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?

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.

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.

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.

Top Dems (or their webmasters) think alike

Curiously similar...

Running mates?

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.

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?

Photo of the Week

http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/seen_in_iraq

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?

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.

Two Things I Don't Really Like

The Supporting Our Troops and Veterans' Health Care Act seems like a pretty straightforward bill. The name is in fact so explicit that the image of stubbornly-precise Congressmen crafting trite names for bills rushes to mind. The bill, however, had attached to it a number of additional provisions, including:

- $140 million in aid for farmers and ranchers affected by Hurricane Katrina.
- $450 million in food assistance to Sudan, Afghanistan, and Southern Africa
- $1 billion to purchase pandemic flu vaccines
- $140 million for security aid to Liberia and Jordan
- $3.7 billion for agricultural disaster assistance

While many of the extra additions to this bill address important issues that are very much in need of funding, the reality is that over $12.4 billion in the Act do not focus on "Supporting Our Troops" or addressing "Veterans' Health Care." This way of doing business is commonplace in Washington, DC, but it still surprises. If a friend were to ask me for money for a taxi, but they used a large part of the money to also buy a "Stop the Genocide" t-shit, I certainly wouldn't be angry, but I would have expected them to let me know what they were doing with my money. As well-intentioned as these actions might be, American taxpayers deserve to know that supplemental aid is being provided to Gulf Coast fisherman when a "Support Our Troops" bill is passed.

The whole culture of under-the-table changes to bills and laws is widespread, but you don't need to only look at money appropriations to see people taking advantage of certain circumstances in order to further individual agendas. Recently, in light of both the Alberto Gonzales scandal and the comments by Ann Coulter at CPAC, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have both attempted to capitalize on these events in order to raise money for their campaigns. Clinton's website is currently running the advertisement above, conveniently located near the donate button on the page. Perhaps Clinton really cares the most about getting people to her site in order to sign the petition, but you can tell that she loves the potential for publicity and increased contributions that the current scandal offters her. John Edwards also ran a advertisement online last week; his making the connection between being angry at Ann Coulter and donating money.

I worry that politicians now, instead of looking straight in the eyes of the problems that face them instead turn around and plead for support and funds to advance their causes. New York and North Carolina voters elected Clinton and Edwards to use the connections they have to pass meaningful reforms and get things done, not to try and get caught up in the exploitation of headline news stories. Similarly, let's make sure that voters know what exactly is getting passed by their leaders.

The BB&N POV: The Massachusetts Student Perspective

This month, a magazine that I co-founded at my high school, published its first issue. The POV is a publication created by, designed by, and written by high school students.

Our first issue includes a revealing interview with Massachusetts Congressman Mike Capuano and Libertarian political pundit Larry Elder.

We're working on the second issue now, which is slated for publication in May, but the first issue is still hot off the press and downloadable at the link below!

http://www.mediafire.com/?eyniknztyy4'

Enjoy!

March Madness vs. Presidential Primaries

The NCAA March Madness tournament officially tipped off this afternoon, and like every year, 65 teams from around the country are given the chance to take home the the biggest prize in college basketball. Fans realize the odds are stacked against Jackson State when they face off with Florida, but the upset is still technically possible. Imagine for a second that the NCAA were to change the rules of the tourney and:

-gave all 1-4 seeds a first round bye
-allowed the wealthiest sports programs to chose where and who they played, and gave them the opportunity to chose which primetime TV spot they'd prefer to be broadcast during

ESPN, along with the rest of "sportsnation" (which often times seems like more of a nation than the actual United States) would react with anger and protest until the rules were changed back. Teams would withdraw themselves from the tourney, and even the big school coaches would speak out against the new changes.

Now, there's no need to imagine, but understand for a moment the new trends that are defining the American primaries:

-frontrunner candidates benefit from earlier primaries as their initial reputation has less time to be challenged by lesser known individuals
-top-tier candidates will soon begin to pick and chose only the highest-grossing events to attend in the most revenue-producing states such as California, replacing the traditional election starting spots New Hampshire and Iowa.

The implications of such change don't ring with the same kind of fear as the NCAA changes do to many, but the new trend is very damaging to the way America choses its leaders. As it stands now, candidates such as Rudy Giuliani must make the tough choice between suring up support in the big states at the expense of facing an uphill battle in New Hampshire. If fifteen states move to "super Tuesday" primary day this election, Rudy and other big name candidatse could simply follow the money and media to California each and every day of the campaign and come out on top.

I'm hopeful that the next few months will still yield the kind of primary showdown that keeps the dark horse candidate in the race until the finish, but I fear for the future of the American electoral process. I don't believe that Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul will ever win the presidency, but I like to think that at any given time, in a small town in the mountains of New Hampshire, that Ron Paul can speak to a town hall of people and win over their support while Rudy Giuliani tours a factory in Los Angeles or makes a televised speech.

No #16 seed has ever upset a #1. But the underdogs still score their points and they still put up a fight. Let's make sure that fighting underdog spirit is never taken away.

