The Presidential Candidates

While I have not been affiliated with any particular political party, the last few years I have come to realize that I tend to agree with the values of the Democratic party more than the Republican party. There are things I don't like about the Democrats like most of their views on gun control, but it seems, especially the last eight years, that the Republicans are fat cats for fat cats at the expense of people who aren't so fortunate. Republicans don't seem very compassionate of the needs or desires of the common people, they are more pro big business insisting on passing laws that benefit big businesses with the insinuation that the wealth will trickle down to the masses, even though they pretty much know it doesn't. I think that it has been shown again and again that this line of thinking is flawed. Those benefits given big businesses don't give any relief to the masses and just serve to fatten the profit margins of those companies as they lay off more and more people and pay the ones they keep less and even to the point of moving their operations outside the US to take advantage of low wages, poor working conditions and lower environmental regulations. I have been totally put off by the secrecy and illegal activities of our government during the coarse of the Bush Administration that has put America in such a bad light to the rest of the world. With that said, here are my thoughts on the major three presidential candidates as I see them.

John McCain
In his words and actions seems to be pretty much hell bent on continuing the Bush legacy. Wanting to stay in Iraq for the long run no matter what the cost. Loyal to the Republican party's agendas, in other words, except for some minor differences, pretty much more of the same failed policies as we had the last eight years. If Bush is your hero, John is your man. This is a very sober statement given by McCain, "Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be." This mirrors Dick Cheney's statements on why we need to stay in Iraq even though the vast majority of the people would like us out of there. Another comment that he made in regards to the idea of a "League of Democracies", a plan of his to create an organization like the United Nations except for no communists or dictators to have to contend with, McCain says, "It could act where the UN fails to act." Bush never had much regard for the UN either. Age has to be a factor, look at Bush or any other president that has lasted through a couple of terms of president, now imagine starting off with someone that is that old to start with. Just what America needs after eight years of a president that was in denial, a president that is facing senility.

Hillery Clinton
First woman to run for President a historical event. When it comes right down to it, would you want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House as the nation's First Gentleman? Cigars anyone? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." With this in mind how strong do you think this candidate would be in the fall elections against McCain? Hillery can't resolve issues with her marriage seemingly content to put up with her husband running around as he probably is still beneficial to her goals or aspirations. Hillery has strong support of women, but a couple things has come out again and again. Hillery seems willing to say just about anything to get the nomination, from dodging sniper bullets to claiming that she can win just by sticking around...remember Kennedy's assassination? Finally the last gripes I have about Hillery are I think her campaign has been a lot more negative compared to Obama's, I think her comment about obliterating Iran was pretty scary, I'm really getting tired of hearing her say that she has the popular vote when the only way that is possible is if you count Michigan's results, a ballot that Obama's name wasn't even on the ticket. Now that I have brought up the matter of Michigan, that is another thing that really disturbs me about Hillery. Everyone involved agreed with the decision of not counting Florida and Michigan because they broke the parties rules, but now as that is the only way Hillery has a chance at the nomination, she counts them as she tells everyone she has the populist vote and she is fighting against the party now in demanding that the rules be changed, this kind of reminds me of the kind of thing Bush does and shows me that a vote for Hillery would be a vote for government as usual without regard for the rules.

Barack Obama
Another historic first, first black man to run for government. What an election, first woman and first black man running for president. This election has set the theme for issues about race and gender, something never really having been an issue in this way in the past. Truthfully I haven't looked back on voting records of either of the three candidates, so except for what I have heard in the news, I am pretty much taking the candidates at their word for what they stand for. Listening to the candidates though I like Obama's style. I believe he is fighting a lot less negative campaign and even defending some of what Hillery has said and done for the good of the party. He has had some troubles with things his paster has said, but I don't ever remember Obama appointing the paster his spokes person. The point is I think Obama has been the most refreshing of the candidates, he is believable it doesn't seem like he is hiding things as in that he spoke of his experiments with drugs in his past, he talks of diplomacy and actually talking to opposition leaders in the world that don't agree with our ideals to try to improve conditions and relations instead of rushing in with an army and the threat of force, I think this is why he has even received good comments from leaders in Cuba and Iran. I believe he will restore America's reputation among other countries in the world that we as a nation really need to do, it's a small world and it gets smaller all the time with new technologies. Obama when he responds to accusations he is thoughtful and reacts in a way that seems to show he does not get carried away with emotions in his comments.

