Monday, August 27, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Iowa Straw Poll Results
This really says nothing since Giuliani and McCain didn't participate for some reason but I feel it should be posted here anyways. Here's the results:
Mitt Romney: 31.5%
Mike Huckabee: 18.1%
Sam Brownback: 15.3%
Tom Tancredo: 13.7%
Ron Paul: 9.1%
Tommy Thompson: 7.3%
Fred Thompson: 1.4%
Rudy Giuliani: 1.3%
Duncan Hunter: 1.2%
John McCain: 1%
John Cox: .1%
Mitt Romney: 31.5%
Mike Huckabee: 18.1%
Sam Brownback: 15.3%
Tom Tancredo: 13.7%
Ron Paul: 9.1%
Tommy Thompson: 7.3%
Fred Thompson: 1.4%
Rudy Giuliani: 1.3%
Duncan Hunter: 1.2%
John McCain: 1%
John Cox: .1%
Saturday, August 11, 2007
HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!
Iraq war czar: Consider a draft
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/10/war.adviser.draft.ap/index.html
I think it's important that we all become aware of this. If this concerns you like it should, please let others know about General Lute's comments. THIS IS NOT OKAY!
Also, here is a link to the interview with General Lute on NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12688693. I am concerned that more people are not aware of this current situation. Do not let this slide by you. Take action now!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."
"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," said Lute, who is sometimes referred to as the "Iraq war czar." It was his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.
President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.
"The president's position is that the all-volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. Gen. Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
In the interview, Lute also said that "Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well."
Still, he said the repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military.
"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."
The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re-established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.
Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/10/war.adviser.draft.ap/index.html
I think it's important that we all become aware of this. If this concerns you like it should, please let others know about General Lute's comments. THIS IS NOT OKAY!
Also, here is a link to the interview with General Lute on NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12688693. I am concerned that more people are not aware of this current situation. Do not let this slide by you. Take action now!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."
"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," said Lute, who is sometimes referred to as the "Iraq war czar." It was his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.
President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.
"The president's position is that the all-volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. Gen. Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
In the interview, Lute also said that "Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well."
Still, he said the repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military.
"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."
The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re-established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.
Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Logo "Debate" Review
I don't imagine a lot of people caught the Presidential Forum on Logo. I don't have the channel either but was able to get it online as a live feed. I encourage you to pull it up because it was very well done. Though I was under the impression that it was a debate and it indeed was not. It really was just a talk show featuring most of the Democratic candidates and only questions regarding issues important to LGBT community. And I think I liked it. I would be interested in seeing more of this type of program with a focus on a certain issue. And shame on the Republicans for not managing to show up here and state their views. But I imagine they think all gays have AIDS and AIDS apparently can be spread through handshakes so I guess the logic works out.
Clearly their were two types of candidates at this forum - those that have potential to be elected and those that don't. The former are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson, the latter are Kucinich and Gravel. The difference lies in semantics. Is it marriage or civil union? Does it matter? Aren't both better than know?
And all the legitimate candidates were on pins and needles at this thing because one wrong move could be used against them severely in the future. The worst played moment came in Richardson's answer to, "Is homosexuality a choice?" I never even knew what his answer was. I don't think he answered a single question for the entire twenty minutes. I have been know to proclaim by admiration of Richardson but tonight was not his night.
By far the most uncomfortable person in the room that evening was John Edwards who has given a few indications that he is not comfortable with equal gay rights. Wow, that straight boy was sweating like he was in a gay bar during happy hour. He just needed to relax.
Kucinich really connected with the studio audience and he said some pretty amazing things, I will admit. But there is that little thing in my head that knows he is striving for an unachievable utopia. And I think he's amazing for running for president now two times to get his voice out there. Anf who knows, maybe one day he will be listened to more and actually get somewhere. (He admitted that he ran five times before getting elected to Congress. How cute.)
