Alright, so the conventions are over; I can start focusing on college more now and Palin can start working on those foreign policy credentials.
We've been seeing it since she was confirmed - the Democrats and media are focusing on her kids, whether or not she can take care of them and do the job, and her inexperience. It is imperative that McCain and his team set an identity for her ASAP.
That speech was only a stepping stone; we all knew she was conservative, now we know that she can be electrifying. That doesn't still the critics; she can be a great pontificator, but if she morphs into Dan Quayle when Joe Biden starts talking about Georgia during the vice presidential debate, the Republicans are in serious trouble.
We can't wait until the debate comes to build a coherent narrative that is acceptable to the American public. We need to do it now, before the Democrats can sink their teeth into her. Eventually, the Democrats are going to understand that attacking her as just a small town mayor and a woman with five kids isn't going to pan out. They'll get to the good stuff soon enough; the investigation into the firing of her brother-in-law, her change of position on the bridge to Ketchikan ("Nowhere), etc.
She better be ready.
It should be noted that this was an excellent choice; I attended the Texas Republican Convention, and people just weren't...enamored with John McCain. It seemed to be a ho-hum affair - Palin has changed that, but we can't lose sight of the fact that she isn't the person who's going to be in charge; McCain is. We need to defend Governor Palin but not make the election about her.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain's Speech
I don't know if it's because I was trying to do college work at the same time but I have a headache after McCain finished up his speech.
Don't get me wrong here; I support John McCain but an orator, this man is not. I'll give him credit for the call to public service and the emotion he demonstrated when it came to to the retelling of his story, but I wanted more meat when it came to the issues. I should be careful about that, because the speech was an hour long already.
We knew this speech wasn't going to have the same kind of punch as Palin's but McCain met expectations; he did everything he needed to do. He introduced himself once again to the American people and humanized himself. The declaration that he hates war and recognizes the evil of it and only wishes to secure the nation was a great sentiment.
But what made this speech so great was the call to reform - McCain stood in a convention of his peers and called them to task. As a party, the Republicans have lost their way and they have lost the trust of the American people. We've been in the wilderness and now it's time to get ourselves out of the woods without burning down the forest. We need to unite the American people, and John McCain's speech laid down some groundwork for that.
When this convention is remembered, it will be regarded as the time the Republican Party set itself on a new path. John McCain's acceptance speech was the first few steps on the road; it's up to Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal to make sure the Republican Party keep on the right track.
I just wish that those protestors hadn't gotten so much attention. Now, I've got more studying to do.
Don't get me wrong here; I support John McCain but an orator, this man is not. I'll give him credit for the call to public service and the emotion he demonstrated when it came to to the retelling of his story, but I wanted more meat when it came to the issues. I should be careful about that, because the speech was an hour long already.
We knew this speech wasn't going to have the same kind of punch as Palin's but McCain met expectations; he did everything he needed to do. He introduced himself once again to the American people and humanized himself. The declaration that he hates war and recognizes the evil of it and only wishes to secure the nation was a great sentiment.
But what made this speech so great was the call to reform - McCain stood in a convention of his peers and called them to task. As a party, the Republicans have lost their way and they have lost the trust of the American people. We've been in the wilderness and now it's time to get ourselves out of the woods without burning down the forest. We need to unite the American people, and John McCain's speech laid down some groundwork for that.
When this convention is remembered, it will be regarded as the time the Republican Party set itself on a new path. John McCain's acceptance speech was the first few steps on the road; it's up to Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal to make sure the Republican Party keep on the right track.
I just wish that those protestors hadn't gotten so much attention. Now, I've got more studying to do.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Scholarship
So there was this scholarship over presidential scholarships. I stayed up late nights while I was in Houston finishing it up and was excited; if there's anything I could win a scholarship over, it's over the presidential campaigns. Well, I didn't win. I've been worked to death from work, school, and my own habits. My wish to get a 3.3 GPA is closing in on me, which was something I should have expected since I've squished this Associate's Degree in one year instead of two. Taking two science classes in summer probably didn't help. Taking the express lane when it comes to education has it's costs...
Anyway, I really worked hard on it and I'm quite proud of it. I didn't want it to waste away somewhere, so here it is, immortialized on a blog page that is never read. :)
At this point in our nation’s illustrious history there are a multitude of pressing matters which plague the well-being and serenity of our nation’s present condition and at the same time threaten America’s future prosperity; the issues that are most integral and vital to securing a superior nation for our posterity if resolved effectively and competently include America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and how skillfully our government can employ diplomacy to defeat our enemies; the government must also display a concerted effort to tame the economic fluctuations which have begun to seriously impact the financial stability of our nation and cause widespread concern among America’s citizenry; the challenge of illegal immigration has become an issue so volatile that the position of now Republican nominee for the Presidency, John McCain, to support an immigration bill co-sponsored by Edward Kennedy caused such conservative outrage it nearly ended his campaign1; John McCain’s campaign recovered but the political fallout has driven other politicians from confronting a problem that costs the American people millions of dollars each year.
These challenges are not new within the context of American history or politics – the annals of American history are fraught with foreign policy crises which have been solved by tactful diplomacy and compromise; the legacy of diplomatic resolutions to foreign problems is a hallmark of America’s greatest triumphs – beginning with Jay’s Treaty under the Washington Administration that sparred the then young nation from being entrenched in the war between French and Britain, to the brilliant masterwork of the Marshall Plan2 that helped rebuild Europe after World War II while also persuading countries to side with America during the Cold War. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to America’s extended standoff with the Soviet Union, the greatest foreign policy achievements have been reached through speech rather than through force. In each of these of those cases, it took a strong executive who was able to able to balance popular opinion with the pragmatic policy necessary to protect and supplement American interests. Foreign policy agreements which have been recorded as triumphs in the annals of American history do not rest solely on the shoulders of a great and talented individual but decisions made by the President often allow these policy agreements to take place. Jay’s Treaty3 was viciously unpopular, but George Washington looked beyond public opinion and to the importance of keeping the country out of war. Opening diplomatic relations with China4 seemed tantamount to getting in bed with the enemy, but Nixon’s choice to do so allowed America to enjoy economic prosperity. Truman’s choice to recognize Israel as an independent nation was scorned by some but was responsible for contributing to the legitimacy of that nation’s very existence5.
The President’s influence is not limited to foreign policy issues of course; Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal initiative can be credited with bringing the U.S. out of the Great Depression6 and Washington’s decision to back Alexander Hamilton’s plan to create a Federal Bank had large implications on the young nation’s future7. A President’s indecision and bad judgment can also cause lasting heartache for America’s prosperity; President Van Buren is largely remembered for the economic panic which occurred under his watch and little else, for instance.8
This year foreign policy, economic, and domestic issues of critical importance to the country’s future will be placed on the President’s desk from day one. The 44th President shall be chosen for that office at one of the ripest moments for change that this country has ever been given. The question is, will he be up to the task?
If he is unable to deal effectively with our foreign policy issues and with our enemies abroad, it will be safe to say that he will be unable to become a celebrated President in our country’s history. Today, the economy has outstripped foreign policy issues like Iraq from the public consciousness but what the average citizen has forgotten is that with a globally interconnected world, foreign policy affects every part of our everyday life. 10 Foreign policy decisions affect the trade barriers and tariffs raised between countries and can have a severe impact on the prices of essential products. The North Atlantic Trade Agreement encouraged economic freedom and interconnectivity between Canada, the United States, and Mexico and despite the loss of jobs; many consider it to be a success9. Often, economic issues can be driven to correct themselves. National security matters, however, rarely sort themselves out without decisive action. An example of how the malaise of a President’s foreign policy can affect America’s prestige would be the year-long hostage standoff between Iran and the United States, which was often highlighted by President Jimmy Carter’s inability to enforce a strong hand against the Iranians. 10
What the next President of the United States must do is be willing to confront foreign policy issues with tenacity and grace, with grit as well as discretion. The War in Iraq must not be conducted in the haphazard manner that was the routine of the Bush Administration’s original post-invasion manner and critical mistakes like Paul Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi Army (which drove trained individuals to fight with the insurgency) are no longer a luxury we can afford11. The 44th President must understand that to acquiesce to political expediency and leave Iraq in its current shape and form would be a foreign policy blunder akin to our initial post-invasion strategy. Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Institute for Middle Eastern Affairs details why an immediate withdrawal as proposed by Obama could be considered disastrous; when brought to testify before Congress, Katzman explained that without the U.S. forces there to buoy the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki’s government, the Iraqi security forces, in their present condition, would inevitably fracture into their own militias and a coup would most likely occur which would set the stage not only for political instability but also allow a leader like Moktada Al-Sadr who supports Iran to take control of Iraq; thus increasing Iran’s sphere of influence. 13
The 44th President must begin his term by seeking to integrate the war in Iraq as a global issue. He should reach out to all Middle Eastern nations in order to dispel the alienation and ambivalence many of them experience in the field of American politics in the present day. He must present a case for the reasons we have for staying in Iraq not only to the American public but to the world. A tour of the Middle East akin to Madison’s tour of the United States during the Era of Good Feelings would be ideal, except it would be much more serious and critical to national security than Madison’s. 14 The us-against-them mentality of the Bush Administration should be discarded as inefficient and disingenuous and instead the next President should explain to the world that all the civilized nations in the world would suffer as a result of a terrorist victory. A speech to the United Nations delegation could begin a new era of diplomatic relations in which the United States does not act unilaterally but acts as one part of a tapestry of nations dedicated to eliminating terrorism and ensuring prosperity. In order to do this, the next President must demonstrate certain ideals in order for America to regain its prestige and trustworthiness to those nations in the Middle Eastern regions especially. This would include pressuring Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to end his steps towards dictatorship and stop limiting the rights of individuals in his country; this would be an act of contrition since the US has supported Musharraf’s regime in exchange for agreeing to fight Al-Qaeda in key regions of the Pakistani countryside. 15
Who is most likely to take the right steps to ensuring a concrete and precise foreign policy that would benefit America? John McCain, but he will not be the next President of the United States. McCain’s lifeblood during the primaries was the independent vote, but as he has emerged as the presumptive nominee, he has had to forego some aspects of his maverick persona in order to court the conservative base. Obama has much the same relationship with his base and independents, but has been able to veil his inexperience and the weakest parts of his agenda through his soaring rhetoric and seemingly genuine call for bipartisanship. Both candidates signal change for America and envision a new era for American politics but while McCain has a senate record for bipartisanship, he seems to be burdened by the albatross of Bush’s legacy – the war in Iraq and the tax cuts that McCain now supports may not be enough for Democrats to call McCain the “third-term Bush” but it does make it hard for him to coalesce the conservative base and the independent vote into a coalition that will be able to elect him into the office of the Presidency. As a result, it seems most likely that it Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Works Cited
