Democrats.
This isn't the only shocking part of the poll. States Like Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Indiana are now strong blue states according to the poll. Kentucky gives Dem's a 16 point advantage, Indiana (Which went for Obama by a slim margin) gives them a 10 point advantage . Arkansas Goes to the Democrats by 15 and in West Virginia, a state where Obama lost by 13 points, Dems have a 20 Point advantage. Now I wouldn't start predicting a 20 point win for Obama in Kentucky in 2012, but I certainly would not rule out the possibility that he takes the state (Even though he lost by 17 in November).
Now Some Swing states surprise me too. In Ohio, the Swingiest of swing states, that has predicted the winner of every election since 1944, Democrats hold a 14 Point advantage. In Missouri, a State where Obama lost by the slimmest margin in the entire nation, That has correctly picked the president all but 2 times since 1900 (1956 and 2008), Democrats also hold a 14 point advantage. In Virginia and North Carolina, both of which were considered Red States up until at least 2006, the democrats hold a 12 point advantage. In Florida and Colorado Democrats lead by 9.
There are also Red states that are no longer red states. Texas Gives Dem's a 2 Point advantage. That is the same Texas where George W. Bush was governor, and the currant governor, Rick Perry was/is toying with succession. Oklahoma, The state that is represented in the senate by the most conservative of the most conservative, Tom Coburn who wants to put abortion doctors to death, and James Inhoff who denies global warming, The buck eye states prefers democrats by a 5 point margin. Louisiana also prefers Democrats by 5, Completely understandable after George Bush left it's biggest city, alone, under water for 5 days. and South Carolina Who's Junior Senator wants health care to be Obama's "Waterloo" Now prefers Democrats by 2.
There are a couple other things I want to point out. The Median of the poll, North Carolina Prefers Democrats by 12. I want to draw attention to the States that have a PVI (Partisan Voting Index) of D/R +0. This means they reflect the country within 1% of how it votes. Florida and Colorado are Two of these states they Prefer Democrats by 9. Ohio is also one, the Democrats hold a 14 Point advantage there.
Now what does all this mean for 2010. Democrats hold approximately a 10.67% Generic ballot lead. This is similar to the lead they held in 2008 and 2006. I'm guessing in the house if they held this it would mean a net of +/- 5 seats. Midterm losses or gains would not be big enough to make any major difference in the halls of congress.
How ever if these state Margins hold until 2012 prepare for Obama to win reelection with 450+ Electoral Votes. If the GOP dosen't change before election night 2012, that will be a very, very long night for them.
On Monday a major poll came out and it is bad news for the GOP. Some polls have started to show a come back for the republican party. Some generic ballot polls have even showed them leading the democrats. An NPR Poll showed the GOP ahead 43%-42%, and today the Rasmussen tracking poll (Which in 2008 leaned to the right and again seems to be trending that way) Shows the Republican party ahead of the Democrats by 5 (43%-38%). These polls would give the GOP reasons to be optimistic for 2010 and maybe even 2012. Well on Monday Gallup put a major strain on their optimism.
Gallup did a 50 state party Identification poll with a HUGE Sample Size. 160,000 People were polled, compared to just 425 in the NPR Poll. This huge sample size brings the Margin of Error down to just .24%. This poll showed that there are only 4 Strong red states compared to 30 (Including DC) strong blue states. The Electoral vote for 2008 under such an election would be 353-15 (The Map changes in 2012). Further more it shows 37 Leaning or Strong blue states compared to just 5 Red (439-24). and if you want to do a whole map there are 43 States where Democrats hold an edge and just 6 Where the GOP does (2 Tied). On the 2008 Electoral map this translates to a landslide victory of 500 to 30 (8 Tied) For the Democrats.
This isn't the only shocking part of the poll. States Like Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Indiana are now strong blue states according to the poll. Kentucky gives Dem's a 16 point advantage, Indiana (Which went for Obama by a slim margin) gives them a 10 point advantage . Arkansas Goes to the Democrats by 15 and in West Virginia, a state where Obama lost by 13 points, Dems have a 20 Point advantage. Now I wouldn't start predicting a 20 point win for Obama in Kentucky in 2012, but I certainly would not rule out the possibility that he takes the state (Even though he lost by 17 in November).