This was the first "debate" that Obama actually worked for me. Quiet conviction. And Hillary really didn't do well. Melissa Etheridge (YEAH!) really got emotional with her and Clinton became very cold in her response. Throughout the night I heard, "You are all great people but not great enough to be equal in every way to a straight person." And that's sad. But it is hard to tell if the candidates actually believe that statement or they are just trying to get elected. Perhaps naively, I choose to believe the latter. It says something that they at least showed up, right?
Even though it really wasn't a debate here are some awards:
Winner (with the gays): Dennis Kucinich
Winner (for everyone else): Barack Obama
Loser: Bill Richardson (but rather disqualified for not answering any questions)
Straightest: John Edwards
Best Host: MELISSA ETHERIDGE! Yeah! How great is she? (Though they were all much better than any of the previous debate moderators.)
Candidate Who Has No Idea What LGBT Means: Mike Gravel
Clearly their were two types of candidates at this forum - those that have potential to be elected and those that don't. The former are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson, the latter are Kucinich and Gravel. The difference lies in semantics. Is it marriage or civil union? Does it matter? Aren't both better than know?
And all the legitimate candidates were on pins and needles at this thing because one wrong move could be used against them severely in the future. The worst played moment came in Richardson's answer to, "Is homosexuality a choice?" I never even knew what his answer was. I don't think he answered a single question for the entire twenty minutes. I have been know to proclaim by admiration of Richardson but tonight was not his night.
By far the most uncomfortable person in the room that evening was John Edwards who has given a few indications that he is not comfortable with equal gay rights. Wow, that straight boy was sweating like he was in a gay bar during happy hour. He just needed to relax.
Kucinich really connected with the studio audience and he said some pretty amazing things, I will admit. But there is that little thing in my head that knows he is striving for an unachievable utopia. And I think he's amazing for running for president now two times to get his voice out there. Anf who knows, maybe one day he will be listened to more and actually get somewhere. (He admitted that he ran five times before getting elected to Congress. How cute.)
This was the first "debate" that Obama actually worked for me. Quiet conviction. And Hillary really didn't do well. Melissa Etheridge (YEAH!) really got emotional with her and Clinton became very cold in her response. Throughout the night I heard, "You are all great people but not great enough to be equal in every way to a straight person." And that's sad. But it is hard to tell if the candidates actually believe that statement or they are just trying to get elected. Perhaps naively, I choose to believe the latter. It says something that they at least showed up, right?
Even though it really wasn't a debate here are some awards:
Winner (with the gays): Dennis Kucinich
Winner (for everyone else): Barack Obama
Loser: Bill Richardson (but rather disqualified for not answering any questions)
Straightest: John Edwards
Best Host: MELISSA ETHERIDGE! Yeah! How great is she? (Though they were all much better than any of the previous debate moderators.)
Candidate Who Has No Idea What LGBT Means: Mike Gravel
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Logo Presidential Debate
How this debate plays out could be something very interesting to watch. How will John Edwards dodge questions? How uncomfortable will Hillary get? How cool will Obama try to play it?
Apparently you can watch the debate online at http://www.logoonline.com/ Thursday, August 9th at 9 PM ET / 6 PM PT. I'll be sure to catch it.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
No Comment
U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq on the Rise in August
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12555667
NPR.org, August 7, 2007 · Four U.S. soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs in the Baghdad area, the military said Tuesday, raising to at least 19 the number of troop deaths in the first week of August.
The latest casualty figures could signal a resurgence in attacks after July's eight-month low.
Meanwhile, Iraq's political crisis worsened, with five more ministers boycotting Cabinet meetings - leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's unity government without a Sunni political bloc.
The new cracks in al-Maliki's government appeared even as U.S. military officials sounded cautious notes of progress on security, citing strides against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq but also new threats from Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
Three Task Force Marne soldiers were killed Saturday when a roadside bomb struck their convoy south of Baghdad, the military said.
One coalition soldier was killed and another wounded Monday when their vehicle was hit by an armor-piercing explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, in a western section of the capital, according to a separate statement.
