Forget the first Black nominee, what's going on with the fist bump?

I can’t believe this. Actually I can. The insanity of imbalance and degree of scrutiny placed on Senator Obama now that he is a nominee is mounting. His every move is being analyzed for some secret Black meaning.

Take this video for example



I have seen about 3 different news organizations cover what you just saw. Not Senator Obama confirming that he is the Democratic nominee but the fist bump. The fist bump. I’ve watched as reporters have acted as if their hands are deformed as they try to recreate this action. I’ve watched as reporters have researched the history of the fist bump with an old Louisiana blues entertainer (who comments that the fist bump goes back to slavery days in the cotton fields). I’ve watched as commercial media makers are commenting how this will be a new craze to sweep the nation.

And I wonder how stupid most of these people are.

Simply stated, Senator Obama no more created the fist bump than Al Gore created the internet. Sports teams from the local to the national have been doing this for at least years if not decades. This year there was a Budweiser commercial with a Clydesdale horse and a Dalmatian dog that had a fist bump, will Senator Obama get credit for that as well?

More importantly who cares? Why is it a big deal? Why is every movement of Senator Obama being followed so closely.

I can’t recall such minute actions of a Presidential candidate being observed and commented on. Can you name an action that Senator McCain does or has done in the past 25 years that has been commented on with such fervor (his war injuries do not count).

So what is next? Senator Obama patted his wife on the butt that night as well, is that a new craze? Will that be the new thing the media attributes to Senator Obama (no doubt to be argued by various Women’s Rights groups)? Is it the next secret Black thing that the major media thinks needs to be spread around?

There are dozens of reasons to vote for or against Senator Obama, a fist bump isn’t one of them. There are dozens of reasons to be excited or interested about the nomination and potential of the 1st African American to reach this level in the Presidential race ever. There is a lot of history in this moment, after nearly 400 since the dawn of slavery in America and 143 years after Jim Crow laws. And the focus some place on the average everyday action of a fist bump insults every moment and aspect of the historic news.

Senator Hillary Clinton 'presumptive loser' of February 12th Primaries

“My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!”

Such a statement might have been the claims of the Clinton campaign in 2007, right up until November. Politically, the powerhouse of the Democratic Party was presumed the frontrunner. It was assumed by most pundits that Senator Clinton’s appeal among Democrats, and women in particular, was unassailable. And the African American vote was assumed to be locked up without much thought towards it.

But as Bilbo would say

“Every worm has his weak spot”.

That turned out to be Senator Obama. He has endured smears and personal/racial attacks. He had battled the chuckles of pundits, and gained recognition on a national basis. His triumph is not complete yet, but so far 20 of 28 states have been won by Senator Obama. No matter the delegate math, that’s a landslide. Expectations are that the 3 primaries to be held February 12, 2008 will be another set of 60%+ wins for the Obama campaign. In fact they were 60%, 64%, and 75%.

Yet delegates show a virtual tie among these 2 Democratic Presidential hopefuls. So what should the voters of the remaining Primaries be focused on?

Well Hispanic/Latinos may want to consider why the Clinton campaign is so attractive. Based on my observations I would believe the most attractive thought is that the Clinton campaign will bend to whatever will is popular when it comes to illegal aliens. From her ‘every answer in the book’ response about illegal aliens and driver’s licenses, it seems obvious that there is no clear position. Thus a Presidential candidate that was supported by Hispanic/Latinos will owe major favors to this growing group of Americans.

But considering that Senator Clinton has shown a decisive ability to do anything but maintain a real position about virtually every political subject since taking public office, I would not count on that. Because Clinton has been unwilling to take a stand in favor of illegal aliens, I believe that she will court them for the vote and abandon them in the face of national pressure if elected. It’s not like she has stated clearly that she backs anything, so she has no campaign promises to back out of. And considering that early assumptions of support from, and later minimalization of, African Americans has worked out horrendously, the Clinton campaign realizes that it needs a minority group to help shore up its weakening hold on Whites and the vital women vote.

I believe that if these observations are correct, then Hispanics/Latinos will realize the lack of commitment by the March 4th Texas Primary. They will back Senator Obama, and it will be more than obvious that the popular vote and delegate count will be for Obama. Super Delegates (a silly idea in my opinion) will have no choice but to join the Obama camp lest the Democratic Party becomes more fractured and divided than has already happened in this election cycle (thanks in large part to former-President Bill Clinton).

If the Democratic Party does settle down and accept what the current momentum and predominance of state results show, then I think they will have a great chance of winning the Presidential election. If not, then a loss for the Democrats is a virtual guarantee.

John Edwards: Another one bites the dust

John Edwards is gone. Wow, the candidates are dropping like rocks. Not that there is a surprise here. There was no question that his campaign was done. It was just a matter of when.

The Ted Kennedy endorsement must have been the final blow. It sealed the door, and signaled the fact that he had no chance whatsoever. And the remaining Democratic candidates should take heed at what it says about Democrats and the nation.

