I know I said I would be gone for a couple weeks, but this was just too good to ignore. Also, I apologize for the title, but I couldn't help myself. Various media sources reported today that Arlen Specter, a Senator from Pennsylvania, has decided to leave the Republican party after 43 years. His decision is purely political, due to the fact that he is considered unlikely to survive the Pennsylvania Senate primary in 2010. He admitted that public opinion polls showed that he could not win that primary nomination. Therefore, as a matter of pure political preservation, Specter has decided to join the Democratic party and seek their nomination in 2010.
Needless to say, this is going to have quite an impact, politically, in the power dynamic in the U.S. Senate. Currently, the Democrats hold 56 seats, with one seat left open while legal issues are decided in Minnesota. Comedian Al Franken is expected to win the final decision and take that seat, giving Democrats 57 seats. Adding the two Independents who tend to vote with the Democratic Party (except on matters dealing with Iraq, in Sen. Lieberman's case), this would leave the majority party one vote short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and block a filibuster attempt by the minority. With Sen. Specter walking across the aisle, this will give the Democratic Caucus the 60 votes, assuming complete unity between the majority and the two Independents.
Now, considering the fact that Specter, along with Maine Republicans Sue Collins and Olympia Snowe, had voted with the majority on numerous occasions, Specter's defection is unlikely to have a serious practical impact. His voting is unlikely to change significantly, since he voted with the majority fairly frequently. However, the political implications for the GOP are not so insignificant. Love him or hate him, Specter was seen as a moderate voice in the GOP, often finding himself at odds with the more conservative leadership. Losing him as a party member will only drive the view of the GOP as an extreme right-wing party. This could turn into a public relations nightmare for the GOP.
The fact is, Specter may have been more of a Democrats than a Republican, but that could have more to do with the fact that the Republican party is losing its moderate constituency, and is being driven further to the right, alienating many independent voters. With key "old guard" members like Trent Lott and John Warner retiring, the GOP has a unique opportunity to redefine itself, along more modern criteria. How the party decides to move forward in the coming years will impact its success in the future. Regardless, many Republicans are left wondeing if Specter is just the first in a line of possible abandonment. Time will tell.
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Senate Republicans Dropping Like Flies
Senate Republicans watched as yet another of their colleagues announced his intention not to run for reelection in 2010. At a time where public support continues to sway towards Democrats (largely as a reaction to the Bush Administration), the thought of losing 4 more incumbents in the next elections cycle is very disheartening for the minority party. While I have tended to support the Republican party in the last few elections, my concern here is not what party is in control, but how much power that party is going to have at their disposal.
As an advocate for smaller government, by favorite term regarding Congress is logjam. This is when legislation cannot move through because the majority party in Congress cannot get enough support amongst their fellow lawmakers and/or the White House. This keeps legislators from passing potentially burdensome bills, at least not without additional consensus which will water down the legislation. If I ever find myself unfortunate enough to work for a member of Congress, especially if they are in the majority, I am sure I will find this concept incredibly aggravating. As a private citizen that does not trust the judgment of those in power, I continue to support logjam.
That is why I was happy to see Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) win his bid for reelection in Georgia. His victory guaranteed the minority party would retain 41 seats in the Senate, giving them enough votes to sustain a filibuster attempt. The filibuster is the only tool that allows the minority party to kill a bill that they feel is against the public interest. As it stands now, the Senate consists of 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats) and 2 Vacancies. These vacancies, however, should both be filled shortly, giving Democrats 57 seats. The thought of a 63-37 majority scares me, regardless of which party is in power.
The fact is, I don't like veto-proof majorities, filibuster-proof majorities, or unified government (when one party controls Congress and the White House). As such, the ability of the House and Senate minorities to force the majority to work in a bipartisan manner is key to making sure one party does not run the country into the ground (the way critics claim the Republicans did firm 200-2006). So, I can only hope that Republicans are able to get their game plan together and keep all 4 seats. However, now that Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) announced his intent to retire in a swing state that has drifted Democrats over the last couple of years, the GOP certainly has an uphill climb to 2010.
