Senator John McCain wins Florida, Super Tuesday sweep is possible

The Republican Florida results are final, and Senator John McCain has won. This was not an overwhelming win. It was not a landslide by any means. But it does confirm several indications, and may well be a precursor to the events of Super Tuesday.

As I had expected, Rudy Giuliani is done. His support will be going to Senator McCain after his unsurprising 3rd place finish with just 15% of the vote. His emphasis on 9/11 and his targeting of New Yorkers has proven to fail to ignite the hearts of Republican primary voters. Personally, considering his at best mixed social issues policies during his time as New York City Mayor, I’m glad.

Mike Huckabee seems to be completely out of steam now. While he may stay on until after Super Tuesday on Feb 5th when the polls close, his chance of winning the nomination only exceeds that of Ron Paul. His lack of strength and highly religious stance may be a factor among the super religious, but for an America of multiple faiths he fails to gain ground. I’m surprised he is still in this race after his 4th place ‘win’ in Florida, but in a week I predict he will be out as well. I expect his supporters to go to Senator John McCain as well.

Senator John McCain, I expect, will have a battler on his hands and will ultimately gain the Republican nomination. His long record of service for the nation, his commitment to our troops in the face of a lack of popularity and a wave of those willing to turn and run are keys to his appeal. He is well respected, and as much as Republicans may be considering the economy at this moment – due to recent events – there are other issues that are primary in this election.

Thus I expect Mitt Romney to get close but ultimately lose. I do not expect him to get the Vice-Presidential nod, nor will Huckabee and Giuliani. There are too many reasons not to pick Mitt Romney, and sadly his religion is among them. That is not my opinion, but what I gather from the exit polls and comments across the net. There are some things in America we are not yet ready for, it would appear.

Ron Paul will get the attention he deserves in my mind, this sentence.

If I am correct, and senator McCain moves on to gain the Republican nomination the question that comes next is who will the Democrats pick? Then comes who will be his Vice-President?

In terms of the Democratic race, I expect a bitter fight. Slurs based on race are not done yet I expect, and with each win for Senator Obama I expect more. The Clinton campaign will fight tooth and nail for the win. They have already bent several pledges and rules, and provoked legal action when things have not gone their way. I expect more to come.

Who will ultimately win? It’s too hard to say. But if Senator Clinton does win, I expect a landslide victory. I will say that now, but I won’t go further at this time.

The Republican race is all but done. The Democrats are in trench warfare. The chances of an Obama-Clinton ticket (or vice versa) is non-existent. The Republican VP is anyone’s guess.

After a year of preparation, the real battle for the Presidency of 2008 is about to start. In the spirit of the Olympic Games, Let the games begin!

Video clips of candidate flips: Polispeak in action Part 2

Continued from Video clips of candidate flips: Polispeak in action Part 1...

Hillary Clinton on troops in Iraq – [She is the “frontrunner” so she gets more attention here]





Mike Huckabee on Taxes –





There are other examples, and I have no doubt every candidate has to some degree taken opposing sides of many issues. One pundit has stated this is just the

“difference between campaigning and trying to govern and legislate” – Chris Cillizza

But if you ask me it’s just a way to lie to the public. If you are for something, then you campaign on it. If you are trying to get votes you omit facts and your intentions. Perhaps I’m unique being from the Bronx, but omitting things is considered lying. Hiding part of my actions is considered shady and duplicitous. Telling part of the story, and acting contrary to what I vehemently stated is considered manipulation.

The election for 2008 is very important. Many critical issues affecting America for the next decade are in play. Essentially it seems that this election will come down to the lesser of 2 evils, which still leaves us with an evil. But given that, keep in mind when you go to the primaries that virtually every Presidential candidate has lied, answered in the grey, or outright taken both sides of the argument.

Because of that you need to pay attention to what seems to be their real positions and what you think is best for America. If not, we all may regret the President we get, because once the votes are cast we can’t go back and try again.

Video clips of candidate flips: Polispeak in action

In my continuing efforts to present a nuetral (until the primaries) and unbiased view of what is really going on with the Presidential candidates, I found a site that has done some serious homework. This is about as honest as it gets. It’s not a written rebuttal, or questions asked of the candidate, it’s their words on the issues that they and pundits believe are important.

The benefit of the internet in regard to politics and Presidential elections has been huge. Candidates of both parties have used this medium to poke fun at, criticize and detract the message of their opponents while making requests for funding from the public and emphasizing their own importance. But they also seem to forget that this same medium allows us the chance to see how they employ Polispeak (my own term for the way politicians shape their comments to fit the audience and polling they want to influence).

Here are the examples: [Michael Vass, and 1800blogger, do not endorse any political candidate or party at this time. Any endorsement or candidate affiliation found in the following video clips are as they are found via the YouTube site.]

Hilary Clinton on both sides of Nuclear weapons and Iran -





Rudy Giuliani takes both sides of Immigration -





Continued in part 2...

The ommissions of the Presidential candidates

In my daily search for news on the Presidential candidates and issues that the next President will be dealing with I have run into a recent report that has disturbing implications. We have all heard the saying that politicians are not to be trusted. That our elected officials will say virtually anything to get elected. Even most recently we have seen some candidates that have said nothing and every side of an issue all on the same question. But it is far worse than that.

I am referring to the Presidential Political Courage Test, conducted by Project Vote Smart. This study viewed 10 years of various political candidates, in both political parties. And the conclusion was that.