John Edwards was the voice of ‘2 Americas’ as he called it. The though that there was a rich and poor America and nothing else. He ignored the middle class in this manner, and was a hypocrite at the same time. I call him a hypocrite in the same way that I call Senator Clinton and Warren Buffett that. Because it is each of these individuals that have said that the wealthy, which is never defined, need to pay more in taxes. Yet not one of them, each at least a multi-millionaire, has ever voluntarily paid an excess in their taxes. Not one has made a gift to the IRS, money that is not from their taxes or a write-off. Not one has ever been willing to lead by example, thus that whole complaint falls flat with me.

That does not mean that we don’t have poor in this nation. As I’ve mentioned about my own experience, the education system is abysmal for African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and minorities in the cities around the nation. But listening to a man who gets $400 haircuts and made money off of the vulture financing that caused the mortgage crisis that is magnified in the minority communities in the nation, seems disingenuous.

What does the loss of John Edwards mean?

Some pundits expect him to give his support to Senator Obama. Some pundits think that such a call will fail and his supporters will go to Senator Clinton instead. But the best answer is this; the Democratic race has come down to deciding what is more important and comfortable: a woman or a Black man.

I’m not saying experience and change. That is just polispeak, and is in fact nothing. Change is inevitable. President Bush is not running, and every candidate has views that differ from the President. The next President will change the direction of America, that’s just a fact and obvious. The only part of the change that will occur that is important is the fact that the decisions made by the next President will affect how the world, and terrorists, will view America. That the choices made will lock America into a direction that will be unchangeable for at least a decade or likely more.

And experience is probably the biggest joke and polispeak. Neither of the Democratic candidates have significant experience. If you listen to the various speeches of Senator Clinton, she has somewhere between 35 and 14 years of experience. That is just a lie.

Depending on which speech you are comparing she is including her time as wife of the Governor of Arkansas, where she has no responsibility or power and was not elected by the populace. It includes her time as First Lady, which is not an elected position with any power and minimal influence at best. She in fact did not gain experience until she failed to get her healthcare initiative passed and nothing else until she became a Senator. Mind you that as a Senator I am unaware of a single Bill that she has created or passed.

And as for Obama, he has the experience of being a junior Senator for a very short period of time, and more as an elected official in the Illinois State government.

So the choice of experience is really not a factor, nor is change. The real question left is can Democrats live with the thought of a potential woman or African American as President. Coupled with that thought is which of those 2 choices can the country accept as a possibility as opposed to a Republican White male candidate (likely in my opinion to be Senator John McCain).

It will be quite telling to see what Democrats choose in Super Tuesday. It will be interesting to hear what former-President Bill Clinton will be saying now as well.

How do you beat an African American Presidential candidate? 1.25.2008.2

How do you beat an African American Presidential candidate? This is not just a question that the entire Clinton political machine is working on or should be concerned with. Be assured, Republican strategists are paying full attention to some of the most effective and base tactics being used currently. And the future Presidential candidates, or even more local level election hopefuls, should take notes.

The precedent is being defined in front of our face right now. And many of the tactics will appear again. I would even state as a near guarantee that in the future the attacks and tricks will even be worse than what we are seeing now, as future opponents will push the line further than where it is being actively drawn now. I expect that the truly low points of what this could mean are angering, demeaning, and divisive.

What are some of the tactics?

One of the first that will be used is to attack the heritage of the Black candidate. Their family tree will be examined and any past actions, made by any member of the family, will be fair game. The education of your parents, their nations of origin, how much money they make, and more will be brought up.

If you have a parent that believed in getting in touch with their roots and gave you a more traditional African name, expect ridicule. If that name has any connection to any religion other than Christianity, you will be labeled by that religion without regard to what you may devoutly believe. If that religion is out of favor, or in any way attached to a negative, you will be attached to that as well. And even if you are Christian, your faith will be questioned, as well as the type of Christian faith you observe.

If you have any parentage that is not African American, or recent predecessors that are not, then you will be in a vicious circle attack. Like sharks in a feeding frenzy you will be attacked on one side for not being Black enough, separated from other African Americans and the struggles of the Black community. At the same time you will be assaulted for being Black, and thus only interested in a specific pool of issues that many non-Black Americans fear and disagree with.

To counter any of these actions, in fact to even mention that they are being used will open you to media attacks stating you are playing the race card. That any defense you offer is merely lowering the issues to claims of prejudice and inequality. It doesn’t matter if your defense is true, you are still to blame.

If you are successful, as virtually every politician is independently of the office they hold (at least at the state and federal level), then you have no understanding of what inner city African Americans go thru. You are a sell-out, and a wanna-be. Opponents will line up Blacks that are no less successful, well spoken, and recognized to boast your ignorance to Black audiences. The media will highlight these attacks, placing your life into question.

If you have made any missteps, admitted or not, they will be taken to stereotypical extremes. Today in America 31% of high school students have used marijuana, 66% have used alcohol, and 6% have used cocaine. That says nothing of the millions of adults that used cocaine in the 1980’s (the most popular drug at the time) or the uncounted masses of adults that used marijuana (and inhaled) in the 1960’s and continue to use it today. But be an African American and you will not be a mere user like the millions of other Americans. You will be presumed as a drug pushing dealer, the equal of the stereotypes promoted in movies and television for decades.