As an advocate for smaller government, by favorite term regarding Congress is logjam. This is when legislation cannot move through because the majority party in Congress cannot get enough support amongst their fellow lawmakers and/or the White House. This keeps legislators from passing potentially burdensome bills, at least not without additional consensus which will water down the legislation. If I ever find myself unfortunate enough to work for a member of Congress, especially if they are in the majority, I am sure I will find this concept incredibly aggravating. As a private citizen that does not trust the judgment of those in power, I continue to support logjam.
That is why I was happy to see Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) win his bid for reelection in Georgia. His victory guaranteed the minority party would retain 41 seats in the Senate, giving them enough votes to sustain a filibuster attempt. The filibuster is the only tool that allows the minority party to kill a bill that they feel is against the public interest. As it stands now, the Senate consists of 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats) and 2 Vacancies. These vacancies, however, should both be filled shortly, giving Democrats 57 seats. The thought of a 63-37 majority scares me, regardless of which party is in power.
The fact is, I don't like veto-proof majorities, filibuster-proof majorities, or unified government (when one party controls Congress and the White House). As such, the ability of the House and Senate minorities to force the majority to work in a bipartisan manner is key to making sure one party does not run the country into the ground (the way critics claim the Republicans did firm 200-2006). So, I can only hope that Republicans are able to get their game plan together and keep all 4 seats. However, now that Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) announced his intent to retire in a swing state that has drifted Democrats over the last couple of years, the GOP certainly has an uphill climb to 2010.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Brief Post-Election Thoughts
So, I know I have been fairly silent over the last two months, but iis the price I pay for working full time and going to law school. However, I would like to share a few post-election thoughts.
First of all, the election went the way I thought it would, though Obama did win a few more states than I originally predicted. What surprised me was how poor Republicans did in the Senate. Despite his troubles, I honestly believed Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) would get the 50.1% he needed to avoid a December run-off. I also thought Gordon Smith (R-OR) would win in Oregon, and I didn't think Norm Coleman (R-MN) would such a difficult time with Al Franken in Minnesota, but I guess that is because I was unable to take Franken seriously.
Despite his recent conviction on seven counts of making false statements, I expected Ted Stevens (R-AK) to keep his seat, just long enough for the Senate Ethics Committee to expel him from office. Three of these races remain undecided, but I am hoping at least one Republicans holds on, so the Democratic majority does not get the 60 votes necessary to block filibusters. With increased majorities, and control of the White House, if the Senate Republicans cannot filibuster, then the Democrats will be in complete, unopposed control.
While I did not vote for President-elect Obama, he won. As such, once he takes his oath of office, he will be my President. I do not take that distinction lightly. While I may not believe he is the best man for the job, he is going to be leading my country, and he has my support. I pray that he does a great job and that he leads our country through the tough times ahead. I plan to follow this up with a few thoughts on the new Congress and what I expect to come out of the new unified government, but with finals just around the corner, I cannot guarantee I will have time.
First of all, the election went the way I thought it would, though Obama did win a few more states than I originally predicted. What surprised me was how poor Republicans did in the Senate. Despite his troubles, I honestly believed Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) would get the 50.1% he needed to avoid a December run-off. I also thought Gordon Smith (R-OR) would win in Oregon, and I didn't think Norm Coleman (R-MN) would such a difficult time with Al Franken in Minnesota, but I guess that is because I was unable to take Franken seriously.
Despite his recent conviction on seven counts of making false statements, I expected Ted Stevens (R-AK) to keep his seat, just long enough for the Senate Ethics Committee to expel him from office. Three of these races remain undecided, but I am hoping at least one Republicans holds on, so the Democratic majority does not get the 60 votes necessary to block filibusters. With increased majorities, and control of the White House, if the Senate Republicans cannot filibuster, then the Democrats will be in complete, unopposed control.
While I did not vote for President-elect Obama, he won. As such, once he takes his oath of office, he will be my President. I do not take that distinction lightly. While I may not believe he is the best man for the job, he is going to be leading my country, and he has my support. I pray that he does a great job and that he leads our country through the tough times ahead. I plan to follow this up with a few thoughts on the new Congress and what I expect to come out of the new unified government, but with finals just around the corner, I cannot guarantee I will have time.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A Day to Remeber, Not to Debate
"On a day when buildings fell, heroes rose," Bush said. "... One of the worst days in America's history saw some of the bravest acts in America's history."