1 Yoon, Robert. "McCain lags in fundraising, cuts staff." CNN Political Ticker. 02 July 2007. CNN. 13 Jun 2008.
2 "Jay's Treaty." Jay's Treaty. Archiving Early America. 13 Jun 2008
3 "The Marshall Plan." The Marshall Plan Rebuilding Europe. 00 May 2007. U.S. State Department. 13 Jun 2008.
4 " "Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique." Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique. 11 Nov 2000. Ministry Affairs for the People's Republic of China. 13 Jun 2008.
5 "The Recognition of the State of Israel: Documents." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. 13 Jun 2008.
6 Rosmaita, Gregory. "The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad." The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad. 1993. An American Exegesis. 13 Jun 2008.
7 Gross, Daniel. "The New New Deal." Roosevelt-era reforms are saving capitalism-again. 25 Mar 2008.
Slate. 15 Jun 2008.
8 "Biography of Martin Van Buren." Martin Van Buren. The White House. 13 Jun 2008.
9 "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - FAS Fact Sheets." USDA. Jan 2008. US Department
of Agriculture. 13 Jun 2008.
10 "Biography of Jimmy Carter." The White House. The White House. 14 Jun 2008
11 Zuckman, Jill. "Economy replacing war as top campaign issue." Politics and Government. 15 Dec 2007.
Seattle Times. 14 Jun 2008.
12 Gordon, Michael. "Fateful Choice on Iraq Army Bypassed Debate." New York Times 17 Mar 2008
15 Jun 2008.
13 "Statement of Kenneth Katzman." Congressional Research Service. 23 Jan 2008. Congressional
Research Institute. 15 Jun 2008.
14 "Era of Good Feeling." Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University . 15 Jun 2008
.
15 Bhadrakumar, M K. "Musharraf sidesteps US advice." Musharraf sidesteps US advice. 4 Nov 2007.
Rediff India Abroad; India as it happens. 15 Jun 2008.
Anyway, I really worked hard on it and I'm quite proud of it. I didn't want it to waste away somewhere, so here it is, immortialized on a blog page that is never read. :)
At this point in our nation’s illustrious history there are a multitude of pressing matters which plague the well-being and serenity of our nation’s present condition and at the same time threaten America’s future prosperity; the issues that are most integral and vital to securing a superior nation for our posterity if resolved effectively and competently include America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and how skillfully our government can employ diplomacy to defeat our enemies; the government must also display a concerted effort to tame the economic fluctuations which have begun to seriously impact the financial stability of our nation and cause widespread concern among America’s citizenry; the challenge of illegal immigration has become an issue so volatile that the position of now Republican nominee for the Presidency, John McCain, to support an immigration bill co-sponsored by Edward Kennedy caused such conservative outrage it nearly ended his campaign1; John McCain’s campaign recovered but the political fallout has driven other politicians from confronting a problem that costs the American people millions of dollars each year.
These challenges are not new within the context of American history or politics – the annals of American history are fraught with foreign policy crises which have been solved by tactful diplomacy and compromise; the legacy of diplomatic resolutions to foreign problems is a hallmark of America’s greatest triumphs – beginning with Jay’s Treaty under the Washington Administration that sparred the then young nation from being entrenched in the war between French and Britain, to the brilliant masterwork of the Marshall Plan2 that helped rebuild Europe after World War II while also persuading countries to side with America during the Cold War. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to America’s extended standoff with the Soviet Union, the greatest foreign policy achievements have been reached through speech rather than through force. In each of these of those cases, it took a strong executive who was able to able to balance popular opinion with the pragmatic policy necessary to protect and supplement American interests. Foreign policy agreements which have been recorded as triumphs in the annals of American history do not rest solely on the shoulders of a great and talented individual but decisions made by the President often allow these policy agreements to take place. Jay’s Treaty3 was viciously unpopular, but George Washington looked beyond public opinion and to the importance of keeping the country out of war. Opening diplomatic relations with China4 seemed tantamount to getting in bed with the enemy, but Nixon’s choice to do so allowed America to enjoy economic prosperity. Truman’s choice to recognize Israel as an independent nation was scorned by some but was responsible for contributing to the legitimacy of that nation’s very existence5.
The President’s influence is not limited to foreign policy issues of course; Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal initiative can be credited with bringing the U.S. out of the Great Depression6 and Washington’s decision to back Alexander Hamilton’s plan to create a Federal Bank had large implications on the young nation’s future7. A President’s indecision and bad judgment can also cause lasting heartache for America’s prosperity; President Van Buren is largely remembered for the economic panic which occurred under his watch and little else, for instance.8
This year foreign policy, economic, and domestic issues of critical importance to the country’s future will be placed on the President’s desk from day one. The 44th President shall be chosen for that office at one of the ripest moments for change that this country has ever been given. The question is, will he be up to the task?
If he is unable to deal effectively with our foreign policy issues and with our enemies abroad, it will be safe to say that he will be unable to become a celebrated President in our country’s history. Today, the economy has outstripped foreign policy issues like Iraq from the public consciousness but what the average citizen has forgotten is that with a globally interconnected world, foreign policy affects every part of our everyday life. 10 Foreign policy decisions affect the trade barriers and tariffs raised between countries and can have a severe impact on the prices of essential products. The North Atlantic Trade Agreement encouraged economic freedom and interconnectivity between Canada, the United States, and Mexico and despite the loss of jobs; many consider it to be a success9. Often, economic issues can be driven to correct themselves. National security matters, however, rarely sort themselves out without decisive action. An example of how the malaise of a President’s foreign policy can affect America’s prestige would be the year-long hostage standoff between Iran and the United States, which was often highlighted by President Jimmy Carter’s inability to enforce a strong hand against the Iranians. 10
What the next President of the United States must do is be willing to confront foreign policy issues with tenacity and grace, with grit as well as discretion. The War in Iraq must not be conducted in the haphazard manner that was the routine of the Bush Administration’s original post-invasion manner and critical mistakes like Paul Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi Army (which drove trained individuals to fight with the insurgency) are no longer a luxury we can afford11. The 44th President must understand that to acquiesce to political expediency and leave Iraq in its current shape and form would be a foreign policy blunder akin to our initial post-invasion strategy. Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Institute for Middle Eastern Affairs details why an immediate withdrawal as proposed by Obama could be considered disastrous; when brought to testify before Congress, Katzman explained that without the U.S. forces there to buoy the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki’s government, the Iraqi security forces, in their present condition, would inevitably fracture into their own militias and a coup would most likely occur which would set the stage not only for political instability but also allow a leader like Moktada Al-Sadr who supports Iran to take control of Iraq; thus increasing Iran’s sphere of influence. 13
The 44th President must begin his term by seeking to integrate the war in Iraq as a global issue. He should reach out to all Middle Eastern nations in order to dispel the alienation and ambivalence many of them experience in the field of American politics in the present day. He must present a case for the reasons we have for staying in Iraq not only to the American public but to the world. A tour of the Middle East akin to Madison’s tour of the United States during the Era of Good Feelings would be ideal, except it would be much more serious and critical to national security than Madison’s. 14 The us-against-them mentality of the Bush Administration should be discarded as inefficient and disingenuous and instead the next President should explain to the world that all the civilized nations in the world would suffer as a result of a terrorist victory. A speech to the United Nations delegation could begin a new era of diplomatic relations in which the United States does not act unilaterally but acts as one part of a tapestry of nations dedicated to eliminating terrorism and ensuring prosperity. In order to do this, the next President must demonstrate certain ideals in order for America to regain its prestige and trustworthiness to those nations in the Middle Eastern regions especially. This would include pressuring Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to end his steps towards dictatorship and stop limiting the rights of individuals in his country; this would be an act of contrition since the US has supported Musharraf’s regime in exchange for agreeing to fight Al-Qaeda in key regions of the Pakistani countryside. 15
Who is most likely to take the right steps to ensuring a concrete and precise foreign policy that would benefit America? John McCain, but he will not be the next President of the United States. McCain’s lifeblood during the primaries was the independent vote, but as he has emerged as the presumptive nominee, he has had to forego some aspects of his maverick persona in order to court the conservative base. Obama has much the same relationship with his base and independents, but has been able to veil his inexperience and the weakest parts of his agenda through his soaring rhetoric and seemingly genuine call for bipartisanship. Both candidates signal change for America and envision a new era for American politics but while McCain has a senate record for bipartisanship, he seems to be burdened by the albatross of Bush’s legacy – the war in Iraq and the tax cuts that McCain now supports may not be enough for Democrats to call McCain the “third-term Bush” but it does make it hard for him to coalesce the conservative base and the independent vote into a coalition that will be able to elect him into the office of the Presidency. As a result, it seems most likely that it Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Works Cited
1 Yoon, Robert. "McCain lags in fundraising, cuts staff." CNN Political Ticker. 02 July 2007. CNN. 13 Jun 2008
2 "Jay's Treaty." Jay's Treaty. Archiving Early America. 13 Jun 2008
3 "The Marshall Plan." The Marshall Plan Rebuilding Europe. 00 May 2007. U.S. State Department. 13 Jun 2008
4 " "Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique." Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique. 11 Nov 2000. Ministry Affairs for the People's Republic of China. 13 Jun 2008
5 "The Recognition of the State of Israel: Documents." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. 13 Jun 2008
6 Rosmaita, Gregory. "The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad." The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad. 1993. An American Exegesis. 13 Jun 2008
