MIA

As I watching Meet the Press today, an interesting point was brought up. The panelists were discussing the presidential candidates, and Tim Russert commented on the fact that these presidential candidates seem to be shying away from the media. None of the candidates have really made appearances at anything that wasn't sponsored specifically by their campaign (other than debates). There really haven't been any appearances on Meet the Press, The Today Show, Face the Nation, etc. The only the shows that the candidates have appeared on have been ones that would favor their specific political leanings. Barack Obama appeared on the Daily Show and the some of the Republican candidates have gone on Sean Hannity's show. It seems that they all seem to be shying away from the hard hitting questions. This makes me wonder if we will be allowed to hear what these candidates really think before time for the primaries or if we will only hear what their campaigns want us to hear. Hopefully, the debates will give us enough chances to hear the candidates' political platforms since none of them really want to put themselves out there otherwise.

Really?

"Childrens do learn." -George W. Bush. If you would like to see the clip, check out the Daily Show page on Comedy Central.

Healthcare

During Wednesday evening's Democratic Presidential debate, an interesting point was brought up. They debaters were on the subject of health care, and Tim Russert, the moderater, asked John Edwards how he would solve the problem of universal healthcare. Mr. Edwards replied that he would tell Congress that if they are unable to bring about a solution by July of 2009, then he would take away their healthcare. Talk about hitting them where it hurts. Now I don't know if Edwards would really be able to do this as president, but it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. It seems that Congress needs some sort of incentive to find a solution to the healthcare problem. Apparently thousands of children not receiving adequate healthcare and having to go to emergency rooms instead of family doctors for a routine problem is just not enough of a problem to Congress to get the job done.

Not again...

"We're kicking ass."
"I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I'm smart on the subject."
"One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be."
"I'm the decider!"

These are only a few of the oratorical pearls provided to us by the President of the United States. This past week, however, he managed to top himself. While defending his stance on the war in Iraq, W. quipped, "I heard someone say, 'Where's Mandella?' Well, Mandella's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandellas." REALLY?!?! Are you kidding me? Bush later went on to explain that he meant that Saddam Hussein killed all the people like Mandella who were living in Iraq. Poor 89 year-old Nelson Mandella didn't do anything to George Bush, and then Bush goes and kills him. It would seem that the leader of the free world would be able to form a sentence on his own without killing off one of the greatest men who has ever lived, but I guess that's just not how it goes. Maybe W. should just stick to the speeches his assisstants give him from now on. As my sister said, I just hope Nelson didn't hear him...

Not-so-compassionate Conservative

A children's health care bill supported by the Democrats in Congress has come under fire by the President and some Republicans as being too much of a move towards the socialization of health care and merely political ploy. The House-Senate accord would increase tobacco taxes in order to cover children's health care. When asked about whether or not he would support a tobacco tax increase, President Bush said, "We don't need to raise taxes." He also added that the Democrats were trying to expand the health care initiative beyond just covering health insurance for poor children.
Although President Bush wants to play it off as just a bunch of Democrats trying to push their own agenda, but there has been much Republican support for this bill. Republican Governors Sonny Purdue (GA) and Arnold Schwarzeneggar (CA) have expressed support over the bill. The Terminator even went so far as to say that taking money away from the nation's children is not a way to reduce the national deficit and that Pres. Bush should find another way to do that.
So, what I really want to know, is whether or not W thinks it's okay to spend billions of dollars a week on a seemingly never-ending war, but we can't raise tobacco taxes to ensure that our children can go to the doctor. Seems like someone was willing to say a lot more when he was trying to get elected a couple years ago. Not so compassionate now, huh?

Oh, Mitt

Mitt Romney is releasing a new campaign ad that tells the viewers he is the candidate who will be able to reclaim the values of the Republican Party and put it back on the right track. Romney goes so far to say that the now-Republican Party is made up of a bunch of unethical men who can't spend money well. He even goes so far as to make a somewhat hidden attack at President Bush and two of his main opponents on the subject of immigration.In the ad, Romney says, "We can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno."
Wow, Mitt. Way to alienate your own party and the Democrats. Because people will really vote for you if you say that they're unethical and lax on security issues. It seems a bit ironic to me that Mr. "I'm the only one with moral values here" is really starting the first of the dirty, mudslinging campaign ads. Maybe he will be able to appeal to those Republicans who feel that the government has gotten too big and President Bush has been unable to control spending. Maybe he will appeal to those Democrats who think we need to do something more drastic about immigration issues. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

World War III?

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner announced Sunday that if the Iranians do not heed international warnings over the production of nuclear fuel then the European countries will be forced to act. The French Minister said that the European countries will have to "prepare for the worst." When asked what he meant by "the worst," Mr. Kouchner replied "war, sir." Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed-Ali Hosseni replied that Iran hopes that these are not France's true feelings and do not reflect the French strategic point of view.
My generation has never really known the direct affects of war. As someone said the other night on "Reat Time" with Bill Mahrer, America isn't at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall. We hear news reports daily about people being killed in Iraq and the heroics performed by the military personnel there, but we don't really feel the effects. This war is being fought elsewhere. This is not WWII, where everyone was directly affected by the war. This is not Vietnam, where everyone's brother, son, husband, or friend was terrified of having their number called and being sent off to war. This is a different kind of war. This is a distant war.
It worries me to think how we might react to a full blown World War. With all of Europe coming into the mix with Iran, that might be what happens. I just wonder, are we really ready for that? Could our already strained military respond to a full-scale, no-joke, world war?