A Nation Remembers
As the nation remembers the events of 9/11, the candidates are appearing tonight at a forum in New York. Now, they will both appear together at Ground Zero, which is the exact kind of show of solidarity the candidates should show on a day like today. As for the rest of this evening's activities, I think today should be a day for honoring fallen heroes and victims, not a day for more partisan politics.
A Nation Remembers
As the nation remembers the events of 9/11, the candidates are appearing tonight at a forum in New York. Now, they will both appear together at Ground Zero, which is the exact kind of show of solidarity the candidates should show on a day like today. As for the rest of this evening's activities, I think today should be a day for honoring fallen heroes and victims, not a day for more partisan politics.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Family Values
In her two years as governor of Alaska, and especially in the four months since her son was born with Down syndrome, Sarah Palin has been portrayed as the very model of a working mother: She answers her BlackBerry while pumping breast milk for her infant; keeps a playpen by her desk; and manages a state while cooking caribou hot dogs for her family. But some people, looking at that tableau, wonder whether it is possible to perform that juggling act on the highest wire of all, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Those questions came into higher relief on Monday as Gov. Palin, just days after she was introduced as the Republican vice-presidential pick, disclosed that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is about five months pregnant. She said Bristol plans to keep the baby and marry the father.
WSJ Article
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. McCain made a mistake choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. By trying to find a woman to appeal to Hilary supporters, McCain chose a candidate with too many holes in her public face. Her youth and inexperience will work against those same arguments McCain's campaign has made against Sen. Obama. The current investigation into Palin's alleged abuse of power, by trying to have her state trooper ex-brother in law fired, works against her credibility. Now, the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and may possibly marry the 18 year old father is being used to damage her belief family values. Regardless of how good of a person she may be, there are just too many problems for the McCain campaign to have picked her at this juncture.
Having said that, let me come out and say that I am appalled at the way the situation with her daughter is being handled, by both the media and the Democrats. For those families that are not in the public eye, such an event would be kept as quiet as possible, until the family was forced to acknowledge the pregnancy amongst their community. For a politician, especially one running for Vice President of the United States, every family matter becomes a matter of public record. The McCain campaign did not release the news until after they announced Palin as the VP candidate. However, to think that the campaign was unaware of the pregnancy is both naive and foolish. Any campaign consultant worth anything would know that it would be impossible to hide something of this nature. As such, McCain went ahead and chose Palin. That means he either believes in her ability to carry out her duties as VP, or that he believes her appeal to women will outweigh all the points against her, depending on how cynical you are.
Democrats are using Bristol's condition to try and paint Palin as a hypocrite who claims to support family values, but did not bother to instill such values in her daughter. This offends me on a deep level. Palin's attackers claim that because her daughter made a mistake, that she is a failure as a daughter, and Palin is a failure as a mother. I find this view repugnant. Bristol made a mistake. There is no way around that. She is young, still considered a minor in the eye of the law, and she engaged in sexual acts outside the bond of marriage, producing an unwanted pregnancy. However, not all mistakes end badly.
My older bother has a daughter, despite the fact that he has never been married. Granted, he was 23 when she was born, legally an adult, but age is only one factor in this debate. Despite the circumstance surround the birth of my niece, she has been nothing but a blessing to my family. My mother did not take the news well when my brother confessed that he had fathered a child. I am sure part of her felt that she failed in her parental duties. My parents raised their children in the church, working to instill Christian values in all of us. Obviously, my bother made some mistakes on his way to becoming a man. However, he is now raising the child, with the help of my parents and my sister. He works a job he does not particularly enjoy, so he can provide for his little girl, and still have time to spend with her each day when she gets home from school. This is evidence that those vary same values my mother worked to instill in our lives is very present in my brother. He owned up to his mistake, and is now working to raise a child as a single parent, hoping to instill those same Christian values in his daughter that our mother instilled in us.
