12 posts tagged “president”

Roger Simon wrote a piece dripping with sarcasm for Politico today.  And I love it.

Focusing on the outcry over the media coverage Sarah Palin has been receiving since the announcement about her taking the Republican VP slot last week, Simon perfectly enunciates what I never could in my severely limited attempts at voicing my opinions:

…On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.   We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.  We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

…We should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.  Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”

…Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.  Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.  Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

On the other hand, I think that a portion of the coverage Palin has received is unfair.  And, apparently, some of Hillary Clinton’s aides agree with me:

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Ultimately, I like Palin.  A lot.

But there’s still no way in hell that I’d ever attached my vote to a McCain campaign.  The fact that they managed to find someone to run in the VP position who would do much better headlining the ticket doesn’t change the fact that McCain is a slimeball with nothing better to do than sell Americans out at the domestic level while playing up his foreign policy credentials.  If we’re going to have four more years of mismanaged policy at home, why not put it all in the lap of someone as easy to write-off as Barack Obama?

Barring the possibility of McCain dropping out of the race in the next two months for age-related reasons, I will continue to throw my vote in for a post-Obamalyptic dystopian future where Americans are finally shaken back to reality.

Yeah, it sounds bad, but we have a nasty tendency of finding order only after chaos.  Just look at Carter and his inspiration for Reagan.

I'm a registered independent in the state of California - which means that I'm unable to vote for the Republican primary nominee, but I am allowed to vote for the Democratic nominee.  As this is the case, I figured it would make some sense for me to do my third candidate analysis on John Edwards, a current contender for the Democratic nomination.

Interesting fact about John Edwards (if not a well-known fact): he ran as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 alongside John Kerry for the Democratic party.  Another interesting fact: they are no longer speaking to each other.  Of course, when you'd have to deal with a wife like Teresa Kerry, I don't think I'd want to be stuck hanging around with John after the party is over, either.

Getting right down to brass tacks, the three most important issues facing a potential John Edwards candidacy (besides establishing a national budget for his haircuts) are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

As I mentioned in my Fred Thompson post, it's imperative that America reign in the spending of the federal government in order to reign in the ever-growing habit of creating intrusive domestic policy.  John Edwards and I apparently disagree.  This guy has run his entire campaign on the idea that there exists 'two Americas.'  One is privileged and wealthy while the other lives 'from paycheck to paycheck.'  Curiously, it appears that John is under the impression that the latter America, although already supported by the heavy taxation of the prior, needs the federal government to help them change.  Or, to paraphrase, redistribute the wealth.  If you've been reading here long enough, then you are aware of my attitude about the current tax system in America.  Electing someone like John Edwards is only going to exacerbate the problem.  His approach involves 'college for everyone' programs that create scholarships for anyone heading off to college, forcing businesses to supply healthcare to employees, and rolling back tax cuts that happen to be some of the few things that Bush has actually done right in his time in office.
To be honest, Edwards is a complete failure on this point - he appears to be under the impression that the answer to all our ills is to strengthen the federal government and its involvement in your life.  Personal responsibility is a thing of the past.

Next, there's the War in Iraq.
Edwards is the epitome, on this issue, of the type of politician that we absolutely don't need in Washington pulling the strings.  Using Iraq as a platform on which to run with John Kerry back in 2004, likely to prove their support of the military, Edwards made statements like this next one:  "It was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution."  However, upon seeing the negative polls when it came to our work in Iraq, he immediately changed his mind on the matter.  He now, according to his website, wants to have our troops pulled out completely within the ten months of being elected.  Sadly, putting a war into motion isn't exactly something that you can stop on a dime with.  His plan to withdraw troops so completely and so quickly would lead to a total power vacuum in the region - something that we definitely don't want to return to when it comes to cleaning it up.

Finally, on the most important topic that he'd be facing as president, Edwards, again, fails miserably.  According to his campaign website, we need to immediately adopt 'comprehensive immigration reform.'  "It is unrealistic to think that we can deport more than 12 million people. Edwards believes we need to give people here the opportunity to pay a fine and learn English to earn American citizenship."  What's so brilliant about this statement is his pushing of the argument that the only other option would to be deport millions of people.  This makes him either ignorant of the reality of the situation or a liar.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and merely call him ignorant on this point.  As I've mentioned previously, nobody needs to deport anyone.  Illegal aliens who can't get jobs will deport themselves - enforcing laws having to do with who hires who is more important than teaching anyone english or paying a fine.  Adopting the poverty of Central and South America won't help America in the slightest.