7 Gross, Daniel. "The New New Deal." Roosevelt-era reforms are saving capitalism-again. 25 Mar 2008.
Slate. 15 Jun 2008
8 "Biography of Martin Van Buren." Martin Van Buren. The White House. 13 Jun 2008
9 "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - FAS Fact Sheets." USDA. Jan 2008. US Department
of Agriculture. 13 Jun 2008
10 "Biography of Jimmy Carter." The White House. The White House. 14 Jun 2008
11 Zuckman, Jill. "Economy replacing war as top campaign issue." Politics and Government. 15 Dec 2007.
Seattle Times. 14 Jun 2008
12 Gordon, Michael. "Fateful Choice on Iraq Army Bypassed Debate." New York Times 17 Mar 2008
15 Jun 2008
13 "Statement of Kenneth Katzman." Congressional Research Service. 23 Jan 2008. Congressional
Research Institute. 15 Jun 2008
14 "Era of Good Feeling." Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University . 15 Jun 2008
15 Bhadrakumar, M K. "Musharraf sidesteps US advice." Musharraf sidesteps US advice. 4 Nov 2007.
Rediff India Abroad; India as it happens. 15 Jun 2008
Justin Nichols
The Collin County Observor outlines the whole torrid affair.
I voted for Justin Nichols after meeting him at my college. I believe he was the only person I voted for who didn't win and was not the most experienced person on the ballot. His opponent beat him on sheer credentials, but I went out on a limb. He seemed like a good guy and a person worthy of investing a vote based on his leadership qualities and great work in his position.
Both he and Phyllis Cole were the only people I voted for who lost. I've heard murmurings that it could have been a result of those e-mails slandering Cole about hiring "a gay person".
The Republican party has a lot going for it, but one thing it cannot lose is the lifeblood of any political party and of any movement; it's burgeoning stars from the next generation of politically-motivated people who believe in conservative principles.
No one won in this scenario. Nto Texas, not the Republican party, and certainly not Collin County.
I voted for Justin Nichols after meeting him at my college. I believe he was the only person I voted for who didn't win and was not the most experienced person on the ballot. His opponent beat him on sheer credentials, but I went out on a limb. He seemed like a good guy and a person worthy of investing a vote based on his leadership qualities and great work in his position.
Both he and Phyllis Cole were the only people I voted for who lost. I've heard murmurings that it could have been a result of those e-mails slandering Cole about hiring "a gay person".
The Republican party has a lot going for it, but one thing it cannot lose is the lifeblood of any political party and of any movement; it's burgeoning stars from the next generation of politically-motivated people who believe in conservative principles.
No one won in this scenario. Nto Texas, not the Republican party, and certainly not Collin County.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
What Happened
There will be those who will tell you that What Happened is another Bush Basher. There will be those who will dismiss it as the work of a disgruntled employee who's sticking it the the President. There will be those who will tell you that this book is about the campaign formulation that convinced the American public to enter Iraq.
All these diminish the importance of the work, what McClellan has uncovered is a subject that Keith Olbermann and even the people in Congress rarely focus on. What McClellan articulates is an odious culture of deception that is note the highlight of the Bush Administrion but of Washington itself. He bashes the Clinton White House a great deal and perhaps with more condemnation than with the Bush White House. There seems to be more regret than fire and brimstone when it comes to his recollections of the failures of the Bush Administraiton.
The Permanent Campaign mentality of Washington is even more dangerous because whether Obama or McCain wins, that mentality will still be in place. The mentality that even after the Presidency is won, everything must be done in anticipation of the next campaign to stay in office or in relation of keeping the party in power. This undermines the very fabric and purpose of the Presidency and the government itself. People are elected to these offices to serve the public not to work in tandem with others so they can get reelected or they can keep their party in power. Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to believe that these people aren't politicians, but according to McClellan, the integrity of the government itself had been compromised by a focus on maintaining power rather than maintaining a stable that progressed during a President's tenure.
We need someone who's experienced enough to resist this kind of partisanship and shape a Presidency that will drive Congress to act in the best interest of America rather than the best interest of a political party. Obama is more like Bush than he'd care to admit; he's as inexperienced as Bush was considered to be back in 2000; don't ask me though, I was too young to know.
The point is, only someone like John McCain would know how to resist this kind of temptation to fall into partisan politics. Obama is more inexpereinced than Bush was when he began the Presidency; how could he possibly solidify any true amount of change if he could so easily fall prety to the pitfalls that McClellan has outlined?
Really though, no matter who attains the Presidency, they must rise above this permanent campaign mentality. We know what happened. We know the cause. Now let's do something different.
Thank you, Mr. McClellan.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Still Tired
Very, very tired in fact. Since I've been back, things have only gotten harder. College and work have coalesced into a burden that's turning out to be back-breaking. Anyone who reads this and I'm fairly certain that number is about equal to zero should know that my posts will be fairly erratic until this three-class summer palooza to get my Associate's Degree is over.
Until then, Senators Dan Patrick, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and everyone who attended are awesome. Including Wayne, if he ever reads this, although no doubt, that man has better things to do than read a college guy's blog. Senator Dan Patrick received my letter of thanks for that awesome radio stint I was allowed to do. I even got a call back from secretary! Yeah, it was awesome.
But since I'm here, I might as well talk a bit about politics. Let's do a snippet; that GI bill that Senator McCain and Cornyn derided in favor of their own, less generous version (albeit, they had credible reasons) has been signed into law as of, what, today? I got a letter back from Senator Cornyn about the bill, which I was very happy about. Well, it was an e-mail, which doesn't have the same distinct coolness but it was still pretty awesome. It was so cool that it almost made me forget that I didn't support their version of the bill...only almost. One of the added benefits of this bill is the transferability of GI benefits; at least, I could have sworn Dana Perino mentioning that in her press briefing today. If that's true, then maybe I could actually benefit (even more, to be frank) from Dad's service.
Now, for more substantive talk; the FISA bill has been passed, the Heller case has been passed as well. A lot of things have happened, in short. The FISA bill peaks my interest, not that I'm not entranced by the Supreme Court descison, but it went the way I was expecting it to. I honestly didn't expect the Court to uphold the ban on handguns. It is startling that the Supreme Court, rather than issuing a decision that was ambiguous or shirking away from going "too far" finally stated unequivcally that we as individuals have a right to gun.
Yes. I could have already told you that. Courts like to buy their time. It's as if the Wild West didn't already demonstrate that folks have a right
I jest somewhat, but it's an important, nay, revolutionary decision. The beauty of the decision is that it is truly pragmatic in it's view of gun control. It gave us the right to have a gun and sealed it as an individual right but realized that that's not an excuse to carry around assault weapons.
So..now I'm tired again, but I've got plenty more to say tomorrow.
Until then, Senators Dan Patrick, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and everyone who attended are awesome. Including Wayne, if he ever reads this, although no doubt, that man has better things to do than read a college guy's blog. Senator Dan Patrick received my letter of thanks for that awesome radio stint I was allowed to do. I even got a call back from secretary! Yeah, it was awesome.