And at every step your opponent will be above the fray. Subordinates, associates, and ‘unrelated’ parties will be making the attacks for your opponent. The major news media will populate these smears for weeks, and views of these attacks will be front page items. The apologies and firing of these outside ‘rogue’ operatives will be far less popular. Any attempt by you to connect the dots will be called race baiting.

And then the biggest part will come to play. In every vote, if you gain non-Black support you will be called a sell-out and will have abandoned your heritage. If you gain Black support you will be defined as singularly a candidate of only African Americans, and out of touch of the needs of the rest of America.

Every item I have mentioned has not only occurred since 2007, but continues to happen now. And I expect that if a woman were in contention similar attacks will be made. But the tactics really play out best when the candidate is Black, or a minority. The obvious and entrenched racial disparity in America really comes to the top when any aspect of race is even hinted at. It even goes so far as to attack acclaimed and recognized leaders that sought peace and equality.

So I want to know this. Are we as American citizens so blind as to not see the tactics being used? Have we traveled so little since the days of segregation and fire hoses being used on peaceful Civil Rights supporters? Or do we expect so little of our political leaders that when shameful and base tactics are used we ignore it?

Really, I want to know.

Early thoughts on Mitt Romney's speech

Having just heard the speech by Mitt Romney I want to share my early thoughts. I think that this was an impotant speech, and there will be no end of pundits discussion of what worked and failed in the speech. But from a comman man’s point of view, I have to say that it was a good speech.

I have no doubt in the conviction of the words spoken by Mitt Romney. They came across in a heart-felt manner. And I believe there was a hint of annoyance at times as well. I too share that annoyance, because in the 21st century, with 231 years of existence, America should not have a need for such a speech.

I have to wonder, as I did early in the speech, if Senator Barack Obama needs to make a speech about his race, or Senator Clinton needs to make one about being a woman. Sounds absurd on the onset, but where is the difference? In essence there is no difference unless an individual seeks to find a way to segregate and divide Presidential candidates on a basis that ignores character, intelligence, ability and experience.

Mitt Romney stated [I am writing this before the full speech is available so forgive me if I misquote]

“As President I will need the prayers of all the faiths of this nation.”

The fact is that any President needs this. We are a diverse naton, and no President has ever, nor ever will, represent everyone in the nation. Nor should they. We don’t need candidates that are willing to deny what they are, or give platitudes in an effort to gain cheap votes. And do not misunderstand, seeking votes on the basis of gender, race, religion or other categorizing factor is a vote that is sold cheaply and unwisely.

There is no question that in this nation there are many faiths, and peoples from across the planet. That is a strength of this nation. The basis that we all live and believe that our freedoms are the single most important fact of our lives. It is the driving force of why everyone in the world wants to live here or have their nation emulate facets of our own.

But the fact that this speech needed to be made worries me. It implies that there are some, a great many of them, that cannot accept the freedoms far too many have died and bled to maintain. It means that some would rather stick to prejudiced ideals and huddle in the dark rather than take steps forward to ensure the greatest good for the nation.

I am not making an endorsement, but I am highlighting a thought. Does it truly matter what the race, gender, religion or ancestry of an individual if they are the best choice to lead our nation in prosperity, peace (as much as possible), and freedom? Could anyone honestly say that they would give up any of those things to gain a superficial comfort in having a cookie-cutter incompetent lead them? If so that is perhaps one of the most un-American things I’ve ever heard.

The next President of the United States, and those to follow like those that preceeded them, is not a Man. They are not a religion, race or anything else. They are the embodiment of the nation, and when we pick them properly, the highest ideals that are the foundation of our land. It is this embodiment of the people, and service to them in seeking the greatest good, that is what the President is. To select a President for any other reason, to have a President that serves any other purpose, not only diminishes the nation but in fact harms our ability to continue.

Mitt Romney’s speech reminded me of these facts. He crystalized the fact that the election is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, or men vs. women, or White vs. Black. It’s not about whom a person gives faith to, or chooses not to. This election, like all elections in America, is about serving the will of the people and the betterment of our lives and world.

Perhaps that sentiment will pervade as pundits and major news organizations ponder over every letter and syllable. Perhaps the various candidates will reflect on this as they prepare for the next speech or debate. Perhaps the American citizens will take to heart this thought as they discuss this among friends, debate at primaries, and vote in the general election.

The faith of the citizens of this nation, in our nation and each other, is pre-emminent for each of us and all of us to continue to be free.

If we lose sight of that, we lose sight of America.

Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential Candidates - 11.29.2007.1

I want to remind everyone that on Saturday @ 2:30, TV One will have a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum, featuring several leading Democratic Presidential candidates, and Republican candidates as well. This forum will feature candidates answering questions from the audience (and I don’t expect that any candidate will be planting questions for this).

I will be covering this Forum on Saturday, and you can expect a few posts from me, for TV One and everyone.

Considering the nature of the forum, and the fact that most Americans have not been following the candidates over the past year as much pundits and political bloggers, I thought that a short Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic candidates would be helpful. I intend to have a similar list for Republicans shortly.