My mother worked hard to raise her children right, teaching us to be God-fearing, upright American citizens. In the end, all a parent can do is teach their children how to live, and hope those lessons guide them through life. It was my brother's choices that led to my niece being born, not my mother's. Now, as the cycle continues, my bother is trying to teach his daughter how to live, knowing she will grow up to make her own choices along the way. Does this mean my mother or my brother do not support traditional family values? No, it means they believe in those values, which include the value of forgiveness. Human beings are not perfect. We are prone to make mistakes. But part of the blessed gift we receive from On High is the gift of forgiveness, for those who earnestly seek it. I am sure Bristol has asked for such forgiveness, and for her part, I am sure Gov. Palin has granted it.
So, before Obama supporters and the media offer up the Palin family for public sacrifice, maybe they should rethink their own values, and what it means to be human. That is just my opinion.
WSJ Article
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. McCain made a mistake choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. By trying to find a woman to appeal to Hilary supporters, McCain chose a candidate with too many holes in her public face. Her youth and inexperience will work against those same arguments McCain's campaign has made against Sen. Obama. The current investigation into Palin's alleged abuse of power, by trying to have her state trooper ex-brother in law fired, works against her credibility. Now, the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and may possibly marry the 18 year old father is being used to damage her belief family values. Regardless of how good of a person she may be, there are just too many problems for the McCain campaign to have picked her at this juncture.
Having said that, let me come out and say that I am appalled at the way the situation with her daughter is being handled, by both the media and the Democrats. For those families that are not in the public eye, such an event would be kept as quiet as possible, until the family was forced to acknowledge the pregnancy amongst their community. For a politician, especially one running for Vice President of the United States, every family matter becomes a matter of public record. The McCain campaign did not release the news until after they announced Palin as the VP candidate. However, to think that the campaign was unaware of the pregnancy is both naive and foolish. Any campaign consultant worth anything would know that it would be impossible to hide something of this nature. As such, McCain went ahead and chose Palin. That means he either believes in her ability to carry out her duties as VP, or that he believes her appeal to women will outweigh all the points against her, depending on how cynical you are.
Democrats are using Bristol's condition to try and paint Palin as a hypocrite who claims to support family values, but did not bother to instill such values in her daughter. This offends me on a deep level. Palin's attackers claim that because her daughter made a mistake, that she is a failure as a daughter, and Palin is a failure as a mother. I find this view repugnant. Bristol made a mistake. There is no way around that. She is young, still considered a minor in the eye of the law, and she engaged in sexual acts outside the bond of marriage, producing an unwanted pregnancy. However, not all mistakes end badly.
My older bother has a daughter, despite the fact that he has never been married. Granted, he was 23 when she was born, legally an adult, but age is only one factor in this debate. Despite the circumstance surround the birth of my niece, she has been nothing but a blessing to my family. My mother did not take the news well when my brother confessed that he had fathered a child. I am sure part of her felt that she failed in her parental duties. My parents raised their children in the church, working to instill Christian values in all of us. Obviously, my bother made some mistakes on his way to becoming a man. However, he is now raising the child, with the help of my parents and my sister. He works a job he does not particularly enjoy, so he can provide for his little girl, and still have time to spend with her each day when she gets home from school. This is evidence that those vary same values my mother worked to instill in our lives is very present in my brother. He owned up to his mistake, and is now working to raise a child as a single parent, hoping to instill those same Christian values in his daughter that our mother instilled in us.
My mother worked hard to raise her children right, teaching us to be God-fearing, upright American citizens. In the end, all a parent can do is teach their children how to live, and hope those lessons guide them through life. It was my brother's choices that led to my niece being born, not my mother's. Now, as the cycle continues, my bother is trying to teach his daughter how to live, knowing she will grow up to make her own choices along the way. Does this mean my mother or my brother do not support traditional family values? No, it means they believe in those values, which include the value of forgiveness. Human beings are not perfect. We are prone to make mistakes. But part of the blessed gift we receive from On High is the gift of forgiveness, for those who earnestly seek it. I am sure Bristol has asked for such forgiveness, and for her part, I am sure Gov. Palin has granted it.