But since I'm here, I might as well talk a bit about politics. Let's do a snippet; that GI bill that Senator McCain and Cornyn derided in favor of their own, less generous version (albeit, they had credible reasons) has been signed into law as of, what, today? I got a letter back from Senator Cornyn about the bill, which I was very happy about. Well, it was an e-mail, which doesn't have the same distinct coolness but it was still pretty awesome. It was so cool that it almost made me forget that I didn't support their version of the bill...only almost. One of the added benefits of this bill is the transferability of GI benefits; at least, I could have sworn Dana Perino mentioning that in her press briefing today. If that's true, then maybe I could actually benefit (even more, to be frank) from Dad's service.
Now, for more substantive talk; the FISA bill has been passed, the Heller case has been passed as well. A lot of things have happened, in short. The FISA bill peaks my interest, not that I'm not entranced by the Supreme Court descison, but it went the way I was expecting it to. I honestly didn't expect the Court to uphold the ban on handguns. It is startling that the Supreme Court, rather than issuing a decision that was ambiguous or shirking away from going "too far" finally stated unequivcally that we as individuals have a right to gun.
Yes. I could have already told you that. Courts like to buy their time. It's as if the Wild West didn't already demonstrate that folks have a right
I jest somewhat, but it's an important, nay, revolutionary decision. The beauty of the decision is that it is truly pragmatic in it's view of gun control. It gave us the right to have a gun and sealed it as an individual right but realized that that's not an excuse to carry around assault weapons.
So..now I'm tired again, but I've got plenty more to say tomorrow.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Be Good
Ah, I'm tired but content. The convention was certainly an experience. I also discovered that Houston is best city in all of the state of Texas, but I will have to consolidate my thoughts and words at another date to explain how I discovered this fact in an eloquent fashion; I have another scholarship I have to tend to so this will have to be short - although I might edit it later.
Of all the things I learned during the Convention one presiding philosophy takes precedence and defines my modified outlook on the Republican party; the true conservative officials of the as well as those grassroot supporters all want one simple thing which is perhaps not so easy to achieve - a good government.
Google has a motto that serves as the antithesis to the corporate legacy of corruption immortalized by scandals wrought by Enron and Worldcom; Be Good. Not do good, but be good. I'm not calling for a good government that doesn't do anything but I'm recognizing that the best way to complete an action in a competent fashion is to be good at it. If the government is dysfunctional to begin with it is nearly impossible for it to provide the people with the services it was designed to distribute amongst the people. Being good at what you do is a preresquite for creating good things. If one reads the writings of Aristotle and other philosophers concerning what is "good" in the aspect of actions, then you find the same sentiment being echoed. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when the government is not focused on being good but just on doing; bureaucratic fallout hinders real progress from being achieved and precious lives can be lost.
The government too often tries to do everything and the Democrats seem to believe that having the government do everything for the citizens of America is a healthy proposition. As a conservative, I'm proud to say that I don't want the government to be involved in every iota of my life. This doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a place in our lives; we need border security, we need national security, we need equal protection under the laws (at times, federal law must intercede in order to make certain that this occurs when state law fails; Truman's response to the Little Rock Nine incident for example), we need government intervention in the financial sector at times as well.
However, the Democrats have a disheveled view; to them, the government must tell us that we must all have healthcare and have ours provided by the government. Healthcare is important, but it is the belief that we must be forced to do so that worries me. A competent and compassionate government does not mean an inflated government that believes it knows better than the people who allow it to exist.
From Micheal Williams to Dale Wainwright, to Mike Huckabee to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, this is the principle of republicanism I sensed; that as American individuals we have control over our destinies and the right to be protected by our government not dogged or harrassed by it. We have the right to demand that our government be good and not be so focused on doing good in a self-righteous fashion. Government must be chained by the good sense of the people so it does not run amok.
As George Washington stated, government is like fire; I'll admit to not remembering the full quote exactly, but I remember reading it and coming to the conclusion that government can be both an asset and a detriment to our liberties. We cannot bow to the siren song of larger government - we must instead confront issues like social security and healthcare with a pragmatic view, one which doesn't answer each and every problem with a new department of the government or, for conservatives, leaving it up to the market to fix in some occassions. One of the biggest examples to me is social security, which will be bankrupt and yet Democrats wish to cash the check and are disturbed when the President tries to find a solution in lieu of a better option. It's as if they prefer inaction to action if they don't come up with the idea.
It's quite perplexing.
Of all the things I learned during the Convention one presiding philosophy takes precedence and defines my modified outlook on the Republican party; the true conservative officials of the as well as those grassroot supporters all want one simple thing which is perhaps not so easy to achieve - a good government.
Google has a motto that serves as the antithesis to the corporate legacy of corruption immortalized by scandals wrought by Enron and Worldcom; Be Good. Not do good, but be good. I'm not calling for a good government that doesn't do anything but I'm recognizing that the best way to complete an action in a competent fashion is to be good at it. If the government is dysfunctional to begin with it is nearly impossible for it to provide the people with the services it was designed to distribute amongst the people. Being good at what you do is a preresquite for creating good things. If one reads the writings of Aristotle and other philosophers concerning what is "good" in the aspect of actions, then you find the same sentiment being echoed. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when the government is not focused on being good but just on doing; bureaucratic fallout hinders real progress from being achieved and precious lives can be lost.
The government too often tries to do everything and the Democrats seem to believe that having the government do everything for the citizens of America is a healthy proposition. As a conservative, I'm proud to say that I don't want the government to be involved in every iota of my life. This doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a place in our lives; we need border security, we need national security, we need equal protection under the laws (at times, federal law must intercede in order to make certain that this occurs when state law fails; Truman's response to the Little Rock Nine incident for example), we need government intervention in the financial sector at times as well.
However, the Democrats have a disheveled view; to them, the government must tell us that we must all have healthcare and have ours provided by the government. Healthcare is important, but it is the belief that we must be forced to do so that worries me. A competent and compassionate government does not mean an inflated government that believes it knows better than the people who allow it to exist.
From Micheal Williams to Dale Wainwright, to Mike Huckabee to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, this is the principle of republicanism I sensed; that as American individuals we have control over our destinies and the right to be protected by our government not dogged or harrassed by it. We have the right to demand that our government be good and not be so focused on doing good in a self-righteous fashion. Government must be chained by the good sense of the people so it does not run amok.
As George Washington stated, government is like fire; I'll admit to not remembering the full quote exactly, but I remember reading it and coming to the conclusion that government can be both an asset and a detriment to our liberties. We cannot bow to the siren song of larger government - we must instead confront issues like social security and healthcare with a pragmatic view, one which doesn't answer each and every problem with a new department of the government or, for conservatives, leaving it up to the market to fix in some occassions. One of the biggest examples to me is social security, which will be bankrupt and yet Democrats wish to cash the check and are disturbed when the President tries to find a solution in lieu of a better option. It's as if they prefer inaction to action if they don't come up with the idea.
It's quite perplexing.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Why
Next Wednesday, I will be attending the Republican State Convention. My parents are not enthused. The reasons behind their disdain have merit; I've never driven so far (the Convention is in Houston) and if I wreck my car the only choice I have is to go to the military. My transportation options are that limited; Texas is not known for it's mass transit system at this point. My Dad might have mentioned the military only to push how important it is for me to be careful (I've tried joining before; they can't take me anyway).
There's also the money. Four days in a hotel in Houston is not inexpensive. I managed to find a place for the cheap. Albeit, two hundred dollars is not exactly cheap for a college student, even one who's been as successful in his frugality as me. I found someone I can carpool with as well, which limits the worst that can happen to me being involved in an accident but still having a car to return to; not too shabby.
Even after this, I notice that my parents are still mildly ambivalent about the whole affair. A major complaint is about the worth of the trip in question; my Dad rightly notes that the GOP has more money than me and should be paying for it but conservatives are about free-trade, right?
More to the point, the main issue seems to be what I'll gain from attending the convention when compared to the cost. I'll miss two classes at least, which I don't believe my parents realize. My bronze tongue was not able to fully communicate my ideals to them, or perhaps there is a wall between use partially arising out of our differentiating political standings. One of my Dad's favorite sayings is if it doesn't make sense don't do it. It's a pun you see - sense and cents.
Why does it make sense? It makes sense for the same reason why I hold onto my conservative ideals on economics as well as domestic and foreign policy. It makes sense for the same reason why I stand true to those ideals even though I'm ridiculed for it. I need to do this. My Dad went to Iraq and my family suffered for it a great deal; the reverberations of his absence have only recently begun to quell. We sacrificed as a family. I cannot allow Obama to be elected and leave Iraq for politically expedient reasons. My Dad thinks we should leave Iraq, he believes that we should have never been there in the first place. That much is true, but too much has been sacrified and too large a massacre will occur if we were to leave.
It makes sense for me to attend because it makes sense for me to try to fulfill my duty to my country in any shape or fashion.
There's also the money. Four days in a hotel in Houston is not inexpensive. I managed to find a place for the cheap. Albeit, two hundred dollars is not exactly cheap for a college student, even one who's been as successful in his frugality as me. I found someone I can carpool with as well, which limits the worst that can happen to me being involved in an accident but still having a car to return to; not too shabby.