'Two Days Until McCain!!' or 'Is This Guy Going to be Any Good?'

John McCain is visiting Milford, NH this upcoming Saturday morning, and I have made plans to attend one of these now imfamously incorrectly-named "town hall meetings" at an elementary school. I'm prepared for an experience entirely different from that of meeting Mike Huckabee at a restaurant in Manchester this February in which getting face-to-face time with the candidate simply invovled waiting ten or fifteen minutes after the speech before it was your turn to say some words.

Like the rest of the frontrunners in this 2008 scramble, McCain will undoubtedly be swamped by an army of reporters, and I am curious to see to which level, if any, the personality of such an event declines under these circumstances.

From a candidate such as Huckabee, I was not looking so much for creative agendas and practical solutions for the problems that this nation faces, but instead for a capable and inspiring leader whose personality and vision for the future could justify my thinking of him as a serious candidate. McCain, however, has been one of the biggest figures in American politics in past years, and my expctations are sky-high.

A quick visit to McCain's website worried me, but still leaves me curious to see what he can pull off on saturday. A video hosted on the campaign website entitled "Iraq" speaks of nothing more than of the importance of winning the conflict and why we cannot afford to lose. From such an experienced politician I count on McCain for being able to give voters more of an answer than that. If this way of skirting an issue and coughing up a patriotic answer to such an important problem is the way that McCain likes to do things, than I'm sure this town hall meeting won't be very enjoyable. I hope I'm wrong.


Ps. Depending on your notes isn't a big plus for me either. Huckabee went for nearly half an hour without any script at all, and he covered everything from weight loss to terrorism...I guess it pays to have twelve years of ministry experience under your belt before getting involved in politics after all...

The Importance of a (Completely) Clean Slate

As evidenced by the Republican party's not so subtle rejection of Chuck Hagel, it seems as if a break on one issue from the party lines is enough to doom a campaign or career. Hagel's comments in which he suggested that Iraq was gradually becoming another Vietnam have put his name high on the hitlist for many conservatives who see his comments as representing a supreme level of disrespect for the President and the party. It is unfortunate that maintaining a voting record 100% down party lines is necessary to keep one's support. Hagel is now loathed by Republicans and has little hope of winning back a seat in the Senate, but what is most surprising is that Hagel is not, on a whole, a middle of the road Republican. Among other agendas, Hagel believes in:

-banning abortion
-prohibiting gay marriage
-the privitization of Social Security
-the reduction of taxes for the wealthy

So, what does this mean for the 2008 on a whole? Well, for one, good luck at becoming the Republican nominee with a view on a key issue such as Iraq, abortion, or gay marriage that breaks too much with the party's general set of beliefs. With each passing week I am continually amazed that so many conservatives are voicing support for Rudy Giuliani when in fact his record paints a picture of an entirely different man than we see today. If the Republicans can separate themselves from Giuliani like they did Hagel, watch out Mr. Mayor, 9/11 won't be able to carry you to an election vicory.

The Democratic side may seem more compromising, but a similar pattern as the Republicans arises in a more suble manner. Despite the public's lack of knowledge of his platform, Barack Obama remains one of the frontrunners in the 2008 election. The idea of Obama is one of change and a fresh approach to politics, but he can only ride the unknown/underdog candidate wave for so long before he must step up with some big ideas and cast aside the 24/7 barage of "red, white, and blue America" slogans which have defined his public image since 2004. We have yet to see whether Obama can deliver on this, so for now let's say that he might be in a tougher spot than we think he is.

In Trouble: Hagel, Giuliani, Romney, Obama

What's All This About 'Dividing'?

Hillary Clinton has been slapped with the label of "a divider" and "too partisan" in recent months, mainly because she is among the most vocal critics of the current administration. Hillary may not be the best candidate out there, but her frontrunner status naturally draws her criticism. I have no doubt that Edwards, Obama, or Richardson would receive similar treatment if they were sitting atop the polls.

As soon as Hillary's name began to gain press a few years back, it became clear to me that conservatives would love to have Hillary around as a Democratic nominee so they could unload anti-Clinton rhetoric on her with ease. Us moderates and conservatives initially believed that by stamping such a label on Hillary we would be able to debase her stock before the election even moved on to a contest of issues and policy. Now, however, the criticism that Hil has been receiving is actually dividing us more than we realize. Let's cut the crap and listen to what she has to say; and, after all that I still think she's a 'divider,' than I'll let you know.

Who Are the 17%?

A CNN/Opinion Research Corportation poll released today shows why, contrary to what the media is making it appear, the primaries are still eleven months away--

Rudy Giuliani - 34
John McCain - 18
Newt Gingrich - 9
Mitt Romney - 9
George Pataki - 3
Jim Gilmore - 2
Sam Brownback - 2
Chuck Hagel - 2
Ron Paul - 2
Mike Huckabee - 1
Tom Tancredo - 1
Tommy Thompson - 1
Duncan Hunter -
UNSURE - 17

Rudy still holds a commanding lead over McCain and the rest of the pack despite a poor showing in the CPAC straw poll and a virtual disappearance from the public spotlight and campaign trail. Gingrich, although still not an official candidate, also steals a respectable sampling of the vote. Once again, nothing new here.

