Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee hosted a bloggers conference call this morning with guests James Robison and Michael Farris. The Governor fielded questions from a number of bloggers on everything from his recent surge in Iowa and New Hampshire polls to fundraising efforts and education policy.
______________
Huckabee's two guests provided the discussion with some good points and obervations:
-----------
Robison commented that the next President must communicate with people and deal with the media.
Farris added that Huckabee is the most able political communicator he's ever met, a statement that I can understand. On the occasions that I've met him, Huckabee is genuine and, unlike other candidates, doesn't answer a question in the shortest way possible in order to move on. Farris also pointed out that the only Republicans to win the presidency in recent history have been true conservatives; moderates don't win. He concluded by saying that, "Mayors of New York don't win. Governors win."
______________
I wasn't able to ask my prepared question to the Governor, but Huckabee and his campaign managers have recognized the positive reception for these conference calls and Huckabee mentioned he would be holding another call soon.
Even if you don't agree with his politics, Huckabee is the great communicator of the 2008 race, and his campaign is following its candidate's sprit by being one of the most open and accessible for bloggers like me.
Hats off to Huckabee!
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Bong Hits 4 the Supreme Court
I stood outside the Supreme Court for nearly six hours on the chilly morning of March 19th. While the weather cooled the spirits of a crowd of over a thousand, I was lucky enough to find myself queuing in line with a number of Georgetown Law students. In talking to them I began to understand the position of each side of the case and for which reasons the Court could hand down a decision either way on the case. The Court's recent decision on Morse v. Frederick (in favor of the school's action of taking down the banner and suspending Frederick) would have surprised the students I talked with that day.
It's worth reading the opinion of the court as delivered by Chief Justice Roberts and the dissenting opinion presented by Justice Stevens. Here's a link to the Court's opinion--http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
It often takes years to see the effects of a Supreme Court ruling, but the implications of this decision could be great and long-lasting--decide for yourself.
Looking Cross-eyed at Two Energy Policies
To be fair, Tommy Thompson is an intelligent man with significant experience in politics, and it would be misleading to believe his entire plan for energy and the environment is as short as it appears on his website (see above). But as the signs of serious harm being done to our earth are visible all around us, America (and the world) can't afford four more years of neglect to our environmental problems.
Tommy Thompson throws his three sentences of policy at the very bottom of the issues page on his website, below "marriage," "abortion," and "Second Amendment." I've been hyping Chris Dodd a lot recently, but for good reason. Anyone serious about running for president needs to have a plan for all the big issues--George Bush has shown us that deferring policy decisions to your best friend appointees is more harmful than having to read a dense 16-paragraph energy plan.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Considering A New Era of National Service
Since I was a young child I've occasionally dreamed of a career in the military, and among my friends I'm one of a few who isn't completely shut off from the idea of pursuing such a path later in life. However, the pros of fighting in today's military are fewer than ever before: the state of veteran's health care is under extreme criticism, the potential for a positive outcome in the current Iraq conflict is uncertain, and many of the traditional positions in the military, especially the Reserve and Guard, are no longer 'one weekend/month' commitments.
Senator Dodd has mentioned recently that he believes Americans possess a unique capacity and willingness to serve their country in whatever way they can. Although I speak for just myself, I'll answer in agreement to Mr. Dodd there; I'm fortunate enough to attend a high school where community service participation is a part of the graduation requirement, and while I've seen a share of people complain their way through forty hours, there's another share of people that like the thing they're experiencing and take it up outside of any requirement later on.
As the conclusion of my high school years looms less than a year away, I've considered taking a year off before college to work on a campaign, learn a language, take special interest classes, and get some sleep. After hearing Chris Dodd this past weekend and considering his national service proposal I've realized that he's talking about people like me. His speech inspired me to look for an opportunity to join an organization like the AmeriCorps or Peace Corps. This morning I emailed the local chapter of AmeriCorps and requested information about the programs they offer for rising college students; it's an option for a year of my life that I'm now seriously interested in. Dodd seeks to inspire a call to service that would echo the 1960's. Although my generation is slow to respond, I am still hopeful that my contemporaries will rise to the occasion.
JFK characterized the American spirit better than anyone else:
"The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly."
Whether or not Chris Dodd is the John F. Kennedy of our generation, he's beginning to tap into the pulse of America that has been ignored for years, and that's something for which I applaud him.
Targeting the Base of Your Support...With an Actual Gun
I recently stumbled across an interesting summary of a Tom Tancredo event in New Hampshire. The Congressman spoke about protecting the right of Americans to own and carry guns, and it just so happened that a number of those in attendance were actually carrying concealed weapons and weren't shy about letting everyone know.
It's not hard to see why Tancredo's campaign is running into the ground; not only has he scaled down his campaign effort in New Hampshire, but he's not even talking about the issues that the top tier of candidates are having to wrestle with. Aside from the small portion of the population that considers protecting gun rights as the most pressing issue in America, the majority of us realize that a candidate whose strongest points are making sure only English is taught in schools, mandating that a 2,000 border fence is built, and broadening gun rights would fail to properly address issues like poverty, the environment, and a peaceful resolution of the Iraq war.
It's the most used saying in the campaign phrase book, and Tancredo seems to be using it now, "If we can place well in the __ primary, than our campaign will really take off."