Even after this, I notice that my parents are still mildly ambivalent about the whole affair. A major complaint is about the worth of the trip in question; my Dad rightly notes that the GOP has more money than me and should be paying for it but conservatives are about free-trade, right?
More to the point, the main issue seems to be what I'll gain from attending the convention when compared to the cost. I'll miss two classes at least, which I don't believe my parents realize. My bronze tongue was not able to fully communicate my ideals to them, or perhaps there is a wall between use partially arising out of our differentiating political standings. One of my Dad's favorite sayings is if it doesn't make sense don't do it. It's a pun you see - sense and cents.
Why does it make sense? It makes sense for the same reason why I hold onto my conservative ideals on economics as well as domestic and foreign policy. It makes sense for the same reason why I stand true to those ideals even though I'm ridiculed for it. I need to do this. My Dad went to Iraq and my family suffered for it a great deal; the reverberations of his absence have only recently begun to quell. We sacrificed as a family. I cannot allow Obama to be elected and leave Iraq for politically expedient reasons. My Dad thinks we should leave Iraq, he believes that we should have never been there in the first place. That much is true, but too much has been sacrified and too large a massacre will occur if we were to leave.
It makes sense for me to attend because it makes sense for me to try to fulfill my duty to my country in any shape or fashion.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Experience and Judgement
I have plenty to say about Obama's historic victory, but it must be stated with the right approach and with the grace and charity that this moment deserves. I'm not going to do that at a time past midnight when I've got scholarships to do.
But I do want to note a response to an exchange which occured between a former Mitt Romney spokesperson and a reporter from The Nation newsmagazine. The individual from the suspended Romney campaign noted that Obama lacks executive experience in each category mentioned by the reporter; the economy, national security, etc.
The response? A catch-all that's been used before; Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had experience and they've ruined the country. The counter point? Not memorable enough for me to...well, remember.
So, I've got one for you:
Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney,, had experience but lacked judgement in their decision to enter Iraq. Their foreign policy in Iraq failed because they applied the wrong judgement to their experience. McCain's foreign policy experience over the last twenty years and his record for bipartisanship demonstrate that he posseses experience as well as the necessary judgement to determine when he should follow his party line, or object in an effort to choose what's best for America. Obama has no such record and possesses neither experience, nor the judgement which can put that experience to use.
McCain has both.
There. Not so hard.
But I do want to note a response to an exchange which occured between a former Mitt Romney spokesperson and a reporter from The Nation newsmagazine. The individual from the suspended Romney campaign noted that Obama lacks executive experience in each category mentioned by the reporter; the economy, national security, etc.
The response? A catch-all that's been used before; Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had experience and they've ruined the country. The counter point? Not memorable enough for me to...well, remember.
So, I've got one for you:
Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney,
McCain has both.
There. Not so hard.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
US - Iraq Security Agreement
The Players:
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight
Chairman William Delahunt D-MA
Noted Representatives:
Ron Paul R-TX
Dana Rohrbacher R
Jeff Flake R
Walter Jones R-NC
From Al-Fadhali - Nationalist Shiite party based in Southern Iraq
Nadeem Al-Jaberi.
From the National Dialgue Council - Nationalist Sunni Islamist political party
Sheikh Khalaf Al-Ulayyan.
Congressional Research Service Specialist in Middle East Affairs
Kenneth Katzman.
Color me confused.
Both of these individuals, representing the Iraqi Parliament, have stated that a timetable is necessary. Indeed, it is the presence of U.S. troops, it can be inferred from thier statements, which is driving the insurgents and gangs to attack. Al-Jaberi stated that if a timetable is announced there would be a calm and the militias would soon stop since they would have no reason to fight against their compatriots.
...
What I fail to understand is how that is true, considering what occured in Sadr City. That was a case of Iraqis fight against their compatriots, seperated by their loyalties. What's even odder is the fact that they admit that the militias are divided by loyalties which only makes their statement that U.S. forces in the are responsbile for the formation of militias and the sectarian violence that has flashed up at times seem contradictory. They mention Paul Bremer's foolish decision to integrate militias into the Security Forces, which dilluded the discipline of the forces
Kenneth Katzman came in and saved my sanity to some degree by explaining underlying agendas involved in both testimonies by Al-Ubayyan and Al-Jaberi. He depicts the Iraqi Parliament as being represenative of the Haves and Have-Nots with the representatives being part of the Have-Nots (I may be incorrect with this, but I believe he stated the representatives as being as such) and thus pushing for a withdrawal. Those Shias and Sunnis who have money and are in power, like Prime Minister Al-Maliki, want the U.S. forces to stay in order to protect their assets and maintain the status quo. Those like Al-Sadr, are against the U.S. presence for their own interests; if the U.S. is maintaining the status quo there is less power for other forces to nab with a stabilizing force in place like the U.S. in place to keep the power in the hands of those who already hold it. Al-Sadr, Katzman notes, represents the discord and discontent felt by the Shia masses that are in poverty or dire situations. He has garnered his political strength as a result of this and created his militia. In the case that the U.S. military would leave, his militia would be able to possibly overthrow the current government and grow the Iranian sphere of influence.
The status of militias is another important matter. Katzman seems to color the situation in a way which favors the perspective that Prime Minister Al-Maliki declared his "War on Militias" in a disingenuous manner not to rid Iraq of militias but in order to quell dissent near elections. This would explain the declaration against militias and the standoff in Sadr city not as a matter of national security for Iraq but as a political ploy. Katzman does not explain the militias in terms of the Sadr milita standoff against Iraqi security forces but in much broader and more worrisome ways.
According to Katzman, PM Al-Maliki's interpretation and reasoning in defining what an illegal militia is has been based off of legal documents that define any militia in existence after Saddam was overthrown as being illegal while using the Iraqi security forces as a "legal" militia. The Security forces are not an institution that is loyal to the idea of a united Iraq but a division of militias that are united under PM Al-Maliki raher than the country itself. By this analysis a horrifying truth is revealed, a disturbing understanding of the present situation; as Representative Delahunt stated as he concurred with Katzman, the US is funding a militia in the Security Forces since there is not a cultivation of the idea of Iraq as a nation rather than a group of militias. This is the irony, that Al-Maliki is fightng militias and yet is using a militia to consolidate power. The identity of Iraq, of a military that is united around the survival of a nation rather than of loyalty to an individual is missing. How can a democracy flourish without the essential ingredient of pride in one's nation above pride in political leaders?
What will happen if we leave and PM Al-Maliki lacks the U.S. presence necessary to protect the status quo? The Security Forces will fracture and Al-Maliki will not be able to hold onto his power. There will be fighting in Baghdad and relative peace in the North and South because of large concentrations of specific sects (I believe this is about the jist of what he said). Also, Iran has been the greatest benefactor of the US involvement in Iraq.
What I have gleaned from this is just how complicated Iraq is. Ordinarily, we jus break it down between leaving and staying but the subtlties and drastic changes which can occur with either decision have not been fully vetted by the media and must be spoken about. Perhaps in those town hall meetings McCain's been talking about we can have an honest debate about what we need to do.
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight
Chairman William Delahunt D-MA
Noted Representatives:
Ron Paul R-TX
Dana Rohrbacher R
Jeff Flake R
Walter Jones R-NC
From Al-Fadhali - Nationalist Shiite party based in Southern Iraq
Nadeem Al-Jaberi.
From the National Dialgue Council - Nationalist Sunni Islamist political party
Sheikh Khalaf Al-Ulayyan.
Congressional Research Service Specialist in Middle East Affairs
Kenneth Katzman.
Color me confused.
Both of these individuals, representing the Iraqi Parliament, have stated that a timetable is necessary. Indeed, it is the presence of U.S. troops, it can be inferred from thier statements, which is driving the insurgents and gangs to attack. Al-Jaberi stated that if a timetable is announced there would be a calm and the militias would soon stop since they would have no reason to fight against their compatriots.
...
What I fail to understand is how that is true, considering what occured in Sadr City. That was a case of Iraqis fight against their compatriots, seperated by their loyalties. What's even odder is the fact that they admit that the militias are divided by loyalties which only makes their statement that U.S. forces in the are responsbile for the formation of militias and the sectarian violence that has flashed up at times seem contradictory. They mention Paul Bremer's foolish decision to integrate militias into the Security Forces, which dilluded the discipline of the forces
Kenneth Katzman came in and saved my sanity to some degree by explaining underlying agendas involved in both testimonies by Al-Ubayyan and Al-Jaberi. He depicts the Iraqi Parliament as being represenative of the Haves and Have-Nots with the representatives being part of the Have-Nots (I may be incorrect with this, but I believe he stated the representatives as being as such) and thus pushing for a withdrawal. Those Shias and Sunnis who have money and are in power, like Prime Minister Al-Maliki, want the U.S. forces to stay in order to protect their assets and maintain the status quo. Those like Al-Sadr, are against the U.S. presence for their own interests; if the U.S. is maintaining the status quo there is less power for other forces to nab with a stabilizing force in place like the U.S. in place to keep the power in the hands of those who already hold it. Al-Sadr, Katzman notes, represents the discord and discontent felt by the Shia masses that are in poverty or dire situations. He has garnered his political strength as a result of this and created his militia. In the case that the U.S. military would leave, his militia would be able to possibly overthrow the current government and grow the Iranian sphere of influence.