So, before Obama supporters and the media offer up the Palin family for public sacrifice, maybe they should rethink their own values, and what it means to be human. That is just my opinion.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Is Biden a Wise Choice?
The first national poll conducted after Barack Obama publicly named Joe Biden as his running mate suggests that the battle for the presidency between the Illinois senator and John McCain is all tied up.
CNN Article
Friday night, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)as his running mate for the Presidential election. In the most recent polls since this announcement, It appears Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are now in a dead heat for the Presidency. Now, there is no conclusive way to say that Biden is the cause of this closing of the gap, but it would be awfully naive to believe he had nothing to do with it.
Obama chose biden, despite the 28% of registered democrats who wanted him to chose Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Recent polls have shown that 1-in-5 of Clinton supporters are voting for McCain over Obama. Choosing Biden only further ostracizes this same group of voters. Furthermore, Biden has failed multiple times to even get the nomination for the White House. He first ran in 1988, but withdrew after accusations of plagiarizing a speech. He has been in the senate for 36 years, so he is very popular with the people of Delaware, but that is not going to help on a national scale. Time will tell.
CNN Article
Friday night, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)as his running mate for the Presidential election. In the most recent polls since this announcement, It appears Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are now in a dead heat for the Presidency. Now, there is no conclusive way to say that Biden is the cause of this closing of the gap, but it would be awfully naive to believe he had nothing to do with it.
Obama chose biden, despite the 28% of registered democrats who wanted him to chose Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Recent polls have shown that 1-in-5 of Clinton supporters are voting for McCain over Obama. Choosing Biden only further ostracizes this same group of voters. Furthermore, Biden has failed multiple times to even get the nomination for the White House. He first ran in 1988, but withdrew after accusations of plagiarizing a speech. He has been in the senate for 36 years, so he is very popular with the people of Delaware, but that is not going to help on a national scale. Time will tell.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Spirituality is Not a Political Commodity
"I also believe that talking too much about one's faith and religion, in my view, is something between me and God." - John McCain
CNN Article
Over the weekend, mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, made famous by his best selling book, "Purpose Driven Life," held a forum with the two Presidential candidates. This forum is one of the first times Republican Candidate John McCain discussed his faith in detail. Often one to deflect the question or change the subject (evident in the above quote), McCain very clearly spelled out his spiritual status when he told forum attendees that he is, "saved and forgiven."
This election marks one of the first times that evangelical Christian voters are considered a battleground between Republicans and Democrats. The media has been overwhelmingly interested in how young evangelicals may be leaving their GOP base to side with Democrats on a number of social justice and environmental issues. Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, addresses the way that the media has failed to accurately report this supposed shit, noting that these are topics that Christians have shown interest in for years (Heritage Foundation Article).
Sen. Obama has become such a popular candidate among his fellow party members because of his constant reference to his faith and to scripture. Democratic strategists are hoping that he can pull many young evangelicals away from the GOP. While I certainly do not fault Sen. Obama for speaking his faith, I do take issue with those politicians who use their faith as a political selling point. While a number of Republican strategists may have done so with President Bush, which I do not condone, the President himself has only ever mentioned his faith in personal ways and how his beliefs affect his decisions. As such, my problem is with Obama's handlers, not Obama himself (as of yet). Let me again point out that Republicans are often just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to this.
I believe that all people, regardless of their political aspirations, should consider their beliefs when making any worthwhile decisions. I support those candidates that not only vote their conscience, but also factor in their spirituality. What I do not condone is political mercenaries who use a person's spiritual beliefs as a way to sell their candidate to the masses. You should not have to point out that this candidate is religious, or has views that coincide with certain religious subgroups. You should simply lay out your political views and your campaign platform, and rely individuals to decide if they agree with you or not. God is not a politician, and He is not selling point for your political aspirations. Follow Him, run your race, and see where it takes you.
CNN Article
Over the weekend, mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, made famous by his best selling book, "Purpose Driven Life," held a forum with the two Presidential candidates. This forum is one of the first times Republican Candidate John McCain discussed his faith in detail. Often one to deflect the question or change the subject (evident in the above quote), McCain very clearly spelled out his spiritual status when he told forum attendees that he is, "saved and forgiven."