Now Some Swing states surprise me too. In Ohio, the Swingiest of swing states, that has predicted the winner of every election since 1944, Democrats hold a 14 Point advantage. In Missouri, a State where Obama lost by the slimmest margin in the entire nation, That has correctly picked the president all but 2 times since 1900 (1956 and 2008), Democrats also hold a 14 point advantage. In Virginia and North Carolina, both of which were considered Red States up until at least 2006, the democrats hold a 12 point advantage. In Florida and Colorado Democrats lead by 9.
There are also Red states that are no longer red states. Texas Gives Dem's a 2 Point advantage. That is the same Texas where George W. Bush was governor, and the currant governor, Rick Perry was/is toying with succession. Oklahoma, The state that is represented in the senate by the most conservative of the most conservative, Tom Coburn who wants to put abortion doctors to death, and James Inhoff who denies global warming, The buck eye states prefers democrats by a 5 point margin. Louisiana also prefers Democrats by 5, Completely understandable after George Bush left it's biggest city, alone, under water for 5 days. and South Carolina Who's Junior Senator wants health care to be Obama's "Waterloo" Now prefers Democrats by 2.
There are a couple other things I want to point out. The Median of the poll, North Carolina Prefers Democrats by 12. I want to draw attention to the States that have a PVI (Partisan Voting Index) of D/R +0. This means they reflect the country within 1% of how it votes. Florida and Colorado are Two of these states they Prefer Democrats by 9. Ohio is also one, the Democrats hold a 14 Point advantage there.
Now what does all this mean for 2010. Democrats hold approximately a 10.67% Generic ballot lead. This is similar to the lead they held in 2008 and 2006. I'm guessing in the house if they held this it would mean a net of +/- 5 seats. Midterm losses or gains would not be big enough to make any major difference in the halls of congress.
How ever if these state Margins hold until 2012 prepare for Obama to win reelection with 450+ Electoral Votes. If the GOP dosen't change before election night 2012, that will be a very, very long night for them.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Stimulus is Working
Critics of President Obama have started to blame him for the bad economy. They believe all the stimulus did was add to our national debt. This has no factual basis whatsoever. There are no numbers you can come up with that will show that since the stimulus has passed the economy has gotten worse.
Let’s start with the stock market. The Dow fell about 2400 points in September under president Bush and continued on its slump until March 9th hitting Rock bottom at 6547. A 46% drop from its high point under Bush. Today the Dow Closed at 9320, which means it is up 42% from march. We could see the Dow back up to 12,000 by the end of the year, which would be approximately a 100% gain because of the stimulus. The S&P is up from 683 to 1005, 47% Jump, and the NASDAQ is up from 1268 to 2011, a 59% Jump.
Now lets look at unemployment , Though it is true that it is at 9.7% and headed up to 10% the Job loss rate has been cut substantially, Between November and December 08 the Job loss was .6%. Between December 08 and January 09 Unemployment jumped from 7.1% to 8.5%, a 1.4% Job Loss. February only saw a .4% Job Loss, March only a .1% and the Unemployment rate actually went down in April by .4%. to 8.6% Unfortunately the trend did not continue into may. it jumped .5% to 9.1 and again in June by .6% to 9.7%. Even though these numbers frankly suck, had there been no stimulus they would suck a lot more.
Our GDP is shrinking at a much slower rate under Obama and the stimulus. In the 3rd Quarter of 2008 our GDP shrank about 3% , in the 4th it Shrank about 5%. Obama inherited a 6 ½% Shrink in the first Quarter of 2009. By the 2nd Quarter of 2009 the shrinkage has slowed to just 1%. If that isn’t proof the stimulus is working I don’t know what is.
The Housing Market saw the Average home price raise this month for the first time in years. Programs like "Cash for Clunkers" have given auto makers reasons to produce again. Both are signs that our economy is on the road to recovery.
The worst of the Recession is over. We are starting to recover. Unemployment will stay high for a while but our Jobs will come back. The Stimulus is Working. The only logical argument against it is that it wasn’t big enough. If jobs continue to decline we may need a 2nd stimulus, perhaps a green one, but the 1st one is responsible for our economy’s faint signs of life. The Stimulus is a success.
Let’s start with the stock market. The Dow fell about 2400 points in September under president Bush and continued on its slump until March 9th hitting Rock bottom at 6547. A 46% drop from its high point under Bush. Today the Dow Closed at 9320, which means it is up 42% from march. We could see the Dow back up to 12,000 by the end of the year, which would be approximately a 100% gain because of the stimulus. The S&P is up from 683 to 1005, 47% Jump, and the NASDAQ is up from 1268 to 2011, a 59% Jump.