The status of militias is another important matter. Katzman seems to color the situation in a way which favors the perspective that Prime Minister Al-Maliki declared his "War on Militias" in a disingenuous manner not to rid Iraq of militias but in order to quell dissent near elections. This would explain the declaration against militias and the standoff in Sadr city not as a matter of national security for Iraq but as a political ploy. Katzman does not explain the militias in terms of the Sadr milita standoff against Iraqi security forces but in much broader and more worrisome ways.
According to Katzman, PM Al-Maliki's interpretation and reasoning in defining what an illegal militia is has been based off of legal documents that define any militia in existence after Saddam was overthrown as being illegal while using the Iraqi security forces as a "legal" militia. The Security forces are not an institution that is loyal to the idea of a united Iraq but a division of militias that are united under PM Al-Maliki raher than the country itself. By this analysis a horrifying truth is revealed, a disturbing understanding of the present situation; as Representative Delahunt stated as he concurred with Katzman, the US is funding a militia in the Security Forces since there is not a cultivation of the idea of Iraq as a nation rather than a group of militias. This is the irony, that Al-Maliki is fightng militias and yet is using a militia to consolidate power. The identity of Iraq, of a military that is united around the survival of a nation rather than of loyalty to an individual is missing. How can a democracy flourish without the essential ingredient of pride in one's nation above pride in political leaders?
What will happen if we leave and PM Al-Maliki lacks the U.S. presence necessary to protect the status quo? The Security Forces will fracture and Al-Maliki will not be able to hold onto his power. There will be fighting in Baghdad and relative peace in the North and South because of large concentrations of specific sects (I believe this is about the jist of what he said). Also, Iran has been the greatest benefactor of the US involvement in Iraq.
What I have gleaned from this is just how complicated Iraq is. Ordinarily, we jus break it down between leaving and staying but the subtlties and drastic changes which can occur with either decision have not been fully vetted by the media and must be spoken about. Perhaps in those town hall meetings McCain's been talking about we can have an honest debate about what we need to do.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
House and Bylaws Committee
5/31/08 - Saturday
As I type this, the house and bylaws committee has yet to make their decision. Senator Arthenia Joyner and Senator Robert Wexler have contributed their thoughts to the deliberations, presenting for the Clinton and Obama campaigns respectively. These were very impassioned presentations and I was especially motivated by Senator Joyner. There was a little tussle between Harold Ickes of the Committee (who is also serving as Senior Campaign Advisor of the Clinton campaign) and Wexler. Nothing that’s of consequence I’m certain. What’s interesting is how everyone is asking almost exclusively for one-hundred percent representation of the delegates being counted. With Florida, I’m more sympathetic about this approach; it was a Republican legislature that intervened into the timing of that primary – which was wrong on my party’s part. I need to investigate it further, but if that is true, then I would say that it’s enough to give the people of Florida at least fifty percent of the delegation. After hearing Bill Nelson, if his story plays out, I’m only stronger in my conviction that this was the case but who knows.
Michigan’s primary has the distinguished honor of accumulating a great deal of my ire. Carl Levin is now speaking on behalf of the Michigan Democratic Party and let it be known that their sense of entitlement to seating all the delegates is not persuasive to me; it is the tone and manner in which he is trying to veil the fact that the Democratic Party in Michigan broke the rules in this case by their own accord that is an issue of discord with me. It was self-righteous for Mr. Levin to state that sense New Hampshire got a waiver of the new party rules to remain as the second in the nation to contribute to the nomination process that Michigan should receive the same preference or indulgence. It was disingenuous for Mr. Levin to place his argument in the context of representation of minorities in the primary process; that was a larger issue, and in my important, a much more important and lasting issue than the issue being deliberated – yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly states with a white majority and minorities do not have a large say in terms of the first two primaries. Was it a great idea to have two states that were more representative of the nation’s minorities involved? Yes. Was it commendable to give Nevada and South Carolina the right to have their primaries between Iowa and New Hampshire to diversify the votes? Yes. As a means to veil the fact that Michigan’s violation of the rules, it fails miserably.
Then there’s Mark Brewer’s alleged allocation idea which was deemed as An Alice in Wonderland by a few Committee members. Besides being a great Republican talking point it’s quite a credible label; both Brewer, Michigan Democratic Party Chairman, and David Bonior, Presenter for Barack Obama if I recall correctly, support the view that because everyone but Clinton, Kucinich, and Gravel, dropped out of the Michigan primary race the only fair way for the delegates to be seated is for the those uncommitted delegates to go to Obama. What Harold Ickes mentioned was that if their plan is followed, Clinton would be stripped four delegates for no reason. There was also the thorny issue (as if everything about the Michigan primary isn’t) about precedent. I’m glad that the Democrats considered the precedent they would be setting if they adopt this plan. The allocation of the delegates would be determined by assertions rather than concrete facts.
What are these assertions that Brewer and Bonior subscribe to in order to determine the delegate allocation? They were based off of exit polls and an assumption about how the 300,000 write-in votes which were not counted would have gone; primarily for Obama according to Brewster, but the Democrats weren’t drinking from that well and rightly so. If the Convention can come in and decide how the uncommitted delegates should vote based off of exit polls that’s a dangerous precedent. What’s even more egregious is the obvious problem with exit polling, which Ickes, I believe, was quick to recall. If exit polls were correct than New Hampshire would have been cited as the death knell for the Clinton campaign and Kerry may have won. It was simply too much of a manipulation and violation of the rules.
Donna Brazil was right and provided one of the best quotes of the day. After congratulating the presenter for Clinton in the case of Michigan on behalf of his mother’s birthday, Brazil mentioned that she was sure that his mother had taught him to play by the rules, and that when you change the rules mid-game or end-game, that’s called cheating.
The really sad thing about this is if the Democrats had simply taken a move out of the Republican playbook to begin with this would have been settled months ago. We handled Wyoming, Florida and Michigan by only giving them half their delegations. All three primaries were pivotal points of the primary season as well despite their delegations being halved. Wyoming was the first state Romney won. Michigan was Romney’s last chance to lend credibility to his campaign and if he had lost the state his father had been governor after a string of losses, his campaign would have ended much sooner. Florida was the death knell for Guiliani and gave McCain’s campaign the closed primary victory it needed to send a signal to conservatives that McCain was capable of coalescing the base and winning states even when independents could not lend him support.
Finally, there was one person on C-SPAN who called in to say that this shows how disorganized the Democrats are that they can’t follow their own rules and that this whole process demonstrates that. I’m a bit more hopeful; I think this is democracy at work. I just think it was a bit unnecessary.
Note: I need to find out what that whole “fair reflection” business is.
P.S. I loved how the presenters used the veil of “unity” when someone threatened their view. Carl Levin used this technique; the Michigan Democrat party is already unified, don’t de-unify us! Yeah, well, maybe if you had followed the rules to begin with…
As I type this, the house and bylaws committee has yet to make their decision. Senator Arthenia Joyner and Senator Robert Wexler have contributed their thoughts to the deliberations, presenting for the Clinton and Obama campaigns respectively. These were very impassioned presentations and I was especially motivated by Senator Joyner. There was a little tussle between Harold Ickes of the Committee (who is also serving as Senior Campaign Advisor of the Clinton campaign) and Wexler. Nothing that’s of consequence I’m certain. What’s interesting is how everyone is asking almost exclusively for one-hundred percent representation of the delegates being counted. With Florida, I’m more sympathetic about this approach; it was a Republican legislature that intervened into the timing of that primary – which was wrong on my party’s part. I need to investigate it further, but if that is true, then I would say that it’s enough to give the people of Florida at least fifty percent of the delegation. After hearing Bill Nelson, if his story plays out, I’m only stronger in my conviction that this was the case but who knows.
Michigan’s primary has the distinguished honor of accumulating a great deal of my ire. Carl Levin is now speaking on behalf of the Michigan Democratic Party and let it be known that their sense of entitlement to seating all the delegates is not persuasive to me; it is the tone and manner in which he is trying to veil the fact that the Democratic Party in Michigan broke the rules in this case by their own accord that is an issue of discord with me. It was self-righteous for Mr. Levin to state that sense New Hampshire got a waiver of the new party rules to remain as the second in the nation to contribute to the nomination process that Michigan should receive the same preference or indulgence. It was disingenuous for Mr. Levin to place his argument in the context of representation of minorities in the primary process; that was a larger issue, and in my important, a much more important and lasting issue than the issue being deliberated – yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly states with a white majority and minorities do not have a large say in terms of the first two primaries. Was it a great idea to have two states that were more representative of the nation’s minorities involved? Yes. Was it commendable to give Nevada and South Carolina the right to have their primaries between Iowa and New Hampshire to diversify the votes? Yes. As a means to veil the fact that Michigan’s violation of the rules, it fails miserably.