This election marks one of the first times that evangelical Christian voters are considered a battleground between Republicans and Democrats. The media has been overwhelmingly interested in how young evangelicals may be leaving their GOP base to side with Democrats on a number of social justice and environmental issues. Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, addresses the way that the media has failed to accurately report this supposed shit, noting that these are topics that Christians have shown interest in for years (Heritage Foundation Article).
Sen. Obama has become such a popular candidate among his fellow party members because of his constant reference to his faith and to scripture. Democratic strategists are hoping that he can pull many young evangelicals away from the GOP. While I certainly do not fault Sen. Obama for speaking his faith, I do take issue with those politicians who use their faith as a political selling point. While a number of Republican strategists may have done so with President Bush, which I do not condone, the President himself has only ever mentioned his faith in personal ways and how his beliefs affect his decisions. As such, my problem is with Obama's handlers, not Obama himself (as of yet). Let me again point out that Republicans are often just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to this.
I believe that all people, regardless of their political aspirations, should consider their beliefs when making any worthwhile decisions. I support those candidates that not only vote their conscience, but also factor in their spirituality. What I do not condone is political mercenaries who use a person's spiritual beliefs as a way to sell their candidate to the masses. You should not have to point out that this candidate is religious, or has views that coincide with certain religious subgroups. You should simply lay out your political views and your campaign platform, and rely individuals to decide if they agree with you or not. God is not a politician, and He is not selling point for your political aspirations. Follow Him, run your race, and see where it takes you.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Pelosi Threatens Free Thinking Party Members
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted Sen. Joe Lieberman on Wednesday for making what she called "totally irresponsible" remarks about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and warned that the Senate might retaliate by revoking Lieberman's committee chairmanship.
SF Gate Article
I am glad to see that individuality and free thinking are so well embraced by the Democratic Party Leaders.
SF Gate Article
I am glad to see that individuality and free thinking are so well embraced by the Democratic Party Leaders.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Candidates Take Different Routes to Same Conclusion on Georgia
Obama later Monday read a statement on camera in which he seemed to come closer to McCain's position, saying Russia's invasion was a "turning point" in its relationship with the West.
CNN Article
As of now, both Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) have pit themselves against Russia over the current hostilities in Georgia. Both Presidential Candidates place the blame for the conflict squarely on Russia's shoulders. However, Sen. McCain was a little quicker in getting to that point.
Just to bring you up to speed, Russian forces invaded Georgia last Friday, after Georgian military forces shot down two Russian military jets. Georgian officials claim the Russian aircraft were bombing Georgian forces in South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that wants to secede from Georgia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the current head of the European Union, claims that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have negotiated a "cease fire" (though Georgia says the violence continues) but not an absolute end to the conflict. Russian forces still occupy territory in Georgia.
"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," McCain said in a statement to reporters shortly after his campaign plane landed in Iowa on Friday. From the start, McCain was condemning Russia for entering Georgian territory. McCain is known for his biased views against Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, often referring to Putin's KGB roots. While McCain was quick to condemn Russia, Obama was a bit more cautious.
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said on Friday. The Junior Senator from Illinois is currently vacationing with his family in Hawaii, though his campaign claims he is keeping abreast of the situation. While he called for a end to the violence, he did not go so far as to place any blame on Russia...at first. After speaking with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, Obama changed his tone, but continued to keep a take a peace oriented approach.
"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."
So the question here, is who had the best reaction? McCain immediately condemned Russia, now considered by most of the international community as the unwarranted aggressor. Obama refrained from condemning either country until he had all the facts, finally speaking against Russia on Monday. To a certain extent, both candidates reacted in the proper manner.
Obama chose not to jump to conclusions until he had more information (which might have been sooner if he were not on vacation). Taking time to gather the facts is certainly an admirable quality. However, there are certain times when a national leader must be seen as decisive and steadfast. McCain showed himself to be just that, basing his stance off of initial reports, as well as his considerable experience in foreign affairs.