I am only focusing on the leading candidates because of the short time until the primaries. I want to note one candidate that will be at the forum that I will not be doing a Pros and Cons for. Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate of either party to-date that answered any questions on Reparations for African Americans. His answer was for reparations. Every other candidate has refused to even speak on the subject.

With that noteworthy positions stated here is my list of Pros and Cons. I hope it helps those at the forum that get to ask questions, and everyone that will be voting. Please let me know your thoughts as well. [I am trying to be neutral, but of course that is not always possible in all issues. You may disagree with some of the items I list under either category. Let me know your reasons why you disagree, or agree, in the comments.]

Senator Hillary Clinton:

Pros


• Wife of President Bill Clinton
  
• Long-time Healthcare advocate
  
• Determined
  
• A lawyer
  
• A current 2nd term Senator
  
• Well known internationally
  
• First female Presidential candidate with a chance
  
• Forgave the infidelity of President Clinton
  
• Various polls state ~1/2 country favors her
  
• Very liberal in most all policies
  
• Pro Abortion


Cons


• Pro-abortion
  
• Has never directly run or owned any business
  
• Entered elected office after career of President Clinton
  
• Initial attempt to pass Healthcare reforms failed horribly
  
• Consistently appears to hold no actual position on most policies
  
• Speaks like a lawyer
  
• A female candidate
  
• Various polls state roughly ½ the nation strongly dislikes her
  
• Staff has at least 2x planted questions in her public appearances
  
• Had committee member attack Republican candidates by surprise at CNN/YouTube debate
  
• Very liberal (supported MoveOn.org in Gen. Patreaus ad)
  
• Has received the most money from lobbyists and institutions of any candidate of any party
  
• Took $1 million from wanted fugitive
  
• Involved in multiple scandals
  
• Pro-Illegal Immigration
  
• Anti-death penalty
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  

Continued in part 2...

Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 3 - 11.2.2007.3

Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 2...

Before the primary elections occur don’t you think you should know what experience was going on for 30 years that the Senator claims but did not hold any office for. Don’t you want a President that will do everything to protect America from a nation that has repeatedly stated they wish our destruction? A nation that is actively building a weapon who’s only purpose is mass death? A nation that felt a need to kidnap our citizens, unprovoked, and that actively denies the Holocaust?

Or what about a President who’s answers are direct enough that anyone can understand how they answer a yes or no answer.

“MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It –

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.”

Like I said, I’ve seen dramas with less twists and turns. And some though politics are boring. Well if you want excitement, vote for a President that you don’t know where they stand. If that isn’t enough adrenaline, don’t vote.

Just remember that once someone is elected, you have to live with that for 4 years.

Where are the answers from Senator Clinton - 11.2.2007.1

Politics is better than drama when you pay attention to what is being said. I have not seen more double entendre's since I read Shakespeare. In fact the Grand Bard was short what we get in most political debates these days. This has been especially true of the Democratic Party in recent debates.

For those that missed the debate last Tuesday, I have pulled a couple of key points from the transcript so you can try to follow along. If you get lost in the answers, its ok we all are.

Case in point, Senator Hillary Clinton, the current frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential candidate. We get to bounce from one thought to another without actually getting an answer or finding out there are more levels to traverse to get an answer than ever imagined. And then we still don’t get an answer.

“SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that anyone who's looked at my record of 35 years fighting, for women and children and people who feel invisible and left out in this country, knows my record. I fought for expanded education and health care in Arkansas. I helped to bring health care to 6 million children while in the White House.”

Actually, the Senator has only recently taken public office. President Bill Clinton ran Arkansas, and then the nation. The actual healthcare plan proposed by First Lady Clinton went nowhere. And in the 5 years of Senator Hillary Clinton representing New York State she has not presented any issues that have passed that. In fact besides the “Hot Coffee” issue in video games, what else can the average New Yorker say she has been working on?

“MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask each of you the same question.

Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

SEN. CLINTON: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

SEN. CLINTON: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But they may.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can -- (laughter) -- to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.”

Continued in part 2...

When a laugh becomes creepy - 9.27.2007.1

While most would agree that Jon Stewart is a liberal guy, and his Comedy Channel television program - The Daily Show - is equally of a liberal or left bent, he is not above pointing out humor in Democrats.

In this case the wooden and cold demeanor of Sen. Hillary Clinton is where she hoists her petard. Nothing is more obvious of trying to capture votes on the cheap than perhaps the exact same response 5x in one day, calculated by pollsters and advisors as the latest 'thing to do'.

Remember, this false emotion belies something. If it's not figured out what that is before the Democratic primaries, she will be one of the candidates for President. If she were to win, and her true emotions (and possibly motivations) are still only percieved as this same kind of response... who knows what could happen.

Well if nothing else it's worth a laugh.

How some candidates IQ's are rated - 9.12.2007.1

As the next election edges closer, I find it interesting all the commentary being made about the various Presidential candidates. Comments are coming out not only questioning the political positions of the candidates but also on various aspects of their person.

In this one site I found, there is a very subjective evaluation of IQ’s being stated. How the values were computed, even as a guesstimate, is very unclear. What you might notice immediately is that every Democrat is given a higher IQ than every Republican mentioned. That seems quite unbalanced and inaccurate.