Washington has accused Iran of supplying Shiite extremists with EFPs to step up attacks against American forces. Tehran denies the allegations.
The military also said earlier that four soldiers were killed in a powerful combat explosion in restive Diyala province north of the capital on Monday.
U.S. commanders have warned they expect militants to try to upstage a September report on military and economic progress in Iraq.
The deaths raised to at least 19 members of the U.S. military who have died this month, or a rate of about three per day, putting August on track for a heavier toll after a drop in July.
Seventy-nine American troop deaths were reported, the lowest number since 70 killed in November.
More than 100 American forces died each month in the April-to-June period as the incoming U.S. troops were deployed with the Iraqi army in Baghdad's dangerous streets and security outposts.
Despite the relatively low number in July, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. second-in-command, has blamed nearly three-quarters of the attacks on rogue Shiite militias the military believes are being armed and trained by Iran, which he said was increasing its support ahead of the pivotal report to be delivered to Congress in September.
The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors met Monday for their third round of talks in just over two months. The U.S. Embassy called the talks between Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, "frank and serious."
But it was al-Maliki's troubles that seized the most attention. The Cabinet boycott of five ministers loyal to former Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi left the government, at least temporarily, without participants who were members of the Sunni political apparatus - a deep blow to the prime minister's attempt to craft reconciliation among the country's majority Shiites and minority Sunnis and Kurds.
The defense minister is from a Sunni background but has no political ties and was chosen by al-Maliki.
The Allawi bloc, a mixture of Sunnis and Shiites, cited al-Maliki's failure to respond to its demands for political reform.
The top Sunni political bloc already had pulled its six ministers from the 40-member Cabinet of al-Maliki, a Shiite, last week.
From NPR reports and The Associated Press
Monday, August 6, 2007
Debate Review: Republicans in Iowa, August 5th
I was able to get the whole video of the Republican debate on YouTube. I just love that site. As always, it is hard for me to sit and watch the Republicans debate issues to hear one sexist, closeminded answer after another. But I still find in necessary to watch. Someone may surprise me. And a few did.
I want to point out first of all that anyone who supports anything Tom Tancredo says is no friend of mine. His view that the holy sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina, could be bombed as a means of achieving victory is the most ridiculous, misunderstood comment of the debate. We are NOT at war with Islam, we are at war with al-Qaeda which represents a very small, extremist sect of fundamentalist Islam. I could not believe Tancredo would say something like this and I wish Stephanopoulos would have elaborated on that more and allowed other candidates to respond. I wonder how many other Republicans would support the destruction of Islamic holy sites. I would hope the others are not as uneducated on those matters as Tancredo.
Mitt Romney just seems like the poster child for Republicans. He's masculine, tall, attractive, and carries around a pretty hefty conservative agenda. He's the father of middle/upper class white America. And reminds me a little bit of Stan from American Dad. Anyone else? These people really get under my skin. But it seems only natural that he would be leading in the Republican polls.
And it was nice to see that Anderson Cooper's prediction that future debates would see voter generated questions came true. There were just a few video questions and I believe one emailed question. Anderson you are my hero.
One thing I can say in the Republican candidates favor is that they are not afraid to dissent with their fellow candidates and party. They represent more diverse opinions than the Democratic candidates strangely enough. There's cute, little Ron Paul, that racist mother-fucker Tancredo, that lovable Rudy Giuliani, and the quietly resigned John McCain. And that makes their debates somewhat watchable.
But let's get to the awards shall we?
Winner: Mike Huckabee
Runner-up: Mitt Romney
Most interesting and likely to recieve my vote (but not really): Rudy Giuliani
Most racist (and this was a toughy): Bomb Tancredo
Democratic pincushion of the evening: Barack Obama
Candidate that looks most like a toad or other amphibian-like creature: Tommy Thompson
Best Response: Rudy Giuliani when given 30 seconds to describe his mistakes in life. Watch it. It was classic.