At the same time, if further investigation had shown that Georgian military forces were committing atrocities in South Ossetia, then McCain would have looked like a trigger happy cowboy. However, McCain is an intelligent man (his campaign flops notwithstanding) with a great deal of experience in international matters. He made an initial read of the situation, and took a stand, showing his leadership skills and his decisive nature.
In the end, this is a matter for individual voters to decide, but McCain's response showed him to be the intelligent, confident leader, while Obama seemed to be indecisive and unsure what side to take. It could be for a lack of experience, or it could be a charachter flaw. Of course, this is just one man's opinion.
CNN Article
As of now, both Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) have pit themselves against Russia over the current hostilities in Georgia. Both Presidential Candidates place the blame for the conflict squarely on Russia's shoulders. However, Sen. McCain was a little quicker in getting to that point.
Just to bring you up to speed, Russian forces invaded Georgia last Friday, after Georgian military forces shot down two Russian military jets. Georgian officials claim the Russian aircraft were bombing Georgian forces in South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that wants to secede from Georgia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the current head of the European Union, claims that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have negotiated a "cease fire" (though Georgia says the violence continues) but not an absolute end to the conflict. Russian forces still occupy territory in Georgia.
"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," McCain said in a statement to reporters shortly after his campaign plane landed in Iowa on Friday. From the start, McCain was condemning Russia for entering Georgian territory. McCain is known for his biased views against Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, often referring to Putin's KGB roots. While McCain was quick to condemn Russia, Obama was a bit more cautious.
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said on Friday. The Junior Senator from Illinois is currently vacationing with his family in Hawaii, though his campaign claims he is keeping abreast of the situation. While he called for a end to the violence, he did not go so far as to place any blame on Russia...at first. After speaking with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, Obama changed his tone, but continued to keep a take a peace oriented approach.
"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."
So the question here, is who had the best reaction? McCain immediately condemned Russia, now considered by most of the international community as the unwarranted aggressor. Obama refrained from condemning either country until he had all the facts, finally speaking against Russia on Monday. To a certain extent, both candidates reacted in the proper manner.
Obama chose not to jump to conclusions until he had more information (which might have been sooner if he were not on vacation). Taking time to gather the facts is certainly an admirable quality. However, there are certain times when a national leader must be seen as decisive and steadfast. McCain showed himself to be just that, basing his stance off of initial reports, as well as his considerable experience in foreign affairs.
At the same time, if further investigation had shown that Georgian military forces were committing atrocities in South Ossetia, then McCain would have looked like a trigger happy cowboy. However, McCain is an intelligent man (his campaign flops notwithstanding) with a great deal of experience in international matters. He made an initial read of the situation, and took a stand, showing his leadership skills and his decisive nature.
In the end, this is a matter for individual voters to decide, but McCain's response showed him to be the intelligent, confident leader, while Obama seemed to be indecisive and unsure what side to take. It could be for a lack of experience, or it could be a charachter flaw. Of course, this is just one man's opinion.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
McCain Better Fit For Teachers Unions?
The top goal of both teachers’ unions is driving a stake into the federal No Child Left Behind Act. That stake, however, is far more likely to get pounded in by John McCain than by Barack Obama, who won the overwhelming endorsement of both unions.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/08/45read.h27.html
Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer for USA Today, makes a fairly novel point in that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Senator Obama for President, despite the fact that McCain may actually serve their interests on No Child Left Behind better than Barack. Whitmire looks at Obama's speeches on NCLB, noting that he does not actually address anything in the law, instead relying on useless rhetoric to gain support from the leftist unions.
When you break down the issues, McCain and Obama are both useless in the areas of federal education spending, school choice, and performance pay for teachers. While McCain would not raise spending, the Democratically controlled Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President. On school choice, there are too few optimal choices for public school swapping, leaving Charter Schools as the only viable option. Obama is a strong supporter of charter schools, so that would put him at odds with the unions, along with McCain. Both candidates have come out in favor of performance pay for teachers, so that just leaves NCLB.