Then there’s Mark Brewer’s alleged allocation idea which was deemed as An Alice in Wonderland by a few Committee members. Besides being a great Republican talking point it’s quite a credible label; both Brewer, Michigan Democratic Party Chairman, and David Bonior, Presenter for Barack Obama if I recall correctly, support the view that because everyone but Clinton, Kucinich, and Gravel, dropped out of the Michigan primary race the only fair way for the delegates to be seated is for the those uncommitted delegates to go to Obama. What Harold Ickes mentioned was that if their plan is followed, Clinton would be stripped four delegates for no reason. There was also the thorny issue (as if everything about the Michigan primary isn’t) about precedent. I’m glad that the Democrats considered the precedent they would be setting if they adopt this plan. The allocation of the delegates would be determined by assertions rather than concrete facts.
What are these assertions that Brewer and Bonior subscribe to in order to determine the delegate allocation? They were based off of exit polls and an assumption about how the 300,000 write-in votes which were not counted would have gone; primarily for Obama according to Brewster, but the Democrats weren’t drinking from that well and rightly so. If the Convention can come in and decide how the uncommitted delegates should vote based off of exit polls that’s a dangerous precedent. What’s even more egregious is the obvious problem with exit polling, which Ickes, I believe, was quick to recall. If exit polls were correct than New Hampshire would have been cited as the death knell for the Clinton campaign and Kerry may have won. It was simply too much of a manipulation and violation of the rules.
Donna Brazil was right and provided one of the best quotes of the day. After congratulating the presenter for Clinton in the case of Michigan on behalf of his mother’s birthday, Brazil mentioned that she was sure that his mother had taught him to play by the rules, and that when you change the rules mid-game or end-game, that’s called cheating.
The really sad thing about this is if the Democrats had simply taken a move out of the Republican playbook to begin with this would have been settled months ago. We handled Wyoming, Florida and Michigan by only giving them half their delegations. All three primaries were pivotal points of the primary season as well despite their delegations being halved. Wyoming was the first state Romney won. Michigan was Romney’s last chance to lend credibility to his campaign and if he had lost the state his father had been governor after a string of losses, his campaign would have ended much sooner. Florida was the death knell for Guiliani and gave McCain’s campaign the closed primary victory it needed to send a signal to conservatives that McCain was capable of coalescing the base and winning states even when independents could not lend him support.
Finally, there was one person on C-SPAN who called in to say that this shows how disorganized the Democrats are that they can’t follow their own rules and that this whole process demonstrates that. I’m a bit more hopeful; I think this is democracy at work. I just think it was a bit unnecessary.
Note: I need to find out what that whole “fair reflection” business is.
P.S. I loved how the presenters used the veil of “unity” when someone threatened their view. Carl Levin used this technique; the Michigan Democrat party is already unified, don’t de-unify us! Yeah, well, maybe if you had followed the rules to begin with…
Monday, May 26, 2008
Those Who Have Fallen
There are matters which transcend politics; there are issues that go beyond the importance of party allegiance and instead crackle within one's spirit with moral thunder and righteousness.
HR 2642 transcends the party lines and delves directly into the obligation we have to our veterans. The bill would guarantee four years in a college institution for veterans who have served at least three years in the military. This amendment to the GI Bill is going to be very expensive; billions more than likely, and would be funded by a Patriot Tax on those who earn more than five hundred thousand dollars a year or a couple that earns at least a million a year.
Republicans are against tax increases as am I; in the middle of possible rescession, taxes are not the answer. Just ask the Hoover Administration. What should be remembered however, is how unfairly the burden of the war has been spread out, or how much it has not been spread out amongst the populace. President Bush asked Americans to revitalize the economy and go shopping, not to support the troops through real sacrifice. As my liberal professor noted, this is the first war we've waged that has not had any tax increases to fund it. If we were going to fund anything, college education for veterans is a worthy cause.
I sent a e-mail to my Senator, Tom Cornyn about this. I had seen him speak at the Republican Senatorial Convention along with Florence Shapiro. They talked about how critical is was for us to go door-to-door, to get out the vote lest our party lose it's majority. In my e-mail, I noted that speech of his as well as my inability to do it because of my college and work schedule and urged him to vote for the amendment.
I've heard the arguments against it's passage; it's expensive, the bill that it is being sponsored withinn is loaded with congressional pork, and the three-year minimum for the college benefits would cause an exodus of soldiers to occur. The expense on some of the more financially stable people in our nation seems to me a moot point. I saw the congressional debate on C-Span and while Representatie Obey, the most prominent speaker of the amendment in the House which was sponsored by possible Democratic Vice Presidential pick Senator Jim Webb, did speak over the Represenative who had accused the amendment of being filled with pork, I feel like I would have heard more about that from Republicans had it been a major problem. More importantly, Republicans lost the moral high ground about earmarks and pork and fiscal responsibility when they began shoving their own horde of earmarks through Congress.
Finally, I was trying to find a way to defend McCain's position through perhaps the most often noted argument; the three-year minimum. The problem is, when I consider that's three years of serving your country, of three years getting shot at, of three years that's spent serving your duty which so many, including myself, have not yet fulfilled I am somewhat ashamed. My father went to Iraq for six months and if he wanted to go to college he should have been able to do so even at his age.
I'm paying my way through college. I'm fighting to not go too far in debt. It's stressful and it's challenging and it's effectively killed my social life. I no longer have weekends spent anywhere but at the movie theater as an assistant manager. You know what though? Veterans like my mother and father go through much more trying times and come back having to go through what I go through despite the debt they've paid to their country. That's not fair.
Our veterans deserve better.
HR 2642 transcends the party lines and delves directly into the obligation we have to our veterans. The bill would guarantee four years in a college institution for veterans who have served at least three years in the military. This amendment to the GI Bill is going to be very expensive; billions more than likely, and would be funded by a Patriot Tax on those who earn more than five hundred thousand dollars a year or a couple that earns at least a million a year.
Republicans are against tax increases as am I; in the middle of possible rescession, taxes are not the answer. Just ask the Hoover Administration. What should be remembered however, is how unfairly the burden of the war has been spread out, or how much it has not been spread out amongst the populace. President Bush asked Americans to revitalize the economy and go shopping, not to support the troops through real sacrifice. As my liberal professor noted, this is the first war we've waged that has not had any tax increases to fund it. If we were going to fund anything, college education for veterans is a worthy cause.
I sent a e-mail to my Senator, Tom Cornyn about this. I had seen him speak at the Republican Senatorial Convention along with Florence Shapiro. They talked about how critical is was for us to go door-to-door, to get out the vote lest our party lose it's majority. In my e-mail, I noted that speech of his as well as my inability to do it because of my college and work schedule and urged him to vote for the amendment.
I've heard the arguments against it's passage; it's expensive, the bill that it is being sponsored withinn is loaded with congressional pork, and the three-year minimum for the college benefits would cause an exodus of soldiers to occur. The expense on some of the more financially stable people in our nation seems to me a moot point. I saw the congressional debate on C-Span and while Representatie Obey, the most prominent speaker of the amendment in the House which was sponsored by possible Democratic Vice Presidential pick Senator Jim Webb, did speak over the Represenative who had accused the amendment of being filled with pork, I feel like I would have heard more about that from Republicans had it been a major problem. More importantly, Republicans lost the moral high ground about earmarks and pork and fiscal responsibility when they began shoving their own horde of earmarks through Congress.
Finally, I was trying to find a way to defend McCain's position through perhaps the most often noted argument; the three-year minimum. The problem is, when I consider that's three years of serving your country, of three years getting shot at, of three years that's spent serving your duty which so many, including myself, have not yet fulfilled I am somewhat ashamed. My father went to Iraq for six months and if he wanted to go to college he should have been able to do so even at his age.
I'm paying my way through college. I'm fighting to not go too far in debt. It's stressful and it's challenging and it's effectively killed my social life. I no longer have weekends spent anywhere but at the movie theater as an assistant manager. You know what though? Veterans like my mother and father go through much more trying times and come back having to go through what I go through despite the debt they've paid to their country. That's not fair.
Our veterans deserve better.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Change in America
This nation is plagued; the threat of terrorism, the high price of oil, the purported health care crisis and a war that many Americans have stopped believing in.
I'm a Republican because I believe that conservative methods are the proper way to deal with these problems. Democrats have a siren song of programs and openness but the price that would be paid for these services are veiled, in the case of Obama, by soaring and inspirational rhetoric, by brilliantly reflecting the worries and frustrations of America in a subdued persona that belies a tough and enduring spirit, by the dream of change.
Obama is a splendid orator; after hearing certain speeches of his, I wondered if I was really a Republican or not. Specifically, the Jefferson Jackson Dinner speech of his struck a chord with me, and the speech he just did it Iowa in lieu of his loss in Kentucky was even more effective; Obama actually started talking about policies rather than dreams. This has been one of my biggest problems with Obama; dreams and hope but no substance. The government would fund college education in exchange for civic service, he says, but how would they get the money for it? They would leave Iraq, he says.
Such a rosy picture he paints; I almost buy into the illusion. Iraq will is not an open shut case and the money we will save from ending operations there will take a great deal of time to start to show. In the beginning of the campaign, I remember hearing him mention closing loopholes in the tax codes for corporations as a way to fund his programs. That's just not feasible, the same way ending earmarks would not reform the debt our country has accumulated.