I want to point out first of all that anyone who supports anything Tom Tancredo says is no friend of mine. His view that the holy sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina, could be bombed as a means of achieving victory is the most ridiculous, misunderstood comment of the debate. We are NOT at war with Islam, we are at war with al-Qaeda which represents a very small, extremist sect of fundamentalist Islam. I could not believe Tancredo would say something like this and I wish Stephanopoulos would have elaborated on that more and allowed other candidates to respond. I wonder how many other Republicans would support the destruction of Islamic holy sites. I would hope the others are not as uneducated on those matters as Tancredo.
Mitt Romney just seems like the poster child for Republicans. He's masculine, tall, attractive, and carries around a pretty hefty conservative agenda. He's the father of middle/upper class white America. And reminds me a little bit of Stan from American Dad. Anyone else? These people really get under my skin. But it seems only natural that he would be leading in the Republican polls.
And it was nice to see that Anderson Cooper's prediction that future debates would see voter generated questions came true. There were just a few video questions and I believe one emailed question. Anderson you are my hero.
One thing I can say in the Republican candidates favor is that they are not afraid to dissent with their fellow candidates and party. They represent more diverse opinions than the Democratic candidates strangely enough. There's cute, little Ron Paul, that racist mother-fucker Tancredo, that lovable Rudy Giuliani, and the quietly resigned John McCain. And that makes their debates somewhat watchable.
But let's get to the awards shall we?
Winner: Mike Huckabee
Runner-up: Mitt Romney
Most interesting and likely to recieve my vote (but not really): Rudy Giuliani
Most racist (and this was a toughy): Bomb Tancredo
Democratic pincushion of the evening: Barack Obama
Candidate that looks most like a toad or other amphibian-like creature: Tommy Thompson
Best Response: Rudy Giuliani when given 30 seconds to describe his mistakes in life. Watch it. It was classic.
That Can't Be Good
190,000 weapons 'missing in Iraq'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6932710.stm
The US military cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces, an official US report says.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the Pentagon cannot track about 30% of the weapons distributed in Iraq over the past three years.
The Pentagon did not dispute the figures, but said it was reviewing arms deliveries procedures.
About $19.2bn has been spent by the US since 2003 on Iraqi security forces.
GAO, the investigative arm of the US Congress, said at least $2.8bn of this money was used to buy and deliver weapons and other equipment.
Correspondents say it is now feared many of the weapons are being used against US forces on the ground in Iraq.
Discrepancies
The GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005.
MISSING IN IRAQ
AK-47 rifles: 110,000
Pistols: 80,000
Body armour pieces:
135,000
Helmets: 115,000
During this period, security training was led by Gen David Petraeus, who now commands all US forces in Iraq.
The GAO reached the estimate - 111,000 missing AK-47s and 80,000 missing pistols - by comparing the property records of the Multi-National Security Transition Command for Iraq against records maintained by Gen Petraeus of the arms and equipment he ordered.
Deputy Assistant Defence Secretary Mark Kimmitt told AFP the Pentagon was "reviewing policies and procedures to ensure US-funded equipment reaches the intended Iraqi security forces under the Iraq program".
Weapons delay
The report comes as a political battle rages in Washington over the progress of the war in Iraq.
Gen Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are scheduled to report to Congress by mid-September on the success of efforts to halt sectarian violence and return Iraq to viable self-governance.
Meanwhile, at the end of July, the US Defence Department admitted that the US-led coalition in Iraq had failed to deliver nearly two-thirds of the equipment it promised to Iraq's army.
The Pentagon said only 14.5m of the nearly 40m items of equipment ordered by the Iraqi army had been provided.
The US military commander in charge of training in Iraq has asked for help in speeding up the transfer of equipment.
Iraq's ambassador to the US said the delays were hindering the fighting capacity of its armed forces.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Republican Debate?
