’08 Election

Posted on December 17, 2006 '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

bye bayh

senator evan bayh is not running for president. that’s definitely a surprise to many of us who speculated that he could possibly make a strong run for the white house. of course, all of the speculation was made before the obama hype began. with hillary clinton, barack obama, and the possible entrance of john edwards into the race for the democratic nomination in ’08, there doesn’t seem to be room for another big dog.

here’s senator bayh’s official statement:

During my two terms as Governor and now in the United States Senate, it has always been more about the people I was able to help than the job I held. As you know I have been exploring helping the people of my state and our country in a different capacity. After talking with family and friends over the past several days, I have decided that this is not the year for me to run for President and I will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2008. It wasn’t an easy decision but it was the right one for my family, my friends and my state. I have always prided myself on putting my public responsibilities ahead of my own ambitions.

The odds were always going to be very long for a relatively unknown candidate like myself, a little bit like David and Goliath. And whether there were too many Goliaths or whether I’m just not the right David, the fact remains that at the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue. This path – and these long odds – would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.

I am immensely grateful for the support of my family and friends and the thousands of people around the country who helped me with their time and their resources. There may be no campaign in the near future, but there is much work to be done. When the Senate returns, I will focus on the issues that matter to the people of my state and are critical to the future of the nation including reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating opportunity for middle class families, and implementing a national security strategy that is both tough and smart.

i think that the wrong guy dropped out of the race. it should have been john edwards. edwards has the name recognition, the cash, and the personality to be a strong candidate if he can make a dent in the hillary-obama juggernaut. there’s no denying that on a political level, former senator edwards has everything going for him. he has everything except that lack of experience i mentioned in the previous post, which could keep him from being president. while acknowledging that there probably wouldn’t be a democrat that i could reasonably support in their bid to be the democratic nominee, i think that senator bayh is certainly more credible on national security than former senator john edwards.

senator bayh made a wise choice here. i am not second-guessing his decision here, because the deck was stacked against him. there may be a place for him in ’08 as a possible VP candidate. we will have to wait and see what happens.

tags: evan bayh, ’08 election, john edwards

2 Comments Posted on December 14, 2006 '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

i feel so much better now

once upon a time we had another political lightweight running for president of this country. he was a handsome guy with a nice-looking family. he made his great fortune looking out for the downtrodden while punishing big, bad corporations. only this man could save america from continuing to be the unfeeling monolith it had become under bush 43. america swooned over this guy too, at least until they started paying attention to the obvious holes in his resume.

perhaps you remember this man — i’m referring to former senator and Democratic VP nominee john edwards.

he’s still interested in being president, in case you were wondering about that. someday soon we could all be hearing once again about the two americas, and how these inequalities are the fault of big oil and evil corporations. i can’t tell you how much i’m looking forward to hearing that speech. it always warms the heart to hear proposals for punishing rich people and corporations, suggestions that will somehow exclude senator edwards and his former partner in crime john kerry.

anyway, the shrill shill chris matthews of hardball with chris matthews fame just happened to invite our hero on his college tour. this was home base for edwards, as the show was broadcast from UNC-Chapel Hill. it started out with a discussion of iraq.

MATTHEWS: How many more months of this would you support if you were president now? I know itsyou havent announced yet, formally, but with two more years of this administration, should we spend the whole next two years grinding this thing down to its inevitable conclusion and have a couple thousand more American guys killed, another 100,000 Iraqis?

J. EDWARDS: Well, weve got to change and we ought to change dramatically. I mean, I have been saying that for a year or more, that we ought to have a significant drawdown of American presence there to send the signal that we are not going to be there forever and were not there for oil. The president of the United States needs to say that very directly, because the rest of the world does not believe it. They dont believe it.

MATTHEWS: Hes saying the opposite. Hes talking about permanent bases over there.

J. EDWARDS: Thats right, and hes wrong about that. We have to say the opposite, which is what the Baker Study Group said, were not going to have permanent bases in Iraq and weve got to start pulling our troops out.

MATTHEWS: Weve got 140,000 people over there now. How many would you withdraw fairly quickly?