John Edwards is obviously unaware of the most important issues facing the next person to sit at the helm of the American machine.  He's not winning my vote, and I certainly hope he's not going to be picking up yours.

I've made an update to the first of my 2008 presidential candidate reviews, the post about Ron Paul.  I was reading through it, boring as it was, and realized that I'd not gone back to update it at all regarding the controversy that has started to come to light in recent weeks regarding his newsletters.  If you're at all interested, it's about three quarters of the way through the post.

The next requested candidate that I'm analyzing is Fred Thompson.  I'll be crossing over into Democratic side of the aisle in the next review post, I promise.  In the meantime, if you've got any input on the content that you find here on this candidate, please speak up in the comments.  The update listed above was actually made in part because of a comment that was made on that post - and I even credited the commenter!  Now wouldn't you just love to have that kind of political power?

As far as interesting facts on Fred Thompson: he has worked not only as an attorney, lobbyist, and senator, but also as a character actor.  Most notably (to me, that is) was his work on 'Law & Order.'  I didn't necessarily watch the show, but I still recognized his face the first time I saw it when it was suggested that he might be running in 2008.  As a matter of fact, it's been speculated that his May 30, 2007 departure from filming was to begin working on his presidential bid.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention, the three most important issues facing Americas next president are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

When I refer to 'shrinking the federal government' I mean both in policy and financially.  In all honesty, I think that shrinking the federal government economically should be a higher priority than the current policy structure that involves the slow evolution of a government nosing into every aspect of a citizen's life.  That being said, Thompson doesn't seem to disagree that the current financial growth-capacity of the federal government is getting too advanced.  In an interview on Fox News back in June, he stated that "we have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world."  He went even further with his commentary two months earlier at Lincoln Club Dinner.  "Taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from investing & taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional $1 collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as $2 worse off. To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible."  Few people seem to realize that higher taxes on those 'evil' corporations that haunt every San Francisco nightmare scenario are actually crippling our nation as a whole.  Want to complain about outsourcing?  Talk to our elected representatives about their tax policies.  If you were looking at higher profits by something so simple as moving your headquarters offshore, wouldn't you make the jump?  I know I would.  Thompson seems to understand that.

Thompson and I share more in common than just a penchant for cutting taxes and the spending that inspires them - he also seems pretty dead-set on finishing the job that's been started in Iraq.  During a debate back in October 2007, he pointed out, correctly, that "clearly...we didn't go in with enough troops and we didn't know what to expect when we got there. But now we're showing signs of progress. I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not to have to leave with our tail between our legs. If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous USA."

I don't want to sound like I'm falling over myself trying to come up with reasons not to pledge my vote for this guy, but I kind of am.  He sounds reasonable and responsible, two things that are definitely needed in Washington at the moment.  But what about illegal immigration?  Good question.  In researching this guy, I found conflicting statements.  On the one hand, he appears to be supportive of securing the borders and ending illegal immigration through that means (which, lets have a reality check here, certainly won't end all illegal immigration).  However, he doesn't appear to address the possibility of pushing employers to stop hiring illegal aliens and, instead, just offers vague conclusions that involve self-deportation with little details.  While he opposed the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco from this past summer, he does suggest that "you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."
On this issue, in particular, I think he's headed in the right direction, but I fear that he's not there yet.

When it comes to controversies attached to Thompson, there was something of an uproar over his role as a pro-choice lobbyist for a short stint back in the 90s.  Personally, I don't see this as a massive problem and really couldn't dig up anything more.

Ultimately, I think that Fred Thompson has a lot of potential.  His stance on other issues, mostly domestic, I have a generally positive feeling about, but nothing concrete.  The portrayal of him as a lazy politician seems to be damaging him slightly, as the people who supported him originally are slowly starting to lose faith in him following his poor performances in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  I definitely like the guy, but he'll have to make it to nomination before I'd ever been convinced to vote for him.

Oh well.