Did anyone else know there was a debate today? That sure slipped by me. Guess it got covered up by too much bridge news. (OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS FALLING APART BECAUSE OF ONE DISASTER! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!) Well I'll have to research this one and get back to you. And by the way, who's Duncan Hunter? Anyone know where this guy came from? More later...
Above: Photo of the Republican Presidential Candidates or a gathering for the funeral of some old, dead, white guy.
Congress: "Next Window, I'm on Break"
I'm so glad the congress has taken five days off their month long vacation. Poor them. And seems Pelosi really wanted to get into that bathing suit by conceding to Bush's wiretapping bill. From NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12512991):
Congress has finally recessed for the summer, but it took an extraordinary amount of time and effort for that to happen.
The House of Representatives worked until the wee hours of Sunday morning before beginning the August recess; the issues the members faced were tough, and partisanship didn't help.
In the end, President Bush got his way on wiretapping, but the Democratic majorities pushed through their bills on energy, ethics and health insurance for children of the working poor.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
NOOOO!!!!!
Congress approves President Bush's spy bill
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/04/congress.spying.reut/index.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Democratic-led Congress yielded to President Bush on Saturday and approved legislation to temporarily expand government's power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in tracking foreign suspects.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/04/congress.spying.reut/index.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Democratic-led Congress yielded to President Bush on Saturday and approved legislation to temporarily expand government's power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in tracking foreign suspects.
Civil liberties groups charged the measure would create a broad net that would sweep up law-abiding U.S. citizens.
But the House of Representatives gave its concurrence to the bill, 227-183, a day after it won Senate approval, 60-28.
The action came amid warnings of possible attacks on the United States.
"After months of prodding by House Republicans, Congress has finally closed the terrorist loophole in our surveillance law -- and America will be the safer for it," declared House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican.
"We think it is not the bill that ought to pass," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. But he conceded he and fellow Democrats were unable to stop the measure in this national security showdown with the White House.
"Protecting America is our most solemn obligation," Bush said earlier in the day in urging Congress to send him the bill so he could sign it into law.
The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.
But the House of Representatives gave its concurrence to the bill, 227-183, a day after it won Senate approval, 60-28.
The action came amid warnings of possible attacks on the United States.
"After months of prodding by House Republicans, Congress has finally closed the terrorist loophole in our surveillance law -- and America will be the safer for it," declared House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican.
"We think it is not the bill that ought to pass," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. But he conceded he and fellow Democrats were unable to stop the measure in this national security showdown with the White House.
"Protecting America is our most solemn obligation," Bush said earlier in the day in urging Congress to send him the bill so he could sign it into law.
The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.
My Prediction
Okay. I've done some analysis on all the major candidates. Really, just barely scartching the surface. I'll leave my in depth research to after the nominations have been made. So I thought, just for kicks I'd do an 08/09 Prediction of how the race will play out. It will most likely be completely wrong. And you can forget all about this. But it will be necessary "I Told You So" material if I should happen be right. And what could be better than that? So here it goes folks:
Democratic Presidential Nominees:
President: Hillary Clinton
Vice President: Barack Obama
Black and white. Male and female. Experienced and inexperienced. What could be better than that to represent the party of the people?
Republican Presidential Nominees:
President: Rudy Giuliani
Vice President: Mitt Romney
Crazy White Redneck: "Shit, a women and a black guy, or a divorcee and a polygamist? Fuck, I'm going with the second one."
Independent Presidential Nominees:
President: Michael Bloomberg
Vice President: It doesn't matter
It's going to happen and it's really going to throw a big 'ol wrench into things again. But luckily only for the Republicans. He may just well be the alternative Republican candidate to those who just can't push out a hanging chad for the womanizing, polygamist team as easily as the Crazy White Redneck.
Election Results
Drumroll please...