I hate to rain on Mr. Tancredo's parade, but candidates such as Governor Mike Huckabee and Governor Mitt Romney (who have placed similar emphasis on states like New Hampshire) are actually seeing a rise in their support in the granite state.
Tancredo has nearly $600,000 in cash on hand for the '08 election, but he's got a long way to go before he can start building his border fence...
It's not hard to see why Tancredo's campaign is running into the ground; not only has he scaled down his campaign effort in New Hampshire, but he's not even talking about the issues that the top tier of candidates are having to wrestle with. Aside from the small portion of the population that considers protecting gun rights as the most pressing issue in America, the majority of us realize that a candidate whose strongest points are making sure only English is taught in schools, mandating that a 2,000 border fence is built, and broadening gun rights would fail to properly address issues like poverty, the environment, and a peaceful resolution of the Iraq war.
It's the most used saying in the campaign phrase book, and Tancredo seems to be using it now, "If we can place well in the __ primary, than our campaign will really take off."
I hate to rain on Mr. Tancredo's parade, but candidates such as Governor Mike Huckabee and Governor Mitt Romney (who have placed similar emphasis on states like New Hampshire) are actually seeing a rise in their support in the granite state.
Tancredo has nearly $600,000 in cash on hand for the '08 election, but he's got a long way to go before he can start building his border fence...
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Vice Presidential Option #1: Chris Dodd
Chris Dodd had a busy day yesterday--two house parties, a major policy speech, a mural painting, and a volunteer action day event. I joined a number of others at the home of New Hampshire State Senator Lou D'Allesandro for a uniquely New Hampshire candidate lawn party to have a chance to meet him. The youthful organizers of this event and the Dodd NH people were some of the most cheerful and attentive campaign staff of any of the candidates I've seen so far and the crowd that assembled to hear the Senator from Connecticut was diverse, concerned, motivated, and knowledgeable.
Dodd's speech covered his initiatives for solving the challenges posed by global warming as well as his new proposal for increasing national service in America. The latter being a continuation of the speech he gave earlier in the day in Nashua. Dodd's proposal lays out 6 ways of increasing service such as a mandatory 100 hours of community service for every high school student, a doubling of the Peace Corps, and a Senior Heroes Program which rewards senior citizens who volunteer in schools with a small payment towards the cost of education for their grandchildren or relatives. The proposal that stuck me as being one of the best was Dodd's idea of a Rapid Response Corp of citizens to assist in emergency and disaster response--a role that used to be played by the National Guard before they became active duty combat troops under the current administration.
It's these types of ideas that set Dodd apart from the rest of the Democratic presidential field. Dodd's proposals for ending the Iraq war and solving the energy crisis and dealing with global warming were well thought-out and were soon imitated or followed by the other candidates. Similar to what he said in his speech, don't you think they'll follow him on his national service proposal as well?
To be fair, bits and pieces of Dodd's proposals have been taken up by the current Congress. For instance, increases in the fuel standards for American automobiles. But none of these proposals have taken into account all of the factors that contribute to the many difficulties posed by changes to the current energy policies. Some of these difficulties include the cost of researching alternative energy technologies and the high cost of paying for new energy sources for all Americans. Dodd uses the idea of a carbon tax to provide for billions of dollars in funding for technology research as well as tax incentives for families and companies that invest in new energy sources.
Chris Dodd made the point that John F. Kennedy, the man that inspired him to serve his country in the Peace Corps, spoke on the same steps in Nashua where Dodd spoke yesterday. While Dodd's ideas provide for significant changes in the field of national service, Dodd's personality is less dynamic than Kennedy's. Vice presidents are often the figures that quietly churn out brilliant ideas before passing them on to the president to act on them, but they need not be the most poignant and persuasive characters of their time. Dodd's poll numbers suggest an almost impossible road ahead in terms of the presidential primaries, but his creative solutions and sensible leadership are desperately needed in America, and we'd be lucky to have someone like him on the Democratic ticket as a vice president.
(all photos: © 2007 by Luke N. Vargas. All Rights Reserved.)
Monday, June 11, 2007
When Opposition Needs a Commanding Voice
Nobody's voice was louder at the New Hampshire Democratic Debate than that of Senator Joe Biden. Whether directing his criticism at George Bush's handling of the Iraq war or the Democrats' belief that continuing to block the recent troop funding bill could end the war, Joe Biden hasn't been shy about making his feelings known.
I'm not in favor of a candidate who uses anger and his or her intimidating presence to convince anyone of anything, but I have a profound admiration for that candidate who matches the absurdity of the current war with a spirit of fury and inspired righteousness. It's about time that a Presidential candidate shed the polished image of what is perceived to be the television-friendly indifference towards critical issues such as Iraq that we have seen from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards.
If YouTube could conjure up some clips of politicians from America's early years--when holding your ground on a political matter was an honorable thing to do (and doing so in a forceful manner even more so), I'm sure those politicians would be very similar to Joe Biden.
I'm not in favor of a candidate who uses anger and his or her intimidating presence to convince anyone of anything, but I have a profound admiration for that candidate who matches the absurdity of the current war with a spirit of fury and inspired righteousness. It's about time that a Presidential candidate shed the polished image of what is perceived to be the television-friendly indifference towards critical issues such as Iraq that we have seen from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards.