As per the only request garnered from all three of my readers out there, I'm going to be analyzing Ron Paul as a potential candidate for my vote during the 2008 election.  If anyone out there that thinks this guy deserves my vote, please feel free to comment on it and fill in any gaps you may find with what you read below.
And, as always, you are more than welcome to comment with your suggestion on who I should consider next.

First, an interesting fact about Ron Paul: he refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans to pay for their college tuition, nor does he currently accept his congressional pension plan, as both of these are taxpayer-funded.
Now that is someone who sticks to their principles.

As pointed out in my post yesterday, the three main issues that will lend true credibility to the next president of the United States of America are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

Anyone who is willing to turn down student loans for their children, let alone a congressional pension plan, based on the burden that the taxpayers of America face is more than likely to fit the bill on the third item on that list.

One of the problems with our ever-expanding federal government is the fact that it is spending us into the poorhouse.  Most politicians cite this as something that needs to be immediately addressed - but rarely do you hear any of them speak as frankly on this matter as Paul appears to.  "When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans."  How, then, are we supposed to make up for the money that we're spending if we can't tax it, print it, or borrow it?  Cut out the spending, of course.  "We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all."
Amen, brother!

If the 2008 election was only about reversing our current trend of growing our government to massive proportions, Ron Paul would have earned this vote in just two quotes.  Unfortunately for him, that's just not the case.

In the past, Ron Paul has stated that he would withdraw our military from Iraq (indeed, from everywhere) as quickly as possible, were he to be elected.  This, of course, only jives with those Americans out there who share his overwhelmingly non-interventionist perspective on foreign policy.  However, leaving Iraq completely isn't going to change the status quo.  In fact, it will lead to further problems.

Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased" withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits, and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly: "An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy will undoubtedly follow America home.

I've pointed it out previously, as well - we can't just pack up and go home.  We need to see this thing through whether it was the best choice in the first place or not.  On this, the second most important issue facing the next President, Ron Paul most certainly fails to face the music.

The single most important issue facing our next elected leader, however, is going to be Illegal Immigration.  Whether the American public, our representatives in the legislative branch, or our bordering nations want to recognize it or not, illegal immigration is threatening the very infrastructure upon which America currently rests.  And what is Ron Paul planning to do about it?  "I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us."  Again, Ron Paul takes the cake on this issue.

(Update 1/14/08: I don't know why I didn't do this originally, but I think that I should probably consider the controversies attached to candidates as well as their stands on important issues.  The following paragraph has been added to fill that gap.)

Two out of three really isn't that bad when it comes to the political atmosphere that America has thrust itself into.  However, if a politician doesn't have any controversies dragging their name through the mud, then they really aren't a politician, are they?  Ron Paul is no different.  As mentioned by Urban Lenny in a comment to this post, Paul has a series of political newsletters that posed something of a problem for him back in the 90s.  Written under his name with no bylines provided, these editorials were curious insofar as they were written in the first person - leaving one to assume that they had been published under Paul's watchful eye.  James Kirchick over at The New Republic, a publication that I don't normally pay much attention to, did an extensive review of the content of these letters:

In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration..."
Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little..."

I would encourage you to take a look at the article.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Kirchick piece, but, unlike Paul and his newsletters, it wasn't originally published under my name.

Now, I haven't really delved too deep into other issues that are less damaging to America as a whole, but from what I gather, I don't have much to disagree with the guy about.  Really, I'd love to hand him my vote, but my apprehension over how he is likely to endanger millions and millions of people following a massive pull-out from Iraq is something truly striking to consider.  Beyond that, the guy doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  If he runs, he'll have to run as either a third party contender or an independent.  Historically speaking, neither of these options will give him any feasible chance at taking the Presidency.  However, if he does choose to run in that capacity, I believe that he certainly could put a Ross Perot shaped dent into the electorate.  I just happen to think that the majority of those votes would be likely Democratic voters, not Republicans.

Ultimately, Ron Paul fails to capture my imagination, despite his principled and logical stands on most of the issues that will define the upcoming presidency.  Too bad.

As New Hampshire ends its primary election counts this evening, I remain completely uncertain about who I'm going to end up supporting in the 2008 election.  Call me indecisive, but the whole lot of the current candidates don't strike me as anything special.  Nor do they inspire me to much more than a general fear about the future of American politics and policy.