For the Democrats out there, don’t get too happy. Senator Obama is described as a pushover, Senator Clinton is

Whatever Hillary is, she is a loner, likely very cold and power hungry. More than a liberal, she seems like a true power-hungry communist.

It’s slightly better for some of the Republican candidates. Mitt Romney is called a fiscal conservative (though it seems implied his religion and campaign lose the 2008 election). Rudy Giuliani is more Bush than President Bush

He would eventually expand federal powers beyond Bush and that very idea alone will pull all support from the right-wingers.

Perhaps most glaring is the IQ given to Fred Thompson, and the accusation that he is lazy (which I am unaware of). This one conclusion seems to be the most biased to me. It may be just my interpretation but Fred Thompson seems to be given the lowest IQ and called lazy due to his Southern roots and mannerisms. Conversely Senator Clinton is given the highest IQ and called cold due to her association with New York and the North. [Has everyone forgotten she is as Southern as Fred Thompson, and her roots are strongly tied to Arkansas, the same as her husband former-President Bill?]

Infer what you will but with this kind of insults flying through the net I have to wonder what the protests will be like in 3 years after the Presidential election?

Discussing Presidential candidate Fred Thompson - 9.6.2007.1

Normally I would not go over the details of any particular candidate for President of the United States or in this case the primaries, but with the late addition of Fred Thompson, of the Republican Party, I'll make an exception. Now this is not to say that I'm picking any candidate or that I will be providing endorsement to anyone. It's simply that the attention Thompson has gained over the past several months based on his intention to run for President and his current rankings in the polls have not been balanced with information on his views and political platforms. In an effort to provide balance I plan to go over a couple of points stated on his website.

The website for Fred Thompson is Fred08.com, and is a very well designed website. The site takes into account that not everyone can read the small fonts often found on other candidates sites and is very plainly laid out. Getting from one section of the site to another section is a very simple process. While the site is set up so it's easy to traverse it is not deep in information. It does give an interesting overview of the platforms that Fred Thompson plans to promote.

The introduction video, which is featured on the site, does a decent job of going over what it is that he stands for. Perhaps one of the best ways to sum up his entire approach is to quote

A government big enough to do everything for us can do anything to us.

The video goes on to state that Thompson believes in a strong stance against terrorism, both on the domestic and international level. And that America must provide a united front against this threat. Beyond the issue of terrorism there are several other issues that are addressed. These include fixing Social Security, finding new innovations to reduce the need of foreign oil and improve the nation's energy security, improving education, providing affordable health care to the general public, reducing government red tape, protecting the borders against illegal immigration, lowering taxes and reducing government spending.

All of these items are matters that Thompson believes.

Need solutions that extend beyond the next election cycle.

While this viewpoint is rarely spoken by many of the candidates, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, is somewhat belied by some of the statements made by Thompson. One of the most often used (with some minor variation) quotes by Thomson is that of

Occasionally, doors have opened to me, and I had sense enough to see that they were opening, and I would walk through them.

Mr. Thompson is hardly new to politics, of course. Previously he served two terms as Senator for Tennessee. He makes a great point of mentioning that he was the first in his family to go to college and that during his time in college he worked to pay for his education. As is well known Mr. Thompson, quickly made a name for himself as an attorney, which led to his work in Watergate. It was that involvement that ultimately led to his defense of the titular character featured in the movie Marie, which led to his appearance in 18 movies (including Die Hard 2, The Hunt for Red October, and many others), and his long-term television role on Law and Order.

Fred Thompson is perhaps the most publicly known, presidential candidates at this time. His visage is immediately recognizable by perhaps 70 or 80% of the population today. Given these factors, he has gained a strong position in the Republican primary race. Whether or not, this is enough to gain the Republican ticket and to be able to run effectively, versus the Democratic candidate is still unknown. Further details on how he plans to fulfill the goals he has outlined in his video are basically unknown.

The one general and consistent fact that is known is that he is a federalist. By this is meant that he believes the federal government should have limited authority in certain matters. Perhaps one other factor that can be said is that in comparison to all the other candidates and the positions currently being proposed. Thompson holds a centrist view.

Essentially, this is the full amount of information that I was able to garner from the website for Fred Thompson. There is one other factor, which the website states. Thompson is looking forward to hearing questions from the general public. To that end, I will be writing up a series of questions similar to those that I have created previously for several others of the presidential candidates. I look forward to seeing the responses by Fred Thompson. As with my previous letters to the candidates I will provide unaltered my questions for this candidate, and any response that is received.

This is what I know now, now it's your turn to find out more. Remember, your vote counts, and if you don't use it you can't complain on what you get!

Religion in debates, where it may lead - 8.21.2007.1

A simple question I’ve asked before, does religion affect your choice of President of the United States?

As others have noted

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Yet the question of religion has long been connected to elected office, and in recent years directly so. As religious fanaticism has caused some to become terrorists, the question of religion in American politics takes a stronger position. I for one do not find this to be a good position.