Barack Obama is not the Second Coming of Lincoln. He's not a wise sage which will lead us out of the wilderness. He's a politician, and a very good one, but not an experienced one. At the very least I understand that Clinton would get things done because she has been engaged in the system for a long enough time to know how to play the game. I respect him for how he has changed politics and proven to the American public that blacks can transcend the issue of race at least moreso than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in the political field. Barack Obama has further humanized the issue of race, he has dissected further than any other politician in recent history and he has made all of us better as a result. I admire Obama.
But I do not believe he's the right man for the highest office of the land. I'm immune to the issue of Reverend Wright for a number of reasons that I might detail later. What worreis me is how in our frustration we have forgotten all those who have experience in order to support what looks and sounds good. As great a man as Obama is, his policies need to be tested. McCain and Clinton have been policy wonking for a while now, Obama has not. By policies, I don't whether he wears a flag pin or whether or not he was in the building when Reverend Wright was shouting about America's evils. I'm talking about that foolish, foolish promise he made at the Philadelphia debate about not raising taxes but still promising allt hese expansions of domestic programs. I'm talking about his summits with leaders of nations which would gladly support those who wish America and her allies harm. If you don't believe me about how a summit without conditions or basic agreements can be disasterous, look at Kennedy's summit with Kruschev. Didn't turn out too well.
America is in need for a change, but change that comes fast and without a reasonable ambivalence to balance it can lead to terrible consequences. John McCain might not be the coolest or the hippest person to my generation, but he understands war, and he knows how to make the sacrifices we made worth it. He has the experience necessary to propagate change in a sustained and sensible manner. Obama does not.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
West Virginia and Challenged Votes
Well, I don't have too much time before I have to go to my Intro to Philosophy class; but I thought I'd go ahead and add this in:
On C-SPAN, a House of Represenatives hearing into a botched voting session over a bill that would have ended welfare benefits being given to illegal immigrants caught my eye. Instead of studying for that quiz today over Chapter 1, I watched it. I'll try to put a video up of the hearing on my blog. The video of the calling of the vote was editted by the Republican's, which C-SPAN noted. Either way, I don't believe the guy did anything wrong; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will soon testify about it (D-MD) concerning whether or not he pushed the vote to be called, I believe from what I recall from earlier testimony. It was a Republican bill and the person who called the vote was a Democrat so of course there was a noted difference between the how pointed the questions were across party lines.
I'll be editting this later to include more information, and to note the results of the West Virginia Primary.
On C-SPAN, a House of Represenatives hearing into a botched voting session over a bill that would have ended welfare benefits being given to illegal immigrants caught my eye. Instead of studying for that quiz today over Chapter 1, I watched it. I'll try to put a video up of the hearing on my blog. The video of the calling of the vote was editted by the Republican's, which C-SPAN noted. Either way, I don't believe the guy did anything wrong; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will soon testify about it (D-MD) concerning whether or not he pushed the vote to be called, I believe from what I recall from earlier testimony. It was a Republican bill and the person who called the vote was a Democrat so of course there was a noted difference between the how pointed the questions were across party lines.
I'll be editting this later to include more information, and to note the results of the West Virginia Primary.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Hello!
I've been involved in politics for a year or so now and thought about starting a blog for awhile now; I decided against it because I didn't think it would make that much of a difference. Then, I went to a lecture with Arianna Huffington - yes, she's a liberal, but a very nice lady. She gave me her own personal copy of her book and signed it with her e-mail address so I could tell her what I thought of it.
Now I can't find it; hope Mom just misplaced it, I'll feel horrible if I lost it.
The point is, Mrs. Huffington's major point was that if you wanted to inspire change, the Internet was the way to do it. The Internet gives the every day citizen the ability to voice their opinions, their discontent, their hopes and dreams in a way unimaginable in another time or place in the history of the world. It would be a crime to not take hold of this opportunity. The Huffington Post didn't start as a major blog and epicenter of Democratic thought (Daily Kos has certainly taken it's place) it evolved into that position. My blog doesn't even have to do that. I realized that it's important for me to just understand and investigate my own values and opinions on the issues; otherwise, I'm doomed to switch them according to the wind and forget why I first held those positions in the first place. Worst case scenario, no one reads this and I'll have an honest introspection of my own thoughts, something my own party should do sometime.
That brings me to my next point; the desire and apparent mirage of the compassionate conservative. Bush stated that it was his mantle when he ran in 2000, back when I was, what, 11 years old? I'm 19 now, and I don't see too many policies of his which have been determined to be compassionate. I support Bush on a number of issues and I'm a proud conservative, but while his support for African nations in AIDS relief is commendable and while I'm sure he's a good guy, there have been a number of issues which he has fallen too short on; Hurricane Katrina was an easy way for him to reassert that compassion which he promised would be a mainstay in his Administration; instead, Katrina turned into a disaster and a missed opportunity of unconscionable proportions.
The most powerful progressive party of American History when it first came to prominence is now decried as stand-offish and is accused of being the party of big business. The party which freed the slaves, which freed my ancestors, is now considered the least compassionate of the two major parties in American politics.
I'm starting this blog for a number of reasons, to inspire dialogue with others and to archive my own development of political thought. At the heart of this blog, however, should be my desire to make it clear that Republicans are a compassionate lot. Have we been cast into the wilderness for the mistakes we've made in recent events? Undoubtedly; the rise of an unexperienced candidate like Obama despite his low credentials and ambivalence towards actually discussing real concrete action towards the direction of our nation shows the discontent of the status quo and the American desire for a real change to occur. But what we need is controlled change, what we need is actually a return to our traditions. The Republican Party was never about fiscal irresponsibility, our party was never about increasing the debt of future generations. The Republican Party was never about entangling ourselves in foreign affairs; granted, in this globalized world, global interdependence is necessary, but wars on foreign soil must be conducted competently. I support the War on Iraq; my family has suffered enough for it to deserve a return on the investment, although we haven't suffered as much as some.
Those moderates and Democrats who view this blog I hope will realize that Republicans and conservatives are not a backward branch of people. We aren't fascists. We aren't fools. We have contributed a great deal to the realm of American politics and to America's success. We, just like Democrats, want the best for this nation, and do not take the toll of war for granted.
I just hope that McCain can remind the American people of those moderate values and conservative values that can benefit the future of America in time.
Now I can't find it; hope Mom just misplaced it, I'll feel horrible if I lost it.
The point is, Mrs. Huffington's major point was that if you wanted to inspire change, the Internet was the way to do it. The Internet gives the every day citizen the ability to voice their opinions, their discontent, their hopes and dreams in a way unimaginable in another time or place in the history of the world. It would be a crime to not take hold of this opportunity. The Huffington Post didn't start as a major blog and epicenter of Democratic thought (Daily Kos has certainly taken it's place) it evolved into that position. My blog doesn't even have to do that. I realized that it's important for me to just understand and investigate my own values and opinions on the issues; otherwise, I'm doomed to switch them according to the wind and forget why I first held those positions in the first place. Worst case scenario, no one reads this and I'll have an honest introspection of my own thoughts, something my own party should do sometime.
That brings me to my next point; the desire and apparent mirage of the compassionate conservative. Bush stated that it was his mantle when he ran in 2000, back when I was, what, 11 years old? I'm 19 now, and I don't see too many policies of his which have been determined to be compassionate. I support Bush on a number of issues and I'm a proud conservative, but while his support for African nations in AIDS relief is commendable and while I'm sure he's a good guy, there have been a number of issues which he has fallen too short on; Hurricane Katrina was an easy way for him to reassert that compassion which he promised would be a mainstay in his Administration; instead, Katrina turned into a disaster and a missed opportunity of unconscionable proportions.
The most powerful progressive party of American History when it first came to prominence is now decried as stand-offish and is accused of being the party of big business. The party which freed the slaves, which freed my ancestors, is now considered the least compassionate of the two major parties in American politics.
I'm starting this blog for a number of reasons, to inspire dialogue with others and to archive my own development of political thought. At the heart of this blog, however, should be my desire to make it clear that Republicans are a compassionate lot. Have we been cast into the wilderness for the mistakes we've made in recent events? Undoubtedly; the rise of an unexperienced candidate like Obama despite his low credentials and ambivalence towards actually discussing real concrete action towards the direction of our nation shows the discontent of the status quo and the American desire for a real change to occur. But what we need is controlled change, what we need is actually a return to our traditions. The Republican Party was never about fiscal irresponsibility, our party was never about increasing the debt of future generations. The Republican Party was never about entangling ourselves in foreign affairs; granted, in this globalized world, global interdependence is necessary, but wars on foreign soil must be conducted competently. I support the War on Iraq; my family has suffered enough for it to deserve a return on the investment, although we haven't suffered as much as some.
Those moderates and Democrats who view this blog I hope will realize that Republicans and conservatives are not a backward branch of people. We aren't fascists. We aren't fools. We have contributed a great deal to the realm of American politics and to America's success. We, just like Democrats, want the best for this nation, and do not take the toll of war for granted.
I just hope that McCain can remind the American people of those moderate values and conservative values that can benefit the future of America in time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)