If YouTube could conjure up some clips of politicians from America's early years--when holding your ground on a political matter was an honorable thing to do (and doing so in a forceful manner even more so), I'm sure those politicians would be very similar to Joe Biden.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Download the BB&N POV!
The second issue of the BB&N POV was released a few weeks ago.
The BB&N POV is a high school political magazine written, designed, and published by students in Cambridge, Mass. Three times a year we put out a twenty page magazine for Boston-area and online distribution.
Our Spring '07 issue featured an extensive exploration of 'The Cost of War.' We interviewed a prominent public finance expert from the Kennedy School of Government and an ex-Marine with Operation Iraqi Freedom combat experience to better understand the effects of the current conflict.
Download free PDF file of the latest issue from the links below.
Download Issue 2 Here!
The BB&N POV
Rudy v. Ron
The following is the editorial that I co-wrote and was published in the BB&N POV, the high school political magazine that I helped to create and for which I serve as the editor-in-chief. To download the BB&N POV navigate over to www.bbnpov.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”
That is the angry retort that 2008 Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani threw at fellow candidate Ron Paul. Texas Congressman Paul stated bluntly in the Republicans’ South Carolina debate that he believes American foreign policy in the Middle East has fostered much of the hatred for America from Middle Eastern extremists which has led to tragedies such as 9/11; much more so than their possible abhorrence of American liberties and way of life.
We feel that Mr. Paul is correct. Although Mr. Giuliani, in his forced show of disgust, commented that he had never heard this explanation for Muslim aggression, this theory is not new. The basis of Mr. Paul’s argument is the theory of “blowback.” Roland S. Martin, in a CNN editorial on this subject, defines “blowback” as someone’s action coming back to afflict them. In essence, it makes perfect sense. Imagine living in Iraq during the Gulf War and watching as your country was partially destroyed by the United States. Regardless of whether or not the attacks were justified, you would still feel a level of animosity for the power that had assaulted your country. As the United States attempts to establish bases and ministries, and to interfere in Middle Eastern politics and policies, without regard for the outrage of the citizens of these nations, we do little but breed aggression. The United States has always defended, and must continue to defend our own interests in the world, but we must also be mindful of how we go about achieving our goals. In this age of warfare, diplomacy and the tools that go along with it must not be abandoned.
In 1974 when President Nixon traveled to the Middle East for a seven-day tour, he was welcomed with cheers from the citizens, lauding Nixon and his administration. America has changed little from the time of Nixon in regard to what America stands for, so the argument that the terrorists hate America for our liberal ideals is foolish. If this were the real reason for terrorist hostility, then why aren’t targeting free constitutional governments that are not directly allied with America?
Mr. Giuliani should also rethink his careless use of the events of 9/11 as a way to gain support or, in the case of last week’s debate, applause. It is utterly detestable that Mr. Giuliani quickly dismisses Mr. Paul’s reasonable views by using the misery of 9/11, while pushing himself to be seen as the winner of the debate. It shows the true naiveté of the American people when they blindly give applause to someone who is, in reality, doing little but capitalizing on his presence during that catastrophe, not defending its sanctity.
The theory of blowback, if properly considered and examined, may be an important way of beginning to end the promotion of anti-American sentiment in those Middle Eastern countries where our policies have the greatest impact. Mr. Paul was quite right when he asked how we would feel if our own country were overrun by a foreign power; how our citizens would feel; and whether those feelings might, in some respects, parallel those of the terrorists who now wish to harm us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”
That is the angry retort that 2008 Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani threw at fellow candidate Ron Paul. Texas Congressman Paul stated bluntly in the Republicans’ South Carolina debate that he believes American foreign policy in the Middle East has fostered much of the hatred for America from Middle Eastern extremists which has led to tragedies such as 9/11; much more so than their possible abhorrence of American liberties and way of life.
We feel that Mr. Paul is correct. Although Mr. Giuliani, in his forced show of disgust, commented that he had never heard this explanation for Muslim aggression, this theory is not new. The basis of Mr. Paul’s argument is the theory of “blowback.” Roland S. Martin, in a CNN editorial on this subject, defines “blowback” as someone’s action coming back to afflict them. In essence, it makes perfect sense. Imagine living in Iraq during the Gulf War and watching as your country was partially destroyed by the United States. Regardless of whether or not the attacks were justified, you would still feel a level of animosity for the power that had assaulted your country. As the United States attempts to establish bases and ministries, and to interfere in Middle Eastern politics and policies, without regard for the outrage of the citizens of these nations, we do little but breed aggression. The United States has always defended, and must continue to defend our own interests in the world, but we must also be mindful of how we go about achieving our goals. In this age of warfare, diplomacy and the tools that go along with it must not be abandoned.
In 1974 when President Nixon traveled to the Middle East for a seven-day tour, he was welcomed with cheers from the citizens, lauding Nixon and his administration. America has changed little from the time of Nixon in regard to what America stands for, so the argument that the terrorists hate America for our liberal ideals is foolish. If this were the real reason for terrorist hostility, then why aren’t targeting free constitutional governments that are not directly allied with America?
Mr. Giuliani should also rethink his careless use of the events of 9/11 as a way to gain support or, in the case of last week’s debate, applause. It is utterly detestable that Mr. Giuliani quickly dismisses Mr. Paul’s reasonable views by using the misery of 9/11, while pushing himself to be seen as the winner of the debate. It shows the true naiveté of the American people when they blindly give applause to someone who is, in reality, doing little but capitalizing on his presence during that catastrophe, not defending its sanctity.