In a recent Democratic debate (there have been 27 so far if you lost count) George Stephanopoulos asked:

“My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

Can you imagine this question being asked of the oft quoted Theodore Roosevelt? Or perhaps Lincoln? How about if President Clinton had been asked if prayer would heal all the people without healthcare, or if President Carter were asked if prayer would get the hostages back from Iran?

Religion is a powerful thing, for an individual. Faith is something that cannot be quantified nor should it be worn like a merit badge. It is a facet of a person that is intrinsic like leadership. To pander to any group on this basis cheapens the people pandered to and the faith they have, in my opinion. Perhaps that is one reason that the Constitution precludes its use in gaining public office.

If we cannot separate religion for the debates of Presidential candidates, how do we believe the separation of Church and State will be maintained? Thus what other tenants of the Constitution are also subject to being bent or broken? How can we be idle as we see the slippery slope taking us to a place the Founding Fathers of this nation warned us never to tread?

What can solve illegal immigration? - 8.20.2007.2

Given the attention, and strong feelings on immigration, there is no surprise that it is a hot topic among the various Presidential candidates. Each has staked out a position, usually running along political party lines. But there is an aspect of immigration that gets far less attention and is perhaps the answer to the issue.

Many of the illegal immigrants in America at this time are Hispanic/Latino. That is neither a negative nor an accusation. The fact is, as best as can be determined, that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants from Spanish-speaking nations. The main reasons they have come to America is because they are looking for work, a high standard of living, and the ability to provide families in their home countries with a better life funded by the American dollars they send to them. I cannot fault those reasons. That does not change the fact that they have broken U.S. law.

[I must state that I have very strict views on immigration. I have spoken before on these views. To simply state it, I do not believe any illegal alien, or undocumented immigrant if it makes some sleep better, deserves any rights or public aide in America.]

While many are suggesting that the answer to this issue is a wall along the Southern border (while completely ignoring the larger and virtually unwatched Northern border) or placing National Guard troops on patrol, few are looking at the other end of the issue. Improving the quality of life and income in the native countries of these illegal immigrants.

Improvements of the trade agreements and ability to conduct international business would reach the people of those nations and thus help stem the flow into the United States. It will not end the illegal immigration issue, but it could improve it far more than a wall or troops.

But the key leading presidential candidates seem to be questionable in their resolve on this issue. As noted in an article at the Latin Business Chronicle,

“Measured by their voting records and/or statements, Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney are the best candidates, while Democrat John Edwards is the worst. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton - the frontrunners in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively - both have mixed records. The two have, however, been developing in different directions. While Clinton previously was seen as more favorable to free trade, she now is more critical, whereas Giuliani appears to have gone the opposite way.”

While Mr. Rudy Giuliani seems to be improving his position on free trade, which thus improves the chance to reduce illegal immigration at its source, Senator Clinton is traveling in the opposite manner. Mr. Giuliani is a bit trickier to decipher as he was merely a Mayor, albeit that the city was New York City. His choices and position is not nearly as strong as a political decision that impacts the entire nation.

Continued in Part 2...

What will we really get after the 2008 election? - 8.20.2007.1

I read something that is quite interesting. It deals with the standing of the Democratic Presidential candidates, and the Democratic Party in general. It’s a view that is actually obvious, but no one seems to take on seriously. There is basically one voice among the Democrats, and that voice is far from the center.

From the various positions Democratic candidates have mentioned, like national healthcare and retreat from Iraq, and their actions, like going to the Daily Kos convention while ignoring the DLC convention, we see a picture that runs towards the left. That is an important observation, not because that is a good or bad thing, but rather that it is not what the average American agrees with. The average American is acknowledged to not be severely right or left on the political spectrum, but in the center. There may be an issue that they will go to the left and another that goes right, but the balance is to the center overall.

Given that fact, I have to wonder what will happen after the primaries. Given that the top Republican Presidential candidates are closer to the center than the extreme right, what will Democratic candidates do? It may be fine to be targeting an extreme vocal portion of an individual party to win a primary but that won’t work in a general election. Or will it?

Immigration is a huge issue. Will the Democratic Primary winner that the view of the extreme left, and if they don’t how can they pull back from positions made so far? National healthcare affects millions of Americans, and the extreme left want a more socialized medicine, as espoused by pundits like Michael Moore. Yet average Americans do not want to absorb the cost or usual inefficiencies found in government run programs (I submit the effectiveness of the DMV and Veterans Administration as examples). And the question of an immediate retreat from Iraq, as has been promised my virtually every candidate, matching the desires of the extreme left and similar to the disapproval of the war held in the general populace. Still most military advisors note that such an action will lead to instability that will definitely cause more American military loses of life and eventually attacks on America itself. Can the democratic primary winner back away for an instantaneous retreat the extreme is calling for and still win?

There are many issues and many views for each. I do not question which is right or wrong. I merely wonder that if presidential candidates have aligned themselves with extreme views of their respective parties, can they still serve the more centrist general populace in a manner they will approve of. I have to wonder that if extreme views are held today, and more centrist views are stated after the primaries, what position will a presidential candidate actually pursue after being elected.

Maybe it’s me but I wonder which points of view will be the ones affecting the nation and our lives for the next 4 years?