Now lets look at unemployment , Though it is true that it is at 9.7% and headed up to 10% the Job loss rate has been cut substantially, Between November and December 08 the Job loss was .6%. Between December 08 and January 09 Unemployment jumped from 7.1% to 8.5%, a 1.4% Job Loss. February only saw a .4% Job Loss, March only a .1% and the Unemployment rate actually went down in April by .4%. to 8.6% Unfortunately the trend did not continue into may. it jumped .5% to 9.1 and again in June by .6% to 9.7%. Even though these numbers frankly suck, had there been no stimulus they would suck a lot more.
Our GDP is shrinking at a much slower rate under Obama and the stimulus. In the 3rd Quarter of 2008 our GDP shrank about 3% , in the 4th it Shrank about 5%. Obama inherited a 6 ½% Shrink in the first Quarter of 2009. By the 2nd Quarter of 2009 the shrinkage has slowed to just 1%. If that isn’t proof the stimulus is working I don’t know what is.
The Housing Market saw the Average home price raise this month for the first time in years. Programs like "Cash for Clunkers" have given auto makers reasons to produce again. Both are signs that our economy is on the road to recovery.
The worst of the Recession is over. We are starting to recover. Unemployment will stay high for a while but our Jobs will come back. The Stimulus is Working. The only logical argument against it is that it wasn’t big enough. If jobs continue to decline we may need a 2nd stimulus, perhaps a green one, but the 1st one is responsible for our economy’s faint signs of life. The Stimulus is a success.
A Tale of Two Johns Part One
Although the media focus has been on Sarah Palin, the Beer Summit, and health care recently, there's a story...hell, there's two stories just as compelling and with far more sex, money, hushing up, hypocrisy, and falls from grace. A look at the Decline and Fall of two politician's careers. Both are ambitious, and both will have a long climb back up, if at all.
It's a tale of questionable ethics.
It's a tale of romance and intrigue and scandal.
It's...a Tale of Two Johns.
John Edwards
We'll start with the first "John", former one-term North Carolina Senator, two-time Democratic Presidential Candidate ('04 and '08) and two-timing husband of author, activist, and cancer fighter Elizabeth Edwards. Johnny Go-Lightly, in 2006, was hit up by a woman named Rielle Hunter, an actress and film producer, to do a series of "webisodes" for the upcoming 2008 Presidential Elections. He liked the idea, and signed on. His PAC, the "One America Committee" (which sounds a bit jingoistic and fascist, but maybe that's just me) paid $100,000 for the documentaries, plus another $14,461 later on.
Apparently, he liked more than just her film making skills. The affair lasted for a few months, and mention of it first appeared in one of the many tabloids, The National Enquirer, in October of 2007. Both Candidate Edwards and Ms. Hunter initially denied the allegations. The Enquirer publishes a follow-up story with a picture of Hunter, pregnant, and the allegation that Edwards is the father. (Some Maury Povich-like shit right here...)
After months of speculation (speaking of political speculation... ;) ) and coverage, it all came to a head in August of 2008, when Edwards finally admitted he had been unfaithful, but that he had not fathered the baby.
Why his affair matters
Now, those of you who might lean Libertarian are probably thinking "Why the hell does it matter? Isn't it a private thing, between him and his family and the other woman?"
Well, no. Johnny Go-Lightly made family values and that sort of shit a part of his campaign. His hypocrisy deserved to be exposed. And, quite frankly, a public figure, regardless of how they feel, is going to be under more scrutiny. Did I mention the hypocrisy?
Political Prospects
His political career doesn't look so good, to put it mildly. American voters are notoriously fickle and unforgiving, especially in regards to marital infidelity. To compound his problem, his wife had cancer. And the lingering questions about the baby's father will haunt him unless and until he takes the test. Now, although he has some good ideas and politics, his little friend has cost him any chance of having a future in electoral politics. He could potentially receive an appointment to some position, but nothing major or dealing with the law, for obvious reasons.
Edwards is, as it appears, consigned to the political dungheap for now.
When we next meet...
I'm working on the next entry in "A Tale of Two Johns", which will deal with Republican Senator from Nevada John Ensign, whose story is so much more interesting than Edwards. I'll also provide a comparison of the two at the end.
It's a tale of questionable ethics.
It's a tale of romance and intrigue and scandal.
It's...a Tale of Two Johns.