The theory of blowback, if properly considered and examined, may be an important way of beginning to end the promotion of anti-American sentiment in those Middle Eastern countries where our policies have the greatest impact. Mr. Paul was quite right when he asked how we would feel if our own country were overrun by a foreign power; how our citizens would feel; and whether those feelings might, in some respects, parallel those of the terrorists who now wish to harm us.
Horses and Huckabee
A week ago I made the winding journey from Boston to Francestown, New Hampshire for an intimate afternoon house party with Mike Huckabee. For a sleepy town on a stormy day, the Governor drew a lively gathering of local residents (and a handful of press) at a quaint horse farm. The two dozen or more local residents and supporters that showed up looking to get some face time and talk with the Arkansas man gaining traction little by little in the state parked their cars and pickups on an uneven horse field surrounded by a New England-style fence. And face time we got.
The Governor spoke with all assembled for about fifteen minutes before giving a short but substantive speech and taking a handful of questions that covered everything from the legalization of medical marijuana to foreign policy. Huckabee's most stirring comments came after a question about energy independence and alternative energy technologies. Instead of falling in line with the passive (at best) attitudes of many Republican candidates on the issue of energy and the environment, Huckabee inspired the group by posing the challenge of making America energy-independent and free from the stranglehold that foreign nations have on our economic security. He compared the challenge ahead to our past quest to put a man on the moon—that in ten years the country went from bottle rockets to technological greatness. Such a challenge didn’t seem to worry Huckabee, whose calming attitude of pleasant conversation and peaceful practicality seem a necessary break from seven years of stubborn decision-making from a confrontational President.
It will take a few months to see if Huckabee’s campaign goes anywhere, and with poll numbers creeping up after a series of nationally-televised debates Huckabee’s true test will be to show he’s capable of bringing in the contributions that can inch him ever closer to the top tier in the Republican party.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Really, CNN?
It's comical how often the media downplays some of the damage done in Iraq.
I've seen 'damaged' cars before, but this doesn't look like one to me. Call AAA?
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Despite criticisms, Edwards still sets a higher standard
Here's what we know:
John Edward's campaign recently paid for two $400 haircuts, as well as $250 at an Iowa spa, and $225 from an upscale New Hampshire boutique.
Here's what we're told to believe:
John Edwards is the supreme embodiment of a Washington Hypocrite--indulging himself on lavish personal treats while publicly preaching a policy of helping the middle class, eliminating poverty, and providing universal healthcare for the uninsured.
Hmm...
Instead of rushing to one side or the other on this topic, I would encourage everyone to consider not only Mr. Edward's recent expenditures, but the merit of his politics and the sincerity of his message.
To those who claim that Edward's personal (as in the kind of things that I know we all buy but don't tell anyone else about) spending shows how he cares more about his own interests than those of others, I have only one thing to say. In order to read this blog you have to be in front of a computer. Anyone reading this blog probably has a facebook, myspace, or photo album somewhere that lots of people look at. In order to make yourself look good in your photos I'm sure there are at least $100 worth of cosmetic products in your bathroom.
Since you believe in eliminating poverty, why don't you lay off buying so many personal products and put the money to better use?
The trap we fall into when we start criticizing the economic status of politicians is that we fail to realize who in fact these individuals are. John Edwards was a successful lawyer for almost 20 years, and is estimated to be worth more than $60 million. Except in extremely rare cases, anyone who has worked to accumulate such a fortune isn't likely to give it all away. The fact that Mr. Edwards even thinks about those of a lower economic tier than himself sets him apart from those with $60 million.
In closing, John Edwards isn't saying that we should all donate all our money to charity and create a society that has no economic differences. Instead, what he is doing is the "practical+just" thing: finding a way to deal with America's problems while still understanding that we can't be perfect, or at least we won't wake up to see millionaires giving up all their money.
Mr. Edwards, I'd rather not pay for your barber bill, but you've got some good ideas under that pricey cut, so keep it up.
John Edward's campaign recently paid for two $400 haircuts, as well as $250 at an Iowa spa, and $225 from an upscale New Hampshire boutique.
Here's what we're told to believe:
John Edwards is the supreme embodiment of a Washington Hypocrite--indulging himself on lavish personal treats while publicly preaching a policy of helping the middle class, eliminating poverty, and providing universal healthcare for the uninsured.
Hmm...
Instead of rushing to one side or the other on this topic, I would encourage everyone to consider not only Mr. Edward's recent expenditures, but the merit of his politics and the sincerity of his message.
To those who claim that Edward's personal (as in the kind of things that I know we all buy but don't tell anyone else about) spending shows how he cares more about his own interests than those of others, I have only one thing to say. In order to read this blog you have to be in front of a computer. Anyone reading this blog probably has a facebook, myspace, or photo album somewhere that lots of people look at. In order to make yourself look good in your photos I'm sure there are at least $100 worth of cosmetic products in your bathroom.
Since you believe in eliminating poverty, why don't you lay off buying so many personal products and put the money to better use?
The trap we fall into when we start criticizing the economic status of politicians is that we fail to realize who in fact these individuals are. John Edwards was a successful lawyer for almost 20 years, and is estimated to be worth more than $60 million. Except in extremely rare cases, anyone who has worked to accumulate such a fortune isn't likely to give it all away. The fact that Mr. Edwards even thinks about those of a lower economic tier than himself sets him apart from those with $60 million.