Why Theodore Roosevelt should never be quoted by current presidential candidates - 8.15.2007.1

President Theodore Roosevelt. The name evokes an image of a powerful President, and the growth of America as a serious world power. This one titular President made perhaps the most famous of Presidential quotes, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” [Actually an African proverb that he co-opted]

It is because of the image and actions of this President that Presidential candidates of both parties use his words to try to puff-up their own images. Virtually every candidate has done it, each in reference to goals they wish to promote. And in my opinion, none of them deserve or embody the legacy of the 26th President. Let me be clear.

Many candidates want to use or paraphrase the famous quote cited above, to improve their stature when speaking on issues like the Iraq war, terrorism, Afghanistan and America’s role in the world. It would be impressive if any of them actually had a solid plan for those issues. But as politics have become more MTV driven, in that there is little substance but lots of motion giving the impression something is happening, the soundbites are as close as any candidate gets to being a strong leader of our military.

Many candidates want to quote and refer to the strides President Roosevelt made against corporate corruption, implying they too can help improve the economy and preserve the 401k’s and retirement funds of the nation. Yet the plans stated to date, including taking corporate profits for redistribution or expanding/creating government programs, seem to go against that fiscal responsibility. Again the bluster fails to reach the pinnacles of the quotes and image.

Theodore Roosevelt was an important President. He was the first to have a Black man as a dinner guest in the White House. That was in 1901. Current candidates cannot compete with that, given. But they also seem incapable of doing anything comparable. Some would roll over in the face of political pressure found in polls on standing on this issue or that. Others are adamant in following only one course without a concept of what repercussions may be the result.

I don’t mind that the various candidates want to look like more of a leader than the other. I just wish one actually was more of a leader than the others. Quotes from those that have done things are never equal to those pretending to be of equal importance.

President Roosevelt had served in the military, ran state government, ran the Navy, a polymath, an author, an explorer, head of his political party, and was a boxing enthusiast. Most of the candidates today can barely stand in the shadow of his experience, before he ever became Vice-President or President. As such they should never try to use his limelight to make themselves shine. It just reminds us of how far less they offer in a time we need so much more.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Republicans will answer YouTube questions - 8.13.2007.1

There has been a resounding consensus that questions presented to candidates via YouTube are a good thing. The candidates get real questions that are faced by real people everyday. It’s a reminder that average Joe is the person these candidates have to answer to, not the special interest groups and large donors. The questions asked, though some were just ridiculous, did not hold back or cushion the candidates, and that is a great thing.

So far this format has only been presented to the Democratic Presidential hopefuls. It created a lot of interest in who is running and why. It’s lead to further discussion on who really is qualified, earnest, and beneficial enough to lead this nation. It provided perhaps the best example of what choices exist for the election.

There was some debate over whether the Republican Presidential candidates would appear for a debate based on this same format. Initially it appeared that it might not happen as only 2 candidates were confirmed to show. Many, including myself, thought it would be a massive blow against any Republican hopeful not to appear. But recent reports state that this debate format will be happening.

Check out YouTube to submit your question and look forward to the November debate. Remember that your vote counts, and if you don’t ask a question now you may not get a choice later. America deserves better than that.

Drugs and the race to the 2008 election - 8.9.2007.1

Just say no. It’s not a take on a Nike commercial; it was the United States attempt to keep the youth of the nation away from drugs. First Lady Nancy Reagan was the spokeswoman of this campaign, and with due respect to the First Lady, the results were indicative of how the government deals with drugs and drug crime. In my opinion they haven’t a clue, and screw things up.

You might wonder what any of the Presidential candidates’ think of this. Well if you have, keep wondering as none of them have any information on the issue. You can find comments on whether the government should or should not bail-out sub-prime mortgage loans, because it’s a topical question in the news today; but you can’t find anything on the struggle to keep kids away from drugs or how to resolve the enormous numbers of drug-related crimes. It seems to be a bit of an oversight don’t you think?

Then again, other than an occasional showcase speech whenever funding is needed, The President and the Presidential candidates rarely discuss efforts against drugs. I suppose discussing abject failure and the lack of vision to resolve this problem is too much to speak about. Worse yet, this is a truly non-partisan failure of both political parties, so neither side will get support blaming the other about this.

“According to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 22 million Americans suffer from drug or alcohol abuse. Department of Justice statistics demonstrate that 55 percent of all federal prison inmates are there because of drugs.”

That seems to be an issue worth speaking about. You would think that at a time when each Presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, is trying to stand out among their peers with soundbites over plans (as I understand it) at least one would have something to say about it. But alas ther is just a vaccum as large as space.

Perhaps Republicans don’t want to be reminded that each time First Lady Nancy Reagan implored the nation to say NO, kids laughed and said definitely yes. Perhaps Democrats find it difficult to speak on a subject where one of their most liked representatives, President Clinton, provided the laughable excuse that “I didn’t inhale.” Neither party has past or current Presidents that have done well on this issue.

Still considering the billions spent each year, the ever larger drug busts made by the DEA, and the ludicrous public safety announcements, someone should bite the bullet and say ‘I think drugs are wrong, and here is an idea that might help improve the situation.’