J. EDWARDS: Forty to fifty thousand.

he didn’t answer the question. the question was about a specific timetable for determining whether we can achieve our current goals in iraq or not. it was probably wise not to answer this question, since i’m not sure there is a good answer to it. john edwards simply repeats the tired mantra that we must change our policy, and says that we should significantly reduce our troop presence in iraq. he also says that we should withdraw forty to fifty thousand ‘fairly quickly’, although he still doesn’t say when that could be.

if senator edwards is operating under the assumption that his strategy is what the ISG proposed, he needs to re-read it. it was very clear about the consequences of pulling troops out ‘fairly quickly’, and did not recommend this. the report did make some rather unrealistic assumptions about syria and iran and many other neighboring countries, so i hope that edwards is not completely endorsing the findings of the ISG. it does seem clear, however, that he doesn’t believe we can achieve the goal of a stable iraq. whether that’s true or not, troop withdrawals on the level edwards is suggesting could only hurt our ability to achieve this goal.
Continue reading →

Posted on December 12, 2006 '08 Election, Democrats, Moonbats

the dark horse rides again

rejoice, america! there is now a bright light to save us from our warmongering and our stubborn attempts to protect our country and its people from the threats we face from terrorism. one should applaud such a selfless individual, as well as outgoing UN secretary-general kofi annan, for showing us the error of our ways.

so for these and other useful reasons, i am compelled to announce that dennis kucinich, ohio’s #1 useful idiot, has now decided to run for president again.

that will be an interesting addition to a crowded field of democratic candidates, which could possibly include barack obama, al gore, john kerry, john edwards, evan bayh, and other knowns/ unknowns in addition to hillary, who still refuses to tell us that she’s running for president. wake me up when there’s news.

it’s probably going to shake down to obama and hillary, but it’s anyone’s game at this point. except for john kerry. he’s done.

tags: ’08 election, dennis kucinich

Posted on November 28, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives

newt’s got a few questions

it’s hard to buy the argument, if it is made, that iran and syria’s involvement will actually further the interests of the united states rather than their own interests. let’s not forget that iran is part of the problem. neither country is interested in a stable iraq as the united states would define it. syria isn’t even interested in a stable, independent lebanon. we need to evaluate the ISG’s proposals with that in mind.

newt gingrich has a few tests for the baker/hamilton commission here. this is an excerpt from his human events column along with his comments on each question.

Does the Commission Have a Vision for Success in the Larger War Against the Dictatorships and Fanatics Who Want to Destroy Us?

If Iraq were only a one-step process, the answer might be to leave. But the reality is that Iraq is a single campaign within a much bigger war and within a power struggle over both the evolution of Islam and the rise of dictatorships seeking nuclear and biological weapons to enable them to destroy America and her allies. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission does not take this into account, it is a dangerously misleading report.

Does the Commission Recognize That the Second Campaign in Iraq Has Been a Failure?

This is the hardest thing for Washington-centric bureaucracies to accept. There was a very successful 23-day campaign to drive Saddam out of power. It used America’s strengths, and it worked. The second campaign has been an abject failure. We and our Iraqi allies do not have control of Iraq. We cannot guarantee security. There is not enough economic activity to keep young males employed. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission cannot bring itself to recognize a defeat as a defeat, then it cannot recommend the scale of change that is needed to develop a potentially successful third campaign.

Does the Commission Recognize the Scale of Change We Will Need to Adopt to Be Effective in a World of Enemies Willing to Kill Themselves in Order to Kill Us?

We need fundamental change in our military doctrine, training and structures, our intelligence capabilities and our integration of civilian and military activities. The instruments of American power simply do not work at the speed and detail needed to defeat the kind of enemies we are encountering. The American bureaucracies would rather claim the problem is too hard and leave, because being forced to change this deeply will be very painful and very controversial. Yet we have to learn to win.

Learning to win requires much more than changes in the military. It requires changes in how our intelligence, diplomatic, information and economic institutions work. It requires the development of an integrated approach in which all aspects of American power can be brought to bear to achieve victory. Furthermore, this strategy for victory has to be doubly powerful. For three years, we have failed to build an effective Iraqi government, and we now have a shattered local system with many players using violence in desperate bids to maximize their positions. The plan has to be powerful enough to succeed despite Iraqi weaknesses and not by relying on a clearly uncertain and unstable Iraqi political system.

Does the Commission Describe the Consequences of Defeat in Iraq?

What would the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq look like? Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute recently offered this chilling picture:

“The pullback of U.S. forces to their bases will not reduce the sectarian conflict, which their presence did not generate — it will increase it. Death squads on both sides will become more active. Large-scale ethnic and sectarian cleansing will begin as each side attempts to establish homogeneous enclaves where there are now mixed communities. Atrocities will mount, as they always do in ethnic cleansing operations. Iraqis who have cooperated with the Americans will be targeted by radicals on both sides. Some of them will try to flee with the American units. American troops will watch helplessly as death squads execute women and children. Pictures of this will play constantly on Al Jazeera. Prominent ‘collaborators,’ with whom our soldiers and leaders worked, will be publicly executed. Crowds of refugees could overwhelm not merely Iraq’s neighbors but also the [Forward Operating Bases] themselves. Soldiers will have to hold off fearful, tearful, and dangerous mobs.”