In closing, John Edwards isn't saying that we should all donate all our money to charity and create a society that has no economic differences. Instead, what he is doing is the "practical+just" thing: finding a way to deal with America's problems while still understanding that we can't be perfect, or at least we won't wake up to see millionaires giving up all their money.
Mr. Edwards, I'd rather not pay for your barber bill, but you've got some good ideas under that pricey cut, so keep it up.
The VideoVets Project: Decide for yourself
VideoVets: John Bruhns
Half the time I visit RedState.com I'm excited that someone out there agrees with me, but more recently I've found myself leaving the site disappointed by the way people have been spinning certain arguments.
Take for example a post this past Thursday about MoveOn.org's new project, VideoVets.
------------------------
A poster wrote on the main page of the blog that MoveOn's project, which displays a series of videos from soldiers who oppose current policy in Iraq, that:
"The left has gone from demonizing the military during the Vietnam War to victimizing our troops today. MoveOn's new VideoVets Project is a sad undertaking and political stunt to demoralize our soldiers in Iraq."
and
"MoveOn is using our brave soldiers as pawns in its political game. Tell them to stop."
------------------------
More than 1.4 million men and women are currently on active duty in the United States military, and it's wrong for anyone to speak on behalf of them, or even to seemingly "protect" them from being "used as pawns" in a game for political gain.
Speak to your neighbor's son or daughter who has just returned from Iraq, watch the videos on the new VideoVets site, and read a soldier's blog. Just as they proport to be protecting the soldiers' opinions from being played with, this particular RedState blogger is playing YOU as the pawn here.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The "Telling America What You Believe" Report Card, Part 1.
Blind to each candidate's actual beliefs on the issue of abortion, I've set off on a journey to see how forthcoming every presidential candidate is on one of the most important topics to voters, abortion...
-------------------------------------------
Romney: "I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion"-
Deffering responsibility to the states on any issue is a crafty way of dodging the question in the majority of interviews, but it will do Romney no good here. D
Giuliani: "Ultimately I believe it's an individual right and a woman should make that choice" & "I tell people what I think. I tell them (to) evaluate me as I am and do not expect them to agree with me on everything. I don't agree with me on everything"-
Rudy's comments here are not only set him apart from what the Republican party believes, but Rudy does the public the pleasure of not clarifying his stance to such a fine degree that it would be hard for anyone to be unsure of his views on the issue. Whether you agree with him, Rudy's openness should be applauded. A+
Huckabee: "I'm pro-life. if I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of life. That's just where I come from in my own heart and convictions. As a governor I've signed virtually every kind of pro-life legislation that we can sign under existing federal law."-
It's safe to say that most Republican candidates this election cycle are staunch opponents of abortion, that is not to say however that anyone who makes this known should receive high marks from me. I am impressed by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's clarity on the issue and his strong and consistent pro-life record throughout his career. Contrary to what many believe, I don't think that changing one's view on an issue is THAT bad, but Huckabee's straightforwardness and honesty on his beliefs are admirable. A-
McCain: "I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."-
Once again, McCain tries to play the middle ground with his politics, and while indirectly saying he would reverse Row v. Wade, McCain stops short of saying what he really believes (or at least what I think he believes). C-
---------------------------------
I'll keep my eyes our for the other Republicans' comments on abortion and create a follow up to this post in the coming weeks. The dems, a more consistent bunch, will follow.
-------------------------------------------
Romney: "I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion"-
Deffering responsibility to the states on any issue is a crafty way of dodging the question in the majority of interviews, but it will do Romney no good here. D
Giuliani: "Ultimately I believe it's an individual right and a woman should make that choice" & "I tell people what I think. I tell them (to) evaluate me as I am and do not expect them to agree with me on everything. I don't agree with me on everything"-
Rudy's comments here are not only set him apart from what the Republican party believes, but Rudy does the public the pleasure of not clarifying his stance to such a fine degree that it would be hard for anyone to be unsure of his views on the issue. Whether you agree with him, Rudy's openness should be applauded. A+
Huckabee: "I'm pro-life. if I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of life. That's just where I come from in my own heart and convictions. As a governor I've signed virtually every kind of pro-life legislation that we can sign under existing federal law."-
It's safe to say that most Republican candidates this election cycle are staunch opponents of abortion, that is not to say however that anyone who makes this known should receive high marks from me. I am impressed by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's clarity on the issue and his strong and consistent pro-life record throughout his career. Contrary to what many believe, I don't think that changing one's view on an issue is THAT bad, but Huckabee's straightforwardness and honesty on his beliefs are admirable. A-
McCain: "I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."-
Once again, McCain tries to play the middle ground with his politics, and while indirectly saying he would reverse Row v. Wade, McCain stops short of saying what he really believes (or at least what I think he believes). C-
---------------------------------
I'll keep my eyes our for the other Republicans' comments on abortion and create a follow up to this post in the coming weeks. The dems, a more consistent bunch, will follow.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Steve Capus, a man of double standards
"I’ve received hundreds, if not thousands of emails, both internal an external, with people with very strong views about what should happen. I’ve listened to those people with their comments...And we’ve had any number of employee conversations, discussions, emails, phone calls. And when you listen to the passion and the people who come to the conclusion that there should not be any room for this sort of conversation and dialogue on our air, it was the only decision we could reach."