Lesser known candidates such as Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee currently fall into the polling no man's land with low single-digit figures. Between the two, a 3% representation in polls raises an intriguing question; where is the evangelical vote going?

The answer rests quietly at the bottom of the poll. Assuming that a small percentage of evangelicals shove aside their religious inclinations and chose to support Rudy, McCain, or Romney, the 17% of voters who are unsure matches up quite closely with the 23% of voters in the 2004 Presidential Election who identified themselves as evangelicals.

What kind of impact will this demographic have in the coming months? A huge one. Though Huckabee and Brownback may have to fight it out, my bets are on Mike Huckabee grabbing the support of the religious right and having his new support from social conservatives throw him into the front tier of candidates. It may seem unlikely now, but there will be a time when the Republican base will realize Giuliani and Co. don't agree with core conservative social values as much as would be desired.

Focusing the Frenzy: What's Best for the Troops

Let's be honest, there is no excuse for what has been exposed at Walter Reed these past few weeks, and there should be no tolerance for less than perfect services to be provided for America's servicemen and women. To that end, our soldiers in Iraq should receive all the necessary (and additional) equipment, armor, and vehicles necessary to ensure their safety. Hearing politicians argue that calls for increased funding of troop equipment are distracting us from the goal of the mission in the GWOT is one of the most misleading claims being tossed around Washington these days. It is our responsibility to react with anger whenever a soldier's death could have prevented with a hundred dollar flak jacket or a Hummer with reinforced armor. The key to continued success in the GWOT is keeping our soldiers alive and in allowing the focus of Baghdad patrols to conern the maintaining or order and security instead of searching for IEDs whose shrapnel could seriously injure or kill an unprotected soldier.

While America's leaders have been ignoring such issues, the Democratic Congress is doing America an almost equally appaling disservice in not getting their act together. The military is a world of composure, resolve, and responsibility. Not being a soldier, I can't tell you what the current political mess appears like, but I can tell you that the Democrats are having some serious trouble getting their act together. It is misleading to exploit the story of Speaker Pelosi's confusing at a recent press conference regarding the specific date of withdrawal for US troops this coming July, but there's a nagging disagreement among Democratic leadership that is hard to look around. A positive discourse in the discussion of plans to correct the situation in Iraq is one thing, but after two months the Democrats have done little but divide up and run to separate corners of the room. Whether you believe in the potential for success in the Iraq war or you believe in an immediate pullout, President Bush is an easy target for criticism or praise, but the Democrats' current strategy (or lack of you) allows for them to work aroung accepting any sort of responsibility.

I'm guessing that in the military, if your name is called and you're asked to step forth, you do. Well, Democrats in Congress, I'd like to talk to you about what your party's position is. Would you mind stepping forward?

Nothing Beats a Meet and Greet

So much of the public's perception of a candidate is shaped by commentary fed to us by the media. Television stations such as CBS or CNN attempt to supply us with the information we need to know about an individual, but often times what the candidate would want you to know about them would be entirely different. Since New Hampshire is only a quick drive from Massachusetts, I decided to make a quick trip over the border this past February to meet Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee spoke at the Merrimack Grill for a half hour and worked the crowd of around 60 for close to an hour as well. Student representatives spoke with Mike about his commitment to maintaining New Hampshire's first in the nation status, a woman slapped a "I'm a Health Care Voter" sticker on Huckabee's jacket, and I spoke with the Governor for around five minutes about everything from rock and roll to the media's impact on politics.

Instead of having FOX or MSNBC tell me that the Club For Growth gave Huckabee a 0% approval rating, I was glad to have the opportunity to erase my memory of a candidate clean and start to build up my knowledge of him or her based on information I picked up in person.

While candidates seem to only be visiting a handful of states these days, if anyone from Hilary to Brownback happens to stop by a town near you, make sure to give them a look and a listen. It is surprising how refreshing some politicians are when you run into them outside of the spotlight...

Welcome to the Big Show

The papers have been filed (in my room), the speeches have been written (on my hand), and the debates are about to begin (with my parents). Yes, the 2040 Presidential election cycle has begun! It is with great privilege that I present to you myself, candidate for the President of the United States.

Since a 17 year old high school student can in no way afford a professionally-designed website such as the ones maintained by the like of John McCain or Barack Obama, this blog will have to suffice for, probably, the next 33 years. Over the coming months and years I plan on bringing you content and opinion relating to the politics and news that contribute to the shaping of my political brain. If a politician, either Democrat or Republican, is leading this country in the right direction I will let you know and commit to memory part of what they did right. Likewise, should the country be led down the wrong path I will make sure to learn from their mistake.

This blog is about developing the next generation of political thought by learning from the decades preceding my presidency...aka now.

Enjoy!