kerry says something stupid

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

john kerry

this isn’t the first time john kerry has been accused of saying something negative about our military. that’s why he’s not getting the benefit of the doubt here. there are some democrats who buy the explanation that he was attempting to insult the president instead of our military men and women serving in iraq. john kerry says that it was a “botched joke”. if that’s the case, his speechwriters should know better. john kerry is incapable of being funny. he is also politically clueless. whether he was talking about the president or about the military, it’s still a reckless thing to say, especially when nothing is guaranteed for democrats this november.

this isn’t 2004. kerry missed his opportunity to defend himself, and he can’t get it back by trying to justify what he said. it’s not just “right-wing nut jobs” condemning what kerry said, unless you count john mccain, harold ford jr. and HILLARY CLINTON in that group. hillary only said that kerry’s remarks were “inappropriate”, but that’s strong enough language for her, i guess. kerry made a mistake. he should admit it and apologize.

if he still thinks he can be the ’08 democratic nominee, he is deluding himself. move on, senator kerry. do us a favor. do the democrats a favor. go on a nice long vacation.

What Did John Kerry Do?— Hugh Hewitt
Kerry, Kerry Quite Contrary–Jonah Goldberg
Why Kerry’s crack matters— Michael Medved

tags: john kerry, ’06 election , ’08 election

1 Comment Posted on October 27, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans

last man standing wins

senator allen has every right to be angry. his reputation has been dragged through the mud by the media. vicious rumors have been spread about him. even though he hasn’t dealt with all the questions very well at times, that still doesn’t take away from the fact that quite a few lines have been crossed in this campaign. it’s gotten very ugly in the virginia senate race. it’s easy to understand the temptation to fire back at the opposition with all the ammo you can find. if we experienced similar treatment, no doubt we would have that same temptation.

that doesn’t excuse what senator allen did by bringing up all those nasty passages from webb’s book. it says more about allen’s desperation than it does about webb’s character. i don’t know jim webb personally, but he seems like a decent guy, although there may be a few areas where we would disagree on policy. that’s a problem for allen, because he can’t easily paint this guy as a loony lefty. senator allen’s own inability to deal with the problems he has faced throughout his campaign have brought him to this point. this shouldn’t have even been a contested race. if allen loses this race, it’s his own fault. the media can be blamed to some degree, but a man who wants to be president needs to know how to handle these obstacles without melting down.

senator allen has failed the test. his latest campaign tactics will have voters asking more questions about him than they will about his opponent. when two candidates sling mud, they both get dirty. george allen may win the battle but lose the war. he may return to the senate, but not without his credibility and integrity being seriously damaged by the way this campaign has ended. i’m not ready to say that senator allen can’t recover from all this and make a serious run at the presidency, but i do think this hurts his chances to be the nominee in ’08.

politics is an ugly game. we all accept that. in this case, this intensely personal slugfest has gone too far. no matter how it turns out, both candidates should be ashamed of their behavior and take no pride in a victory in this race. it’s a hollow victory when you sell out your principles and your integrity to win.

michelle malkin says it better in this post.

tags: ’06 election, republicans, democrats, conservatives

5 Comments Posted on September 11, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

advantage: newt

i don’t support gingrich for the republican nomination. i do support his candidacy because i think that he will sharpen up the other candidates and force them to make compelling, thoughtful, and well-thought out arguments on the issues of the day. newt is a smart guy. he may not be as smart as he thinks he is. that doesn’t mean that he can’t contribute positively to the race for the ’08 republican nomination. he has good ideas that the next republican nominee would be wise to adopt.

we are quite familiar with the weaknesses of newt gingrich. his fierce partisanship. his hard-headedness. his love of hearing himself speak. the inability to successfully complete the republican revolution of small government, more accountability, and so forth. it certainly doesn’t help him that he is a very polarizing figure, much like hillary clinton, and could find it difficult to find that groundswell of support that he would need to make a successful run to the republican nomination. that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t make the attempt.

understanding of foreign policy should be an important factor when choosing the next presidential nominee, especially on the republican side. we can no longer write this off as peripheral to other issues like jobs, healthcare, and the economy, especially not in light of recent events. we need to know where our potential nominees stand on the conflict between israel and hezbollah, and their suggestions on resolution. of course, there is the conventional wisdom that suggests that there will never be mid-east peace, no matter how many UN resolutions there are and no matter how much territory israel is willing to give up. there sure is a compelling case for that POV, but a good start to peace would be completely wiping out Hezbollah. there is no way to negotiate with countries or terrorists whose goal is to wipe your country off of the face of the earthas hezbollah and iran have said about israel.