Clinton/Obama: 55%
Giuliani/Romney: 35%
Bloomberg/Damned if I know: 10%
It will be the highest total yet for the Independents as the Republicans try to pick their poison. And this time, they'll screw themselves in the process instead of the controversy Quasimodo Nader has created for the Democrats in the past. And I'll sit back and watch the votes roll in in hopes of peace in the future. For a change.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Democratic Presidential Nominees:
President: Hillary Clinton
Vice President: Barack Obama
Black and white. Male and female. Experienced and inexperienced. What could be better than that to represent the party of the people?
Republican Presidential Nominees:
President: Rudy Giuliani
Vice President: Mitt Romney
Crazy White Redneck: "Shit, a women and a black guy, or a divorcee and a polygamist? Fuck, I'm going with the second one."
Independent Presidential Nominees:
President: Michael Bloomberg
Vice President: It doesn't matter
It's going to happen and it's really going to throw a big 'ol wrench into things again. But luckily only for the Republicans. He may just well be the alternative Republican candidate to those who just can't push out a hanging chad for the womanizing, polygamist team as easily as the Crazy White Redneck.
Election Results
Drumroll please...
Clinton/Obama: 55%
Giuliani/Romney: 35%
Bloomberg/Damned if I know: 10%
It will be the highest total yet for the Independents as the Republicans try to pick their poison. And this time, they'll screw themselves in the process instead of the controversy Quasimodo Nader has created for the Democrats in the past. And I'll sit back and watch the votes roll in in hopes of peace in the future. For a change.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Candidates: Hillary Clinton
It is my humble opinion that Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. Of the top three candidates - Obama and Edwards the other two - Clinton seems to have the most confidence, experience, and clout. And I think Clinton is that candidate that will provide that change, but not too much change, that Americans are looking for. I say again: I am not picking my favorite candidates on this blog, I am looking at the facts to predict who the candidates will be. And it is my opinion that Americans are looking for a change they can be comfortable with - not too dramatic or drastic. Just enough to test the waters and see how it goes. Sorry Ron Paul. I don't think we'll be hearing much more from you. (Now let's see if the Ron Paul police come after me again for that.)
So who is this Clinton? What gives her that slight difference? That answer, my friends, lies between her legs. That's right folks, Hillary Clinton is... a woman! And it would seem that the perfect replacement for stubborn, stupid, supper-on-the-table-by-6, masculine president we have now could be the feminine touch. We need someone that instead of using Iraq as his own personal real-world Sims game, will look at things realistically and use dialogue before force. Clinton is that person. That little bit of change that will carry her to the final head-to-head battle.
And from what I've researched about Hillary she has all the right plans for America's future. She wants safe withdrawal from Iraq now, even before her election. And if... um... when that doesn't happen it will be her priority once taking the office. She has plans for energy independence and combating global climate change. She wants government reform and accountability. She is a strong supporter of the middle class. She is pro-choice. It's all there really.
The question is: Is Clinton full of crap? And it seems to me that, of the Democratic candidates, she is the most full of crap. If you've seen Michael Moore's Sicko you know that she once was a strong supporter of universal health care and is now the second largest recipient of healh care money in the senate. Is this okay? Well not really. But it is evidence that Clinton is talking out her ass. Probably more so then we know. And it is for this reason that she is the most experienced politician. And why she will win the Democratic nomination. Cynical and true.
Chance of Nomination: 75%
So who is this Clinton? What gives her that slight difference? That answer, my friends, lies between her legs. That's right folks, Hillary Clinton is... a woman! And it would seem that the perfect replacement for stubborn, stupid, supper-on-the-table-by-6, masculine president we have now could be the feminine touch. We need someone that instead of using Iraq as his own personal real-world Sims game, will look at things realistically and use dialogue before force. Clinton is that person. That little bit of change that will carry her to the final head-to-head battle.
And from what I've researched about Hillary she has all the right plans for America's future. She wants safe withdrawal from Iraq now, even before her election. And if... um... when that doesn't happen it will be her priority once taking the office. She has plans for energy independence and combating global climate change. She wants government reform and accountability. She is a strong supporter of the middle class. She is pro-choice. It's all there really.