This is just another case of political entities (which is all the NEA and AFT are) following the status quo of supporting a Democrat, regardless of his policies.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/08/45read.h27.html
Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer for USA Today, makes a fairly novel point in that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Senator Obama for President, despite the fact that McCain may actually serve their interests on No Child Left Behind better than Barack. Whitmire looks at Obama's speeches on NCLB, noting that he does not actually address anything in the law, instead relying on useless rhetoric to gain support from the leftist unions.
When you break down the issues, McCain and Obama are both useless in the areas of federal education spending, school choice, and performance pay for teachers. While McCain would not raise spending, the Democratically controlled Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President. On school choice, there are too few optimal choices for public school swapping, leaving Charter Schools as the only viable option. Obama is a strong supporter of charter schools, so that would put him at odds with the unions, along with McCain. Both candidates have come out in favor of performance pay for teachers, so that just leaves NCLB.
This is just another case of political entities (which is all the NEA and AFT are) following the status quo of supporting a Democrat, regardless of his policies.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Candidates' Views on Education
Although both Obama and McCain have criticized the No Child Left Behind Act, neither proposes scrapping it altogether. While Obama regularly bashes the landmark education law for being underfunded, he is not planning to drop the measure's reliance on standardized tests, which is its most controversial provision.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93004032
Education often gets overlooked in the polls. NPR has a very good layout for each candidate's views on a variety of education issues. I recommend reading through it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93004032
Education often gets overlooked in the polls. NPR has a very good layout for each candidate's views on a variety of education issues. I recommend reading through it.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Media Again Blasts McCain
In the world of politics, it used to be a hard-and-fast rule: "Politics ends at the water's edge" — the old Washington practice that when politicians used to travel abroad, their political opponents often refrained from criticism, at least with regards to foreign policy
But as Barack Obama continues his trip throughout the Middle East, John McCain sharply criticized the Illinois senator Monday morning over his initial opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and his short resume in dealing with foreign affairs.
I was unaware that campaigning is supposed to stop when one candidate is out of the country. Considering that there is a small army of reporters following Obama around, do you think he is refraining from comparing and contrasting his foreign policy with John McCain's? But McCain is not supposed to say anything about Obama's foreign policy while Barack is abroad? Sorry, but Obama would not even be on this trip if he were not running for President. And the small brigade of reporters tagging along only further points to this being a political trip. As such, McCain should not be expected to sit and take it without issuing his own statements. One more bit of evidence of who the media is supporting this election year. Objectivity be damned, I guess.
But as Barack Obama continues his trip throughout the Middle East, John McCain sharply criticized the Illinois senator Monday morning over his initial opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and his short resume in dealing with foreign affairs.
I was unaware that campaigning is supposed to stop when one candidate is out of the country. Considering that there is a small army of reporters following Obama around, do you think he is refraining from comparing and contrasting his foreign policy with John McCain's? But McCain is not supposed to say anything about Obama's foreign policy while Barack is abroad? Sorry, but Obama would not even be on this trip if he were not running for President. And the small brigade of reporters tagging along only further points to this being a political trip. As such, McCain should not be expected to sit and take it without issuing his own statements. One more bit of evidence of who the media is supporting this election year. Objectivity be damned, I guess.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
"Objective" Media Strikes Again
The three broadcast network newscasts, which have 20 million viewers combined, spent about 114 minutes covering Obama since June, compared to 48 minutes for McCain. Obama has been on the cover of Time and Newsweek magazines 12 times in the last 3 years, compared with 5 for McCain. And in the last few weeks, Obama has also landed on the cover of Rolling Stone and US Weekly, along with interview of his family by “Access Hollywood.”
Cafferty File
I am glad to see the "liberal bias" in the media no longer exists. This is yet another case of the media trying to generate the news, rather than report it. Kevin Wuzzardo, an ABC News Anchor in Wilmington, North Carolina, has a more detailed post on this topic in his blog, which can be found here.
Cafferty File
I am glad to see the "liberal bias" in the media no longer exists. This is yet another case of the media trying to generate the news, rather than report it. Kevin Wuzzardo, an ABC News Anchor in Wilmington, North Carolina, has a more detailed post on this topic in his blog, which can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