John Edwards
We'll start with the first "John", former one-term North Carolina Senator, two-time Democratic Presidential Candidate ('04 and '08) and two-timing husband of author, activist, and cancer fighter Elizabeth Edwards. Johnny Go-Lightly, in 2006, was hit up by a woman named Rielle Hunter, an actress and film producer, to do a series of "webisodes" for the upcoming 2008 Presidential Elections. He liked the idea, and signed on. His PAC, the "One America Committee" (which sounds a bit jingoistic and fascist, but maybe that's just me) paid $100,000 for the documentaries, plus another $14,461 later on.
Apparently, he liked more than just her film making skills. The affair lasted for a few months, and mention of it first appeared in one of the many tabloids, The National Enquirer, in October of 2007. Both Candidate Edwards and Ms. Hunter initially denied the allegations. The Enquirer publishes a follow-up story with a picture of Hunter, pregnant, and the allegation that Edwards is the father. (Some Maury Povich-like shit right here...)
After months of speculation (speaking of political speculation... ;) ) and coverage, it all came to a head in August of 2008, when Edwards finally admitted he had been unfaithful, but that he had not fathered the baby.
Why his affair matters
Now, those of you who might lean Libertarian are probably thinking "Why the hell does it matter? Isn't it a private thing, between him and his family and the other woman?"
Well, no. Johnny Go-Lightly made family values and that sort of shit a part of his campaign. His hypocrisy deserved to be exposed. And, quite frankly, a public figure, regardless of how they feel, is going to be under more scrutiny. Did I mention the hypocrisy?
Political Prospects
His political career doesn't look so good, to put it mildly. American voters are notoriously fickle and unforgiving, especially in regards to marital infidelity. To compound his problem, his wife had cancer. And the lingering questions about the baby's father will haunt him unless and until he takes the test. Now, although he has some good ideas and politics, his little friend has cost him any chance of having a future in electoral politics. He could potentially receive an appointment to some position, but nothing major or dealing with the law, for obvious reasons.
Edwards is, as it appears, consigned to the political dungheap for now.
When we next meet...
I'm working on the next entry in "A Tale of Two Johns", which will deal with Republican Senator from Nevada John Ensign, whose story is so much more interesting than Edwards. I'll also provide a comparison of the two at the end.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Next Republican Presidential Candiate (Part 1)
The following is part one of an extended series of posts that will analyze possible candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. These posts will take a look and who is likely to win the Republican Presidential Nomination, not the general election. While 2012 may be long ahead, I will make these predication as practical and logical as possible. I will discuss the pros and cons of two potential candidates today, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Bobby Jindal
Jindal is not your average politician. For starters, he's very young and has a fresh face, this is a good thing, youth in politics transcends well with voters because often times they are more likely to believe new ideas can come from new politicians. This was one of the main reasons Obama not only beat McCain, but Hillary as well. Jindal also comes from a very modest family background, he is a first generation American who's parents came from India, he represents the American dream, hard work leads to good reward. From a regional perspective Jindal is a good (not great) candidate, he may not be from a swing state, or even a swing region but he is from the south and a moderately large state (he also polls pretty well in his state), which represents a strong constituency in the Republican base, he will need those delegates. Jindal is also known for being a staunch conservative, which in a general election may not be best thing; however, in a primary race it is very important.
The Governor does have some tough hurdles to get over. For starters he wasn't always a Christian, until Jindal was 15, he was a Hindu. This could put off Evangelical voters who a large chunk of the Republican base (and 40% of Republicans in Iowa, the very first contest). Also even though he is a Christian, he is a Catholic who are seen by many Evangelicals as spiritually misguided. His parents are still Hindu, this could be another conflict for Jindal. His faith is going to have to be something he will have to confront on the campaign, which could turn into a huge distraction. Being a former Hindu, and a practicing Catholic will instantly turn off thousands of Evangelical voters which will be a major problem in Iowa and south Carolina, two very important contests. Another problem with Jindal are his speaking abilities, many people question if his speaking abilities are good. His response to the President's State of the Union address was widely seen as poor by conservatives and liberals.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich is a very experienced politician which helps him in many ways. For starters it has made him an excellent speaker, aside from Sarah Palin (whom I will speculate about her chances in the future), he is probably the most charismatic speaker who actually has a shot. It's not just public speaking either, it's his off the cuff stump speeches and interviews too. Gingrich's experience is responsible for the strong connections he has who will help him fund raise, which is very important in an election (The money will really help in New Hampshire). His experience has also made him very politically aware, Gingrich is an intellectual. Similar to Jindal, the former Speaker comes from the South (Georgia) which is helpful geographically. And while Gingrich is a Cathloic like Jindal, he was always a Christian, and will probably not have the same problems Jindal will have in that area.