To that end, I think I'm going to start analyzing those that I see as the main candidates facing party nominations on a one-by-one basis until I can come up with some kind of decision.  Lucky for me, I don't think that the nominations are going to be that clear until after the February 5th 'Super Tuesday' election coming up.  That seems like plenty of time to start weeding out the politicians that I don't like.

First, a brief introduction to the three most important issues facing America, in this order:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government
   

Illegal immigration gets the top-spot in the list because it poses a threat to America on just about ever level - education, the deficit, taxes, security, the penal system, etc.  I don't have anything against hispanic people or hispanic culture, either.  My problem is mostly with employers who are willing exploit anyone and anything as a means to an ends in their profit margin.  My problem is burdening my children and their children with the responsibility of making right the poverty of our neighboring countries.  If it's not put to a stop, this slow slide that America is seeing is only going to get worse.  And fast.

Then there's the War in Iraq (and the War on Terror, as a whole).  Whether you like it or not, we're in Iraq right now.  Pulling out all of our troops tomorrow doesn't do anyone any good, and just about everyone in their right mind knows it.  So what to do about it?  Start setting deadlines on the Iraqi government when it comes to American financial support and slowly start settling in as a long-term military force.  If the Iraqi government fails to meet their deadlines, the money may dry up, but we need to remain there.  Let the country go to hell on its own if they can't lead themselves, but an American military presence there, acting as a deterrent for potential Husseins in the future, is essential.  End of story.

Originally, I thought about including civil liberties and whatnot into the third portion of the list, but then settled on shrinking the federal government, instead.  The reason for this is because all of the people running around and screaming about their precious civil liberties don't seem to realize that the slow constriction of civil liberties is inevitable when you have trained your government to grow at an exceptional rate.  A government that's been handed control over things like retirement planning and health care likely won't see a reason why it shouldn't begin meddling in how/when you get on a plane to fly.  The American public has been conditioning our government to spend more and more money while taking over more and more control for far too long.  It's time that we started to shrink the beast down to a more manageable size.

So, there you have it - the three most important topics up for grabs when it comes to my selection for president.  It's not that I don't care about things like abortion and gay rights, but these three things are obviously far more important.  If you disagree with me, please, feel free to post some commentary.

In the meantime, I'm going to be trying out my first candidate tomorrow.  Any suggestions as to whom I should be looking into first will be gladly considered.

Well, the second round of debates for the Republican hopefuls took place today, but I ended up missing the broadcast because of some 'productive playtime' I had to attend after work.  Ultimately, I don't think I missed too much, having briefly reviewed some of the post-debate commentary.  It sounds like the candidates just did some more shuffling around the issues - this mostly because they already know who is going to be staying and who is going to be going in the next year.  No surprises until then, you see.
By the way, 'productive playtime' is management-speak for 'drink beer on the company dime while socializing with your co-workers.'  I really probably would have had more fun watching the kiddie-glove debate.

While at my 'productive playtime' meeting, I somehow found myself involved in a conversation about class envy with a couple of the girls in my office and quickly discovered that, while the two of them shared my interest in one day becoming independently wealthy, we differed insofar as I don't lay all of the problems that America has at the feet of those whom I would like to join the ranks of.  That is to say, it's not the fault of the upper or middle classes that we have a lower class.
Apparently this idea is pretty unpopular around these parts.

When I started to point out the fact that American tax payers are suffering under a progressive tax system that raises tax demand on citizens as they progress into higher income rates, I was stared at with deep distrust and was even told 'that's a load of crap.'  When I mentioned the fact that the people in the highest tax brackets in America are paying for most of the welfare funding in America, via their income tax, I was actually told 'I don't believe that for a second.'  Really.

While I realize that the young women to whom I was speaking will never so much as read this entry, I'd like to do you, kind reader, the favor of clearing things up - just in case you suffer under this same misconception.  Wealth envy and class warfare are two marketing ploys that seem to work on Americans.  Don't ask me why, but I get the distinct impression that the tax system in America is a complete mystery to most.  This is why the government is so damned successful, I suppose, in spending all of our hard-earned dollars - because you aren't paying attention to how much of your paycheck is actually being stolen from you by Uncle Sam.