The question is: Is Clinton full of crap? And it seems to me that, of the Democratic candidates, she is the most full of crap. If you've seen Michael Moore's Sicko you know that she once was a strong supporter of universal health care and is now the second largest recipient of healh care money in the senate. Is this okay? Well not really. But it is evidence that Clinton is talking out her ass. Probably more so then we know. And it is for this reason that she is the most experienced politician. And why she will win the Democratic nomination. Cynical and true.
Chance of Nomination: 75%
In Other "Non-Bridge" News...
House Rejects Democratic Spy Bill
from The Associated Press
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12492638
WASHINGTON August 3, 2007, 9:09 p.m. ET · Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.
The House rejected a Democratic proposal opposed by President Bush that would give him that authority for only four months. The largely party-line vote in favor of the bill was 218-207.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House limiting that authority to six months. It also would allow the director of national intelligence and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to carry out the expanded eavesdropping for four months before a court signs off on it.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.
Democratic leaders cleared the way for votes on different measures — at least two in the Senate and one in the House.
That left the outcome in doubt hours after Bush implored lawmakers to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before leaving Washington for a monthlong summer break — a potentially vulnerable time for attacks because of the high-travel season.
In the Senate, Democrats prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House after getting a vote on their own measure. Both were debated Friday night.
The House, meanwhile, moved toward a vote on a Democratic-written bill opposed by Bush and expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority needed there to pass.
It would require a review by the FISA court within 15 days after intelligence agents get the newly expanded powers for eavesdropping on terrorists abroad without warrants and end that authority in four months.
Bush earlier Friday coupled his demand for legislation with a threat to veto any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."
"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters. "Time is short."
Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the secret FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.
Negotiators spent Friday trying to narrow differences between what Bush wanted and Democrats' demand for court approval before intelligence agents get expanded authority to tap into overseas phone calls and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists.
The two sides also struggled over how long new powers that Bush wants should last.
Generally, the law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas — what the White House calls a significant gap in preventing attacks planned abroad.
Senate Democrats backed off their initial demands to have the surveillance process reviewed by the FISA court before the eavesdropping began. Instead, the bill headed for passage there largely mirrors what the Bush administration wanted. It would require:
—Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
—FISA court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and concluded within a month after the surveillance started.
—The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan.
from The Associated Press
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12492638
WASHINGTON August 3, 2007, 9:09 p.m. ET · Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.The House rejected a Democratic proposal opposed by President Bush that would give him that authority for only four months. The largely party-line vote in favor of the bill was 218-207.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House limiting that authority to six months. It also would allow the director of national intelligence and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to carry out the expanded eavesdropping for four months before a court signs off on it.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.
Democratic leaders cleared the way for votes on different measures — at least two in the Senate and one in the House.
That left the outcome in doubt hours after Bush implored lawmakers to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before leaving Washington for a monthlong summer break — a potentially vulnerable time for attacks because of the high-travel season.
In the Senate, Democrats prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House after getting a vote on their own measure. Both were debated Friday night.
The House, meanwhile, moved toward a vote on a Democratic-written bill opposed by Bush and expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority needed there to pass.
It would require a review by the FISA court within 15 days after intelligence agents get the newly expanded powers for eavesdropping on terrorists abroad without warrants and end that authority in four months.
Bush earlier Friday coupled his demand for legislation with a threat to veto any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."
"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters. "Time is short."
Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the secret FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.
Negotiators spent Friday trying to narrow differences between what Bush wanted and Democrats' demand for court approval before intelligence agents get expanded authority to tap into overseas phone calls and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists.
The two sides also struggled over how long new powers that Bush wants should last.
Generally, the law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas — what the White House calls a significant gap in preventing attacks planned abroad.
Senate Democrats backed off their initial demands to have the surveillance process reviewed by the FISA court before the eavesdropping began. Instead, the bill headed for passage there largely mirrors what the Bush administration wanted. It would require:
—Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
—FISA court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and concluded within a month after the surveillance started.
—The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