Newt's long political career is filled with a lot baggage. In 1992, Gingrich bounced 22 checks when he along with other congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money, this is something that certainly can cause trouble. Gingrich also has had his fair share of problems with women which could cause problems with the Evanglical base, he was married 3 times, and he pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. That's just the surface of the Gingrich scandals. He's also old, we all remeber what happened to the last 72 year old who ran for president, he lost in an electoral landslide. Gingrich has also been a staunch defender of the Bush Administration, which in a post 2008 political landscape is very unpopular.
Conclusion
Jindal and Gingrich are both very unique candidates, as well as talented politicians but they both are extreme. One is too young, the other is too old. Gingrich is involved in moral scandals and Jindal is going to have a serious conflict with the religious right because of his past. They aren't totally out of the question, I mean they aren't dark horses (Chuck Hagel, Mark Sanford, etc.) but I certainly wouldn't put my money on them.
Bobby Jindal
Jindal is not your average politician. For starters, he's very young and has a fresh face, this is a good thing, youth in politics transcends well with voters because often times they are more likely to believe new ideas can come from new politicians. This was one of the main reasons Obama not only beat McCain, but Hillary as well. Jindal also comes from a very modest family background, he is a first generation American who's parents came from India, he represents the American dream, hard work leads to good reward. From a regional perspective Jindal is a good (not great) candidate, he may not be from a swing state, or even a swing region but he is from the south and a moderately large state (he also polls pretty well in his state), which represents a strong constituency in the Republican base, he will need those delegates. Jindal is also known for being a staunch conservative, which in a general election may not be best thing; however, in a primary race it is very important.
The Governor does have some tough hurdles to get over. For starters he wasn't always a Christian, until Jindal was 15, he was a Hindu. This could put off Evangelical voters who a large chunk of the Republican base (and 40% of Republicans in Iowa, the very first contest). Also even though he is a Christian, he is a Catholic who are seen by many Evangelicals as spiritually misguided. His parents are still Hindu, this could be another conflict for Jindal. His faith is going to have to be something he will have to confront on the campaign, which could turn into a huge distraction. Being a former Hindu, and a practicing Catholic will instantly turn off thousands of Evangelical voters which will be a major problem in Iowa and south Carolina, two very important contests. Another problem with Jindal are his speaking abilities, many people question if his speaking abilities are good. His response to the President's State of the Union address was widely seen as poor by conservatives and liberals.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich is a very experienced politician which helps him in many ways. For starters it has made him an excellent speaker, aside from Sarah Palin (whom I will speculate about her chances in the future), he is probably the most charismatic speaker who actually has a shot. It's not just public speaking either, it's his off the cuff stump speeches and interviews too. Gingrich's experience is responsible for the strong connections he has who will help him fund raise, which is very important in an election (The money will really help in New Hampshire). His experience has also made him very politically aware, Gingrich is an intellectual. Similar to Jindal, the former Speaker comes from the South (Georgia) which is helpful geographically. And while Gingrich is a Cathloic like Jindal, he was always a Christian, and will probably not have the same problems Jindal will have in that area.
Newt's long political career is filled with a lot baggage. In 1992, Gingrich bounced 22 checks when he along with other congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money, this is something that certainly can cause trouble. Gingrich also has had his fair share of problems with women which could cause problems with the Evanglical base, he was married 3 times, and he pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. That's just the surface of the Gingrich scandals. He's also old, we all remeber what happened to the last 72 year old who ran for president, he lost in an electoral landslide. Gingrich has also been a staunch defender of the Bush Administration, which in a post 2008 political landscape is very unpopular.
Conclusion
Jindal and Gingrich are both very unique candidates, as well as talented politicians but they both are extreme. One is too young, the other is too old. Gingrich is involved in moral scandals and Jindal is going to have a serious conflict with the religious right because of his past. They aren't totally out of the question, I mean they aren't dark horses (Chuck Hagel, Mark Sanford, etc.) but I certainly wouldn't put my money on them.
Welcome!
Welcome to Political Speculations. A blog where we speculate and analyze American news and politics, spefically, congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races as well as what goes on in the mainstream media on a day to day basis. Our goal is to provide creative and accurate speculation and information about politics and to entertain you. Bookmark us, and prepare for the best political speculation on the web.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)