The current federal income tax system works with six different tax brackets.  Each of these six brackets represents an income level.  At each different income level, there is a certain percentage tax rate applied to the earnings.  As the tax bracket (the income level) gets higher, so does the percentage charged for income tax.  For example, if you earn $0 - $7,550 per year, you are taxed 10%, but if you earn $7,551 - $30,650 per year, you are taxed 15%.  Now, because this is automatically deducted from your paycheck by your employer, you generally don't get to see how much you're actually being charged.  Sure, they print it on your paystub, but you're an American.  If it's not on American Idol or in Cosmo, you likely aren't paying attention or reading it - you're just happy to have some cash flow for all of your hard work.

The government, though, knows that there's always some studious citizen out there who might start to realize that their take-home pay and the amount that they are actually earning don't quite add up.  This studious citizen may even be tipped off by the fact that the chunk of money removed from their paycheck before they've even received it seems to increase as they become more and more successful at earning their money.  This could upset them, and that might lead to questions - questions regarding why so much must be taken from that citizen, what that money is actually being used for, so on and so forth.
Luckily, the IRS built in an excuse to, hopefully, confuse our studious citizen.  This is called the marginal tax rate, and it's supposed to make you calm down before you get really angry about all of your money that is being wasted on pork-barrel spending in Washington.

The marginal rate taxation is a little hard to explain - essentially, it means that you are taxed for each tax bracket individually.  If you happen to earn somewhere within the third tax bracket, you are only charged the first tax bracket rate on any money that is earned within that first bracket.  You are then charged the second tax bracket rate on any money from there to the third bracket.  Does that make sense?
Probably not.  The tax system is supposed to be confusing - this way even the studios citizen will become so flustered they couldn't possibly remain angry about all of their missing cash.

Once you've thrown in the opportunity for the state to charge you further income tax at their own rate, deductions to be made for Medicare and Social Security (which you likely won't ever see paid back to you in your lifetime), you can slap on a significantly higher percentage rate of taxation.

Now, if you've actually made it this far into the post, you can pat yourself on the back - you're a studious citizen.  Stop me if I'm wrong, but if we are to function in a system where the vast majority of American tax dollars are actually produced by the top earners, wouldn't it make sense to recognize these individuals who have actually made it that far?  Doesn't it make sense to celebrate the fact that these people pushed themselves into higher-earning positions, despite a system that penalizes them for that success, while shouldering the biggest of the American tax burden?

Sure, there are always going to be spoiled children out there (Paris Hilton, I'm looking at you), but doesn't a parent have the right to raise their kid in any way they see fit?  And, to that end, isn't it your right to make enough money to one day afford the opportunity to tell Paris Hilton off to her face?
I know I certainly plan to exercise that right at some point.

Do yourself a favor and take a look at your next paystub and do some math before you take it to the bank.  How differently would you feel about our government spending if you actually had to hand them that cash on April 15th instead of just doing a bunch of paperwork to document the money that they'd automatically stolen from you over the year?

I can guarantee you that it'd put an end to seeing Congressional approval ratings at 29% and Presidential approval ratings at 33%.  Hell, if people actually realized how much they were paying for the status quo in Washington right now, I sincerely suspect that we'd find every politician there uprooted and replaced with a fresh compliment of public representatives.  Go figure.

I don't know if you're the type of person who would rush home from work early, weaving dangerously in and out of traffic as your rust-bucket car whines beneath the crushing weight of your foot on the accelerator, risking life and limb just to catch the first Democratic Presidential Primary debate on MSNBC yesterday.
I know that I certainly am.

Just in case you missed it, I have to say that you might want to take a trip over to YouTube to try and snag a few clips.  Particularly of former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel.  He is, essentially, a much older, much more outspoken Howard Dean - if you can imagine that.  When asked about whether or not he thought the US was 'woefully behind' in our use of nuclear energy, he somehow managed to produce a meandering answer about how we are mischaracterizing terrorism.

And then there was Kucinich, who we all got to see in action during the last Democratic primary.  When asked about why he didn't believe that there was such a thing as a global war on terror he had the following to say:

Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty.

The world is waiting for an American president who reaches out in a hand of friendship; who understands this is a complex world, but doesn't see the world in terms of enemies.

Does anyone else find it slightly troublesome that the American public has grown so anesthetized in the last fifty years that there are actual adults out there who suffer from the delusion the world will find peace only when everyone joins hands and plays fair with each other?
You can't hug the world with nuclear arms, you know.