“55 percent of presidential candidates were willing to expose their positions on issues of obvious concern to citizens. This represented an 8 percent decline in the candidates' willingness to provide such crucial information to citizens since 2004. This also demonstrated the candidates' increasing interest in controlling the public's access to information regarding their intentions on issues.”

Think about that. 45% of the candidates don’t want the public to know what they believe about the issues that will affect the nation. That almost half of all the candidates have hidden what they really want to do, if elected, at a time where some of the most critical decisions facing America are on the table. In effect that we are being told lies of omission to our faces, with a smile and a soundbite.

Let me be more specific. Of the candidates that are currently running for President, that the major news media follows, only 3 are willing to openly state where they stand. Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel. That’s it. And only one of these 3 is a serious potential Presidential candidate, though a long-shot I wouldn’t bet on.

Now I will say that the study has some fluff in it. Announced Presidential candidates such as Emperor Caesar (no joke, and that’s a Democrat no less) are hardly serious entries. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton (Democrat), Rudy Giuliani (Republican), Duncan Hunter (Republican), Dennis J. Kucinich (Democrat), John McCain (Republican), Barack Obama (Democrat), and Bill Richardson (Democrat) are serious and all were against being open with their positions being told to the public.

Given the failures of the report, one thing is clear. This is unacceptable. Any serious candidate must be able to declare EXACTLY what they stand for and how their term as President of the United States would be a benefit to the citizens of the nation. Anything less is a two-faced, soundbite laden, cheap attempt to swindle votes from well meaning but less than informed citizens. This is the effective equivalent of giving the people sand to drink and no other option.

What else would you call it when candidates go to a debate one week and get caught obviously not answering a critical issue that affects all Americans in one way or another, then after a week or 2 of practice with advisors and constantly shifting views goes onto the next debate and makes a firm stand. That’s not being forthright. That’s finding out what boat is sinking and jumping away from it, for the mere sake of winning.

I would have more respect and would consider voting for a candidate that has a position and can make a real argument why it’s in my best interest. Anything less is not worthy of being President. And while Senator Clinton may have been the most noted for her obvious doubletalk, candidates in both parties fail to do more than make 15 second soundbites for major news media. Honestly I feel they have all let the American people down.

When it comes down to it, this election will be a race of what is the least horrible choice. The problem with that is that we the people will still be left with a miserable, ineffective, President that will not promote the best interest for ALL the nation.

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog, where I am A contributing author.**

What have the Presidential candidates been up to - 2.20.2007.1

So what has been going on politically? A lot. Senator Obama made interesting comments in his speech to announce his official run for the Presidency. Senator Obama touched upon Lincoln, bringing up thoughts of the end of Slavery and the unifying of the nation. I find that quite funny though, as President Lincoln was a Republican, and the issue of Slavery was 5th most important of all the issues that the Civil War dealt with. [You can see my comments on this at Reparations for Black African Americans]

But Senator Obama made a few mistakes as well, commenting how every life lost by the military in Iraq was wasted. Almost as bad as John Kerry, but at least he quickly recovered and apologized. Of course the legislation to withdraw from the war in Iraq by April has emboldened the enemy, in my opinion. That opinion happens to be shared by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. I’m sure many others as well. Senator Obama may have a fresh presence for the nation, he may be a draw for the Black community, he may be a symbol liberals can rally around, but he seems no more capable of understanding the long-term ramifications of withdrawing our troops with our tail between our legs. I’ve said it before, “Political agendas enacted while troops are fighting is always to the detriment of the nation.”

As for Senator Clinton, I saw an interesting video clip comparing comments from 2002 to today. It’s amazing to listen to Senator Clinton stand up and demand we fight Saddam Hussein, and to stand proudly when he was captured, and then to see her today unwilling to speak about those decisions while declaring a retreat. If that is not one of the most obvious declarations of 2-faced politics I’m not sure what is. If that isn’t chasing polls as opposed to standing by convictions, what is?

Of course Mr. Rudy Giulliani has also determined he will run for the Presidency. There isn’t much to be said about the former NYC mayor. The fact is that he was not a remarkable mayor, until 9/11/2001. Prior to that time he was not overly loved in New York City. He was not on par with say Mayor Koch, or other notable mayors. Mr. Giulliani sold off west 42nd street to Disney. While it was a good thing that the area was improved and crime reduced, the incorporation of that area irked many (including me). Yes I enjoy Dave & Buster’s and I like BB Kings. But I loved the 24 hour kung fu theater that used to exist there. Much of the character of the city disappeared in creating this ultra sanitized tourist trap.

We should not forget the actions of the police during his time as Mayor. Remember how Mr. Amadou Diallo died. 41 shots, at least one of which was thru the bottom of his foot after he was laying on the ground in a pool of his own blood. That was from a police force told to crack down by order of the Mayor. Or what about Mr. Abner Louima? Do you recall how he was brutalized by police officers? Again, based on the stronger presence of the police dictated by the Mayor of New York City. And do not forget his actions in regard to Mr. Patrick Dorismond.

My point is that while he was a strong force for the city after the attacks on the Twin Towers, there are other factors that need to be remembered. He is not perfect on civil rights, and has no problem with racial profiling. The nation may remember one aspect of the man. And it is impressive, but it’s not the whole picture those of us from the city may remember.

Mr. Rudy Giulliani did well with gun control, if you think the manufacturers are at fault for what people do with their products. [IF you agree with that you probably agree that putting hot coffee in your exposed lap while driving and thus burning yourself is the fault of McDonalds] He did exceptionally well in politically slapping the PLO in the face. His position on immigration is questionable though. Keep a balanced view. He is not just the September 11 candidate.

This is what I think, what do you think?