This is Steve Capus, President of NBC.
Mr. Capus is not speaking about the most deplorable and disgusting event to take place inside the NBC network. Instead, Mr. Capus believes that Don Imus' comments about the Rutgers basketball team merit apologies, the cancellation of the show, and a deep look into the moral compass of his company.
Let's be serious for a second, Don Imus should not have said what he said, but his comments did little more than expose that even radio hosts can make racially-offensive comments. Don Imus' firing may have been a good move, and I do believe that the type of language he used on air was not appropriate, no matter whether on the nightly news or a more shocking-syle show like Imus' was.
Here is where I start to get upset.
We are all quite aware by now of the horrible events that occurred this past Monday. A man of shadows decided to step out and not only end the lives of 33 of his fellow students and professors, but to throw himself into the spotlight. The man behind the shootings should have never received any spotlight attention for what he did.
Instead of awknowleding that one of the shooter's main motivations for his actions was to make himself known (as evidenced by his decision to send photos and videos to NBC news), the media, led by NBC News, gave the shooter the attention he ultimately wanted to be remembered by.
"We did not rush the material onto air, but instead consulted with local authorities, who have since publicly acknowledged our appropriate handling of the matter."
Seemingly lacking the sensitivity with which he handled the Imus situation last week, Mr. Capus was apparently only concerned that putting the shooter's video and photographic manifesto on air to millions around the world might be illegal or jeopardize the police investigation.
If Mr. Capus is being honest about not rushing the footage onto the air (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this), than what America should be upset about is that NBC aired the clips at all. By making the shooter's identity so public, and by displaying his words, (words that should have been left to the police to read, and the police only) NBC has showed us that their broadcasting standards surrounding sensational stories such as the Virginia Tech shootings aren't as important as those surrounding issues of money (sponsors pulling out of the MSNBC Imus broadcast).
What is at stake here are human lives, and their stories that the media is all to inclined to paste over with a shooter's staged photograph.
I was never a fan of biographical video montages made by news networks, but the words "dont go away, we're the only network to have the contents of the shooter's package ready to show to you live on TV, so hang on for only 12 minutes" trouble me more than any well-intentioned video memorial could ever have the potential to.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The REAL Doomsday Clock
Gen. Anthony Zinni: "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
~~~
That quote is a pretty good introduction to the "REAL Doomsday Clock," a new feature on this blog that will track the impending disaster that climate change will have on our world in the coming years. What most people consider the Doomsday Clock is the creation of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago for the purpose of alerting the public of the possibility of a nuclear war, one that would presumably wipe out large amounts of the world. The image of such destruction being caused by climate change is a less action-packed picture, but the end result is similarly grim.
When "An Inconvenient Truth" was released last year, many thought that Al Gore's focus on the environment and his desire to bring it into the public spotlight would fail miserably. As eager as I was to jump on the "realist/pessimist" view that the issue would get kicked aside after a few weeks, it turns out that there seems to be a mini environmentalist revival springing up everywhere. Even without millions of people marching on Capitol Hill (except for MAYBE this coming July), the world is, without the possibility of denying it, moving towards a state of increased consciousness about our planet and our role in protecting it.... THANK GOD!
My daily sweep of CNN.com usually turns up a story about a symbolic turning off of lights in a major city or a new report on global warming or climate change. Those stories that would have been assigned to the smaller news tab on the side of the page are now the headline story, albeit for only a few hours.
The way in which I internalize all that is going on right now is much different than the approach we're often told to follow to start solving problems. Whether or not you agree with Al Gore on his political stances, I admire the man for his dedication to an issue that doesn't lie in the mainstream and that, at least not yet, isn't aimed at gaining him more votes. In his movie, Gore stresses an attitude of what I call "inspired action." People react to all this news of global warming and climate change in unique ways, and I think Gore's approach is a positive compromise that many of us can learn from. Essentially, most Americans fall into one of these four catagories:
- - - - - - - -
1) Global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (United States Senator James Inhofe (R)-OK)
2) The "I'm a conservationist, not an environmentalist" group--basically, I'm not willing to go out and buy a Prius or pressure automakers into improving car emissions standards, but I treasure my woods and rivers so I can hunt and fish. Believe me, this view isn’t perfect, but I think a lot of people are moving from the denial category into this one, and these guys (who include Senator John McCain and Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, both presidential candidates) are the demographic whose support of the environmental movement will start off the (inevitable) protests and demonstrations that will pave the way towards change.
3) Me....and, I believe, a bunch of others--I will elaborate later.
4) The heart of the environmental movement. For the sake of keeping this article focused, I won't divide this group up--doing so would create a mess and get a few people upset.
- - - - - - - - -
"An Inconvenient Truth" stresses that change IS necessary...now. At the same time, however, there is no need for despair, for if we each do our part and shake some of our bad habits, than we can see some positive change. Sounds good to me!
In the past few months since the movie was released, I've run into a major problem. Basically, I'm really starting to get concerned. The mark that "An Inconvenient Truth" has ultimately left on my heart and mind is that we do, in fact, need change right now. Instead of looking at every positive change around me and being inspired, however, I find myself losing sleep over each instance in which someone else shows complete disregard for the environment.