That’s not too much to ask for, don’t you think?

Presidential candidates in glass houses... - 8.9.2007.1

I love the way politicians pick on a subject they know they can get attention with, all the while knowing that it’s complete hogwash. I’ll take the recent confrontation the Senator Clinton faced from John Edwards and Senator Obama. It was the near-famous refusal of Senator Clinton to give up lobbyist funding that did it. Didn’t the other candidates feel smug.

Of course, none of the others are getting nearly as much money from lobbyists so they might be a bit more willing since it levels the playing field a bit. Not that any of the Presidential candidates will give up the funds they have received unilaterally. Now that would make a statement and force others to follow their move. But bold groundbreaking political actions are not for this Presidential race.

Don’t be fooled. The question about lobbyist money is self-serving. If you are not getting the majority of it, you want to no one else to keep any. It makes it easier to be competitive. And don’t think that any of the candidates desire to let the public know where their money is coming from.

So far only Senator Obama provides an easy reference to where his bundled contributions are coming from. Bundled money would be, as an example, funds raised by Oprah Winfrey at her upcoming dinner party that is $2300 minimum to enter, if you were invited.

Let me correct myself, Senator Clinton did make it clear as well, 3 months ago on a blog by a lesser staffer, stuffed in the 4th paragraph, without other notice or fanfare. That is about as clear as pea soup.

Some may think this is the norm for Presidential candidates, but the fact is that President Bush, in 2004 made it somewhat easy (and far moreso than what is available today) on where his money was coming from and thus forced other candidates to be almost as clear. As maligned as President Bush may be these days, none of the current candidates match his actions. That seems to say a lot about how serious these candidates are, don’t you think?

And this does not even touch on the money received by candidates from special interest groups, which I spoke about before. Not surprisingly Senator Clinton and Mitt Romney lead in this arena, at least with healthcare.

So the Daily Kos may have cheered, the soundbites may sound great, but there is no substance behind any of it that I can find. Smoke and mirrors are not only for magicians, politicians use them well too. Sadly, I don’t find it entertaining.

Do you?

Do empty debates equal empty candidates - 8.6.2007.1

The debates continue to rollout one after the other as we approach the 2008 primaries, and the level each needs to rise up to supposedly increases. There have been debates that the various Presidential candidates have gone to, and others that were suspiciously avoided. The advent of technology has even provided the general public a chance to directly question the candidates on issues that John and Jane Q. Public find to be of importance.

This is a great thing, in theory. One might expect that this much attention being given to who might be the next President of the United States would spur conversations and help drive people to one candidate or another. One might think that the majority of Americans would be beyond the basic questions in the debates, and focusing on the finer points of the various platform policies. And if you thought that you would be wrong.

There are reports that suspect somewhere between 40-60% of Americans do not know, nor are they sure where to find, the actual positions of the various candidates. There could be many reasons for this. The prevalence of discussion on the War versus virtually any other question is potentially part of the problem. The fact that many are not familiar enough with the internet to find the information is another. But I believe the fact that getting a televised full answer to say nationalized healthcare is the cause.

Each candidate, in both parties, are prepared to answer most any question in a 30 second soundbite. The media has no problem in presenting the abbreviated responses. But how often are the candidates shown or reported as giving a complete answer? How often are quotes of a couple of paragraphs, that stay on topic throughout their entirety, found for any candidate on any and all topics?

Are there a lot of candidates? Yes, no matter which party you chose. Would more full debates take longer? If we got real answers they could. But isn’t it worth the extra time to know where everyone stands? Don’t we deserve to know who we are choosing in a primary or the election in 2008. Shouldn’t more people be able to say, in plain English that Presidential candidate XYZ stand for this on whatever issue, and here is a quote that they made supporting this stance.

There are many more debates to go, and some of the candidates will be at some of them. But when will we get a better answer that takes more than 30 seconds to proclaim. I just wonder.

Religions place in the 2008 election - 7.30.2007.1

The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental tenants of our nation. No one questions that. Yet in reference to the Presidential candidates there is no question that religion is linked to each of them. It may be most notable in the questions asked of Mitt Romney, but it exists for each candidate to varying degrees. So I have to ask why?

What is it that makes a candidate better or worse? Is the particular deity they may or may not pray to make that much of a difference? I have read and understood most religions on the face of the earth today. I am no expert, but I do understand the basics and in that understanding comes a conclusion. Every major religion on the earth today espouses love, understanding, and penalizes greed, murder, and hate. Every religion believes in the sanctity of life. Beyond that the issues really become what name you call the deity and how you pray. Those 2 things have caused more wars and bloodshed than any other reason in the history of Man.

Does it really make a difference if the President of the United States is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist? In my view the President must act in the benefit of the nation, even when that might conflict with their religious views. I am unaware of a President that has not acted in the best interest of the nation due to their religion. So I see no precedence for such concern.

Perhaps I am more concerned than I should be, but if religion becomes a central part of the Presidency then I am sure battles between all the religions within this nation is not far behind. It is like dominoes, once they start to fall the whole line falls.

But this is what I wonder. Am I seeing this correctly? Am I missing something?