Kucinich and Gravel don't stand a chance, though.  And I think it's safe to say that Obama walked off of that stage as the clear victor last night.  Things should get plenty interesting when Clinton starts to dig herself in, though.

Anyway, with my political cynicism back in gear, I think I'm actually looking forward to the 2008 elections - despite the fact that they're still so far in the future.  More than the election process itself, though, I can't wait for the first Republican debates, where we're all guaranteed to find even more lecture-rhetoric about morality and patriotism.

Ever since I decided to add the Power Line blog to my ever-growing list of RSS feeds, I can't say that I've been disappointed in the least.  I have come to learn that I can always expect intelligent news analysis there, whether I agree with the point of their articles or not.

To that end, as I'm trying to avoid delving into the still-developing political ramifications of the Virginia Tech shooting, I'd like to point to a Power Line article from a couple of days ago that really caught my attention.

While I openly reject the belief that the mainstream media is actively campaigning to get a Democrat into office, I don't think it's a stretch to recognize that the majority of our press is composed of left-leaning writers.  So it goes.  However, the Barack Obama quote from the cited AP article, when placed so closely to the photograph of he and Ludacris together, did raise my eyebrows.

Quintessentially, this is a prime example of why I don't think Obama is going to be able to squeak through as the Democratic nominee for President.  Most of his political power is drawn from the fact that he's relatively unknown and, thus, doesn't have the same sort of baggage that most of his opposition is going to have (i.e. Hillary).  Unfortunately, his lack of baggage will also happen to be his greatest weakness, magnifying any slight hypocrisies he may find himself stumbling into on the campaign trail.

Then again, I've been wrong before.
I did, after all, actually think that Bush was going to grow some teeth during his second term in office.  What a joke that turned out to be.

While the 2004 Presidential Election provided the public with a whole slew of new Bushisms and Kerry-flops, we were never really exposed to anything from Kerry's running mate, John Edwards.  As I recall, he was marked as being too inexperienced to possibly handle the office of the President.  Now that he's back in the spotlight, though, it appears that he'll have plenty of time to illustrate that label to be well deserved:

"The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."

Just what, exactly, does he mean by that?  That if Israel bombs Iran's potential nuclear ambitions out of the water, it will be Israel's fault?  That to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities would be an act of war, but their mere existance is not?  I suppose, then, that we are to just accept that Iran has the right to begin development of a nuclear arsenal - despite their blatantly hostile attitudes towards anyone not directly aligned with them.
He must be joking.  Maybe he has the same speech writers as Kerry?

But there are more important things going on in the world beyond the next potential President of the United States of America - there's the fact that Anna Nicole Smith is dead!

I've tried to avoid mentioning her since she died almost two weeks ago - but the fact that this story has somehow managed to survive the news cycle this long is driving me mad.  While it's certainly subsided a bit in the last few days, I just don't understand what all the fuss is about.  The woman was kind of a slut.  And by 'kind of' I mean 'definitely.'  Why is that making (inter)national news?  Is it because she's left an innocent child behind to deal with all of this later on?  Is all of this focus really helping the child in any way?

And, no, she's not 'our generation's Marilyn Monroe.'  So knock it off, already.

"I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by lifetime politicians...there have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements - and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading."

Thank you, Mitt Romney.

In an ideal world, where Americans trade in their nightly dosage of 'American Idol' and 'Lost' episodes for a happy helping of political involvement, the 2008 Presidential Election might find you and Barak Obama as the headliners at the final debate events.  Unfortunately, while I agree with you on the above statement, I can't say that you're the strongest possible candidate on the Republican side.  Of course, when you've got someone like Guiliani or McCain at the top of the dogpile, you might actually stand a chance.
Meanwhile, while looking at the calendar the other day, I was struck by the fact that the Iowa caucus isn't for almost another year.  And I think that Karl Rove has a valid point when he says 'I think it is going to mean that people develop a persona earlier and wear out their welcome earlier than they would...I think there's going to come some point this year where people are going to basically be saying: 'I'm largely disinterested in the contest.'

Who knows?  Maybe McCain will slip up and call someone a 'gook' on national television or Hillary will throw a hissy fit and have her bodyguards beat up Cindy Sheehan before then.  Maybe Guiliani will be caught in another affair.
Maybe Obama and Romney can somehow manage to keep themselves clean throughout this whole process.