One fitting example of this took place on a series of recent visits to Starbucks in and around Boston, Massachusetts. With all their culturally-conscious books, CDs, fair-trade coffee, etc., I have been completely heartbroken and, frankly, fumingly upset that after finishing my pomegranate ice teas I have no place to recycle my plastic cup. When I asked if there was a place I could responsibly dispose of my cup in the store, the employee's response was a quick and unconcerned "no." While I think a company can and should balance both environmentally-friendly operations and fair-trade practices (just an example issue), I would much rather know that the store that delivers its products to millions and millions of people around the world each day is concerned about more than just making a few more cents by slapping a "our beans our fair trade!" sticker on their products. Like BP with their green and cheery logo, should do more than hide behind a conscious-looking logo. It wouldn't take much for Starbucks purchase some recycling bins, so why don't they?
It's this kind of constant frustration that makes me often want to become an active member of an environmental group, and perhaps, sometime in the near future, you'll see me picketing in front of Starbucks HQ (but that's highly unlikely).
Also, if I had enough influence to get them all together, I'd love to have Al Gore, John McCain, and the head of a large environmental group get together and have a discussion about the environment. Even better, broadcast it on NBC, primetime. No documentaries to sleep through, no musical appearances by Melissa Etheridge, just a serious and practical discussion for everyone to see.
In closing I'd like to summarize what Senator John McCain said at a recent New Hampshire campaign stop that I attended.
-If we ignore all of those that say global warming doesn’t exist, and we don't do anything, what are we going to do in twenty years when we realize that we were wrong? But, if we decide to take steps now to fix the problems that many predict, the worst that could happen is that we leave our kids with a cleaner planet. If the scientists that say global warming does exist are right, perhaps we could avert a crisis with action now-
John McCain is not a pioneer in the field of environmentally orientated politics, but what he said inspired me in a way that I hadn't felt in a long time. Whether you experience God in a church, mosque, or temple, our planet is the largest sanctuary known to man, and it’s our responsibility to protect it.
Anybody want to picket Starbucks with me?
~~~
That quote is a pretty good introduction to the "REAL Doomsday Clock," a new feature on this blog that will track the impending disaster that climate change will have on our world in the coming years. What most people consider the Doomsday Clock is the creation of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago for the purpose of alerting the public of the possibility of a nuclear war, one that would presumably wipe out large amounts of the world. The image of such destruction being caused by climate change is a less action-packed picture, but the end result is similarly grim.
When "An Inconvenient Truth" was released last year, many thought that Al Gore's focus on the environment and his desire to bring it into the public spotlight would fail miserably. As eager as I was to jump on the "realist/pessimist" view that the issue would get kicked aside after a few weeks, it turns out that there seems to be a mini environmentalist revival springing up everywhere. Even without millions of people marching on Capitol Hill (except for MAYBE this coming July), the world is, without the possibility of denying it, moving towards a state of increased consciousness about our planet and our role in protecting it.... THANK GOD!
My daily sweep of CNN.com usually turns up a story about a symbolic turning off of lights in a major city or a new report on global warming or climate change. Those stories that would have been assigned to the smaller news tab on the side of the page are now the headline story, albeit for only a few hours.
The way in which I internalize all that is going on right now is much different than the approach we're often told to follow to start solving problems. Whether or not you agree with Al Gore on his political stances, I admire the man for his dedication to an issue that doesn't lie in the mainstream and that, at least not yet, isn't aimed at gaining him more votes. In his movie, Gore stresses an attitude of what I call "inspired action." People react to all this news of global warming and climate change in unique ways, and I think Gore's approach is a positive compromise that many of us can learn from. Essentially, most Americans fall into one of these four catagories:
- - - - - - - -
1) Global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (United States Senator James Inhofe (R)-OK)
2) The "I'm a conservationist, not an environmentalist" group--basically, I'm not willing to go out and buy a Prius or pressure automakers into improving car emissions standards, but I treasure my woods and rivers so I can hunt and fish. Believe me, this view isn’t perfect, but I think a lot of people are moving from the denial category into this one, and these guys (who include Senator John McCain and Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, both presidential candidates) are the demographic whose support of the environmental movement will start off the (inevitable) protests and demonstrations that will pave the way towards change.
3) Me....and, I believe, a bunch of others--I will elaborate later.
4) The heart of the environmental movement. For the sake of keeping this article focused, I won't divide this group up--doing so would create a mess and get a few people upset.
- - - - - - - - -
"An Inconvenient Truth" stresses that change IS necessary...now. At the same time, however, there is no need for despair, for if we each do our part and shake some of our bad habits, than we can see some positive change. Sounds good to me!
In the past few months since the movie was released, I've run into a major problem. Basically, I'm really starting to get concerned. The mark that "An Inconvenient Truth" has ultimately left on my heart and mind is that we do, in fact, need change right now. Instead of looking at every positive change around me and being inspired, however, I find myself losing sleep over each instance in which someone else shows complete disregard for the environment.
One fitting example of this took place on a series of recent visits to Starbucks in and around Boston, Massachusetts. With all their culturally-conscious books, CDs, fair-trade coffee, etc., I have been completely heartbroken and, frankly, fumingly upset that after finishing my pomegranate ice teas I have no place to recycle my plastic cup. When I asked if there was a place I could responsibly dispose of my cup in the store, the employee's response was a quick and unconcerned "no." While I think a company can and should balance both environmentally-friendly operations and fair-trade practices (just an example issue), I would much rather know that the store that delivers its products to millions and millions of people around the world each day is concerned about more than just making a few more cents by slapping a "our beans our fair trade!" sticker on their products. Like BP with their green and cheery logo, should do more than hide behind a conscious-looking logo. It wouldn't take much for Starbucks purchase some recycling bins, so why don't they?