So I guess by now you can probably tell who I'm rooting for, but what's your take?

News Shorts

News Shorts

This week I have found a few things I have issue with. First off there are a couple of quotes from our King George. Yes that's right, I said king instead of president, but the way I see it he acts more like a king than a president, a president that has been sworn in to serve the American people and up hold the constitution:

"It's this ideological struggle against cold blooded killers who kill people to achieve their political agenda." - King George

This was the king's statement in talking about his terrorist enemies, but couldn't it also be true in describing the actions of the king himself? How many Americans and Iraqis have died since we have overthrown Saddam to "free" the people of that country? How many prisoners have died from the torture and inhuman treatment they had suffered as a result of being captured by American forces?

"They can't stand to live in a free society, that's why they try to fight free societies" - King George

Another quote from King George. Again, oh how I would love to ask him how he can say something like this when he has been the one of the most secretive presidents. Secret wire tapping, secret data bases on Americans, secret prisons to hold prisoners without rights or charges for years at a time... What about white house emails? Why can't we ask questions of former aids? Why can't people sue telecommunication companies? Can you see who is fighting against a free society? A hint: You don't have to go as far as overseas.

Bush and Oil

After talking to the Saudi leaders about getting more oil produced to help lower oil and gas prices in America, King George is said that he was going to, "take the explanation back to his own experts and see if it conforms.." What does Bush figure that is going to do? If his experts have a different conclusion are we going to invade yet another country? Such a silly man.

Arlen Specter

He's at it again, wanting a congressional investigation on the Patriots video taping opposing football teams to gain an advantage. Just like the investigation into baseball... Tell me, what does this have to do with the running of our government? What difference is it to me, or millions of other Americans if the Patriots video taped the other teams? I'm not trying to excuse them if they did, but wouldn't they be breaking a league rule, not a federal offense? Shouldn't it be up to the league to investigate a matter such as this and to take the necessary steps to enforce their own rules? It just doesn't seem like the tax payers should have to pay for investigations of sports teams or individuals, it has nothing to do with our government. With there being so many other, more important things that tax payer money could be spent on, what is the justification to spend it investigating professional sports, an organization that has plenty of money to be investigating its issues itself should it choose to do so.

Trickle Down Effect

This is a story from the Associated Press. A Philadelphia TV helicopter shot video of over a dozen police officers pulling three suspects out of a vehicle and beating them. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey tried to down play the event because of a police officer was killed on Saturday, a few days earlier. What's most appalling about this video is they had so many police officers beating on these three people that there were officers running back and forth between the three suspects trying to get in a jab, punch or kick because they couldn't get in on the beatings of the suspect closest to them. I think maybe it's the trickle down effect. No matter what the laws are, or their intent, President Bush thinks it is justifiable to torture people he designates as enemy combatants or terrorists among other things. Maybe Bush's example of abduction, abuse, and detention mentality is just trickling down throughout governmental agencies better than his tax breaks for the wealthy has.

In all fairness I do not know what crime these defendants were supposedly to have committed or to what degree the police caught them red-handed or not, but it would seem to be that the police is taking justice into their own hands by administering punishment, probably before the accused were even read their rights or arrested. I would think that the police should be fair and impartial, make arrests with only the amount of force necessary, and and let a judge sort out the evidence and make judgment as to the punishments for the crimes, not for them to run around in gangs performing vigilante like vendettas. It's when people are charged with a crime in a court of law that they are supposed to be punished, not while getting arrested.

The next American president and every American need to press forward in the future and restore the ideals of the past that has made our nation great and get away from the present mindset that the end justifies the means. The problems of abuse and torture are not just in the military, it's in most all governmental agencies. From the way police treat people, the way the military treats people, the way people who are in high positions within the government treat their employees, the people they work with, and the people they are supposed to serve, America needs to root through all the laws, procedures, officials and their records, and look into the policies of the past that has taken our once great nation and drug its reputation through the mud and to make America what it once was, a model of democracy, freedom, and fairness for the rest of the world to admire and strive for.