Oh, O.J.

I was watching MSNBC earlier today, and the report that was on was about what food O.J. Simpson has had thus far in prison. WHO CARES?!?! There's a war in Iraq, crises all over Africa, and a huge national debt, and MSNBC is reporting on what food O.J. Simpson has had in his first few hours in jail? I, personally, do not care if O.J. ate his spaghetti or not. I think this man is just full of problems, and maybe now he'll get some help. Who knows...maybe next week there'll be a book out entitled What might have happened if it had really been me who robbed a memoribilia store at a shady hotel with a bunch of armed thugs, but it really wasn't me.

Un-Surge

Tonight, President Bush is set to address the nation about the progress of the war in Iraq and what the plans for the troop levels will be in the next months. According to reports, President Bush plans to relate the success that our troops are experiencing in Iraq and report that there will be a troop gradual troop withdrawal that will put the number of troops in Iraq back to the pre-surge level by July of 2008. So, President Bush is advocating a withdrawal that will take us right back to where we were at the beginning of the year. Anyone who would was against the troop surge in the beginning was labeled as unpatriotic and not willing to support the troops. Now, President Bush wants to go back to where things were before the surge. Isn't it a bit bizarre that if you were against the first surge, you were against the troops, but if you're for pre-surge troop numbers now, you're for what's best for the troops? Hmmmm....

"Be a uniter, not a divider"

Since the resignation of embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speculation has run rampant in Washington as to who President Bush would nominate for the position. The presumed front-runner at this point is former Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Along with being the Solicitor General, Olson also is known for his role in the Arkansas Project, which was formed to damage and end the presidency of Bill Clinton, and also for his representation of George W. Bush in the 2000 Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Judiciary Chairman PAtrick Leahy have both expressed their disappointment with the idea that Olson would be Bush's nominee. Senator Leahy said, "The only advice I gave to the White House was it would be a good time for the president to be a uniter, not a divider," he said. "There are many people who could do that. Mr. Olson is not one of those." Senator Reid expressed that he would do everything in his power to keep Olson's nomination from passing if that becomes necessary. When asked about the matter, White House Spokesman Tony Fratto, without confirming or denying anything about Olson's possible nomination, said that President Bush will send up the best nominee possible and asked the Senate to "set aside partisan politics long enough" to confirm the president's nominee. Now, the real question is, how is it possible that sending up a man for confirmation who participated in a movement to remove the last Democratic president from office and to assure that the next Democratic presidential candidate was not given office is not partisan politics? It would seem that if the president really wanted to nominate a person who would do the best job and not further divide the Senate, he would pick a moderate nominee who would please both sides. I'm so tired of hearing the term "partisan politics" come from the White House in reference to the Senate. Of course there's going to be partisan politics. It's called Washington, D.C. guys! However, the president himself could mediate this problem by not trying to push through a candidate who's one of his buddies and is not necessarily the best for the job. The names Michael Brown and Hariet Miers are brought to my mind. I just wish, if the president is going to go around accusing others of participating in partisan politics, he would step up and nominate someone who will do the best job and not tick off the majority of the senators. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Fundraisers

Norman Hsu, a fundraiser and contributor to the Democratic party, was arrested this week for a sixteen-year-old grand theft auto conviction and failing to show up for a court appearance. Hsu has contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Now that he's been arrested, both organizations have said they will not use the money he gave them. This development may mean bad news for the Democrats. Hopefully, it won't turn into the same fiasco that another Clinton had with his own set of fundraisers.

Fred Thompson

So, Fred Thompson finally threw his hat in the ring. He officially announced his candidacy for president on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Although some of the presidential candidates have adopted somewhat untraditional ways of announcing their candidacies (i.e. webcasts), Thompson has been the recipient of criticism from both sides of the partisan line for his announcement. They're not irritated with him for his form of announcement, but rather for the fact that he chose to make his announcement on the Tonight Show and then not participate in the Republican Presidential debate. John McCain even quipped that the debate might be "past [Thompson's] bed time." His absence from the debate makes me wonder whether it was because he didn't want to go, or because he was afraid of the questions he would be asked and the issues that would be discussed. It seems like the debate would be a good chance for him to introduce himself to the voters and get his message out. I guess we'll never know.

Criminal or Gay?

So, for my first post, I thought I might talk about one of the hottest news stories as of late: Senator Craig and his lewd behavior in a public restroom. One thing that strikes me as interesting is the part of this story that the public and/or media seems to pay the most attention to is his sexuality. It was the same story with Ted Haggard and Mark Foley. It almost seems like relatively few that a prominent official might be molesting minors, abusing methamphetamines, or acting lewdly in a public restroom. The one thing that everyone's worried about is whether or not the accused likes to have sexual relations with people of their same sex. And it's not only the public that's worried about this. It's the men that have been accused. Each of them, in their own press conferences, proclaimed that they were "not gay" and that was the accusation that they repeatedly rebuked. It makes me wonder whether or not, in our society, it is worse to be gay than to break the law. Hmmm...