It's this kind of constant frustration that makes me often want to become an active member of an environmental group, and perhaps, sometime in the near future, you'll see me picketing in front of Starbucks HQ (but that's highly unlikely).
Also, if I had enough influence to get them all together, I'd love to have Al Gore, John McCain, and the head of a large environmental group get together and have a discussion about the environment. Even better, broadcast it on NBC, primetime. No documentaries to sleep through, no musical appearances by Melissa Etheridge, just a serious and practical discussion for everyone to see.
In closing I'd like to summarize what Senator John McCain said at a recent New Hampshire campaign stop that I attended.
-If we ignore all of those that say global warming doesn’t exist, and we don't do anything, what are we going to do in twenty years when we realize that we were wrong? But, if we decide to take steps now to fix the problems that many predict, the worst that could happen is that we leave our kids with a cleaner planet. If the scientists that say global warming does exist are right, perhaps we could avert a crisis with action now-
John McCain is not a pioneer in the field of environmentally orientated politics, but what he said inspired me in a way that I hadn't felt in a long time. Whether you experience God in a church, mosque, or temple, our planet is the largest sanctuary known to man, and it’s our responsibility to protect it.
Anybody want to picket Starbucks with me?
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Republican Nominee Polls Get Even Weirder
As the Democratic nomination essentially turns into a three man (man and woman, rather) race, the Republican contest isn't getting any easier to sort out. Check out the following LA Times/Bloomberg Poll:
Rudy Giuliani - 29%
Fred Thompson - 15%
John McCain - 12%
Mitt Romney - 8%
Newt Gingrich - 7%
Tommy Thomson - 3%
Sam Brownback - 2%
Duncan Hunter - 2%
Tom Tancredo - 2%
UNSURE - 14%
The entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, in my mind, only shows that even fewer Republican voters are really commited to any one candidate at this point. Reagan did a pretty good job of balancing the actor with the president, but Thompson makes everything seem like it's primetime TV. Long and short of it, he won't get too far.
If you add Thompson's 15% to Gingrich's 7% (I know some people out there are convinced he might be able to take his campaign deep into 2008 (should he announce), but a vote for Gingrich at this stage is simply a vote for the Republican Platform 101) and the 14% camped in the "unsure" realm, and you've got yourself 36% of the Republican voting pool.
It's clear this 36% won't go to Giuliani--the candidates they are alligned with now don't represent the more liberal politics that Giulini has been attached with.
With a loaded wallet going into the summer months, Mitt Romney COULD be the recipient of a lot of attention and COULD start to move up in the polls, but if he thinks he can win this contest with his money he's sorely wrong--second-hand reports from fellow students and friends who interned with Mitt while he was governor indicate to me that some of those closest to him aren't the ones that love him the most, and in fact, some of the Republicans I know who jumped on the opportunity to work for the Republican governor left his office only months later as Democrats.
Where is that 36% going? Suggestions?
Rudy Giuliani - 29%
Fred Thompson - 15%
John McCain - 12%
Mitt Romney - 8%
Newt Gingrich - 7%
Tommy Thomson - 3%
Sam Brownback - 2%
Duncan Hunter - 2%
Tom Tancredo - 2%
UNSURE - 14%
The entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, in my mind, only shows that even fewer Republican voters are really commited to any one candidate at this point. Reagan did a pretty good job of balancing the actor with the president, but Thompson makes everything seem like it's primetime TV. Long and short of it, he won't get too far.
If you add Thompson's 15% to Gingrich's 7% (I know some people out there are convinced he might be able to take his campaign deep into 2008 (should he announce), but a vote for Gingrich at this stage is simply a vote for the Republican Platform 101) and the 14% camped in the "unsure" realm, and you've got yourself 36% of the Republican voting pool.
It's clear this 36% won't go to Giuliani--the candidates they are alligned with now don't represent the more liberal politics that Giulini has been attached with.
With a loaded wallet going into the summer months, Mitt Romney COULD be the recipient of a lot of attention and COULD start to move up in the polls, but if he thinks he can win this contest with his money he's sorely wrong--second-hand reports from fellow students and friends who interned with Mitt while he was governor indicate to me that some of those closest to him aren't the ones that love him the most, and in fact, some of the Republicans I know who jumped on the opportunity to work for the Republican governor left his office only months later as Democrats.
Where is that 36% going? Suggestions?
Hillary's at it Once Again...
We all know that Hillary really loves to capitalize on these current event stories...but since when does she have the right to play the role of cultural commentator and draw attention to her website whenever something in this country makes potential voters a bit upset?
what we'll see next: "Show how upset you are about the cleanliness of fast food restuarants...donate to my campaign now and send an email to Taco Bell's president"
Cut it out, Hillary. You're running for President, not for the head of the FCC or PC police.
what we'll see next: "Show how upset you are about the cleanliness of fast food restuarants...donate to my campaign now and send an email to Taco Bell's president"
Cut it out, Hillary. You're running for President, not for the head of the FCC or PC police.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