anyway…back to newt. fox news loves newt. he’s a great interview. he also understands the world we live in today, and the threat we face with terrorism. his history background gives him a unique perspective on world events, and it also gives him an edge when discussing foreign policy that none of the other potential nominees can demonstrate. (*maybe mccain and his vietnam service might be the exception to this*) mccain, allen, and romney have said all the right things, but it’s gingrich who has been controlling the debate from day one. this is not only true about the current situation in israel, but on just about every political topic generating buzz in the media world.

the PR blitz is working in newt’s favor. it might even make people forget the way his political career ended the first time. we want someone who can show leadership. we want someone who understands what’s going on with this country and the rest of the world. the most appealing thing about newt is that he is willing to put himself out there and say what needs to be said, and suggest alternatives and a slight course correction from the bush administration. we need someone who is willing to fight for everything he believes in…and that’s where he differs from president bush.

newt also has some great ideas about domestic policy and shrinking government that should be adopted by any serious republican nominee. i love his ideas and absolutely encourage him to run for president. that said, i don’t see how he can win the nomination or the presidency. but what do i know? 🙂

(disclaimer: in case you were wondering, no…i don’t work for the newt campaign right now, but i would definitely consider it if he officially announced his candidacy.)

tags: newt gingrich, ’08 election

Posted on September 5, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

deja vu

senator george allen of virginia could possibly be the republican nominee for president in 2008, beating out guiliani, romney, and mccain. i’m not sure this is the best pick for the republicans. he is charming, and personable, and he says what conservatives want to hear. he did vote against the senate amnesty bill, and that’s a huge point in his favor. he seems to take a hard line on iran, and echoes the president’s views on just about everything. even though he is the former governor of virginia, i don’t see him as the kind of leader that this country needs. we need a person who can be tough with foreign dictators and tyrants, and who can effectively defend his policies to the people and to the press. i just don’t see allen this way.

allen is allowing the other contenders, including newt gingrich, to control the debate on foreign policy issues. this shouldn’t happen if he really wants to be president. his attempts so far haven’t convinced me that he does want that job. he has made the obligatory stops and pressed the right flesh, but that’s not enough to make a person worthy of the presidency.

senator allen has disappointed me. while i will say that the “macaca” comment reaction was overblown, i still don’t like the way he initially handled the situation. i am also concerned about his previous association with the CCC, as mentioned in the Nation. yeah, it’s a liberal rag, but assuming the picture they have is not photoshopped, that’s a serious allegation they are making about him. i don’t think that allen is a racist, but i think his affinity for all things Southern, including Confederate flags, could be a problem for him in ’08.

the biggest concern i have about allen is that he seems to have similar weaknesses to our current president. i don’t think that allen has the gravity of a mitt romney or john mccain, or even rudy guiliani. i don’t know how he would react when confronted with a major crisis like katrina or any kind of escalation in iran or north korea. i’m sure that he was a competent governor, and is equally skilled in the ways of the senate, but i can’t see him as president. maybe that will change.

tags: george allen, ’08 election

4 Comments Posted on August 29, 2006 '08 Election, Editorials, Republicans

who’s the boss?

the republicans have a problem, and it’s more serious than the prospect of losing power in november. as much as we would like to think we have an advantage because howard dean is leading the democratic party, we can’t ignore the leadership void in our own party. who’s in charge here? the president is supposed to be running things, and providing leadership. he is doing his level best to defend himself, and to explain his policies to us. i acknowledge that effort. unfortunately, people on both sides of the aisle are losing faith in president bush. what the republicans need is a strong voice who can effectively defend our political philosophy and to explain why we have the right ideas for the country. unfortunately, tony snow’s kind of busy right now with that whole press secretary thing.

who will step up and be the leader that we need? sure we have official republican party leaders, but there’s no spark there, and there’s no big picture vision beyond keeping themselves in power. that’s what made us different from the democrats in the beginning. what was cool about the reagan years? big ideas. optimism for the future of this country. strength in the face of a communist threat. oh yeah, and those infamous tax cuts. that’s what i believe is missing today from both political parties – that expression of optimism about the future. what we have is a bunch of chicken littles running around trying to convince us that the sky is falling.

we need someone who is inspiring and positive, someone who has a bold vision of how to lead this country. we need someone who understands the problems that we face, both foreign and domestic, and who will aggressively deal with those problems. do we have an ’08 candidate who fits that description? we will find out soon enough.

tags: republicans, ’08 election, leadership

1 Comment Posted on August 24, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals

pot.kettle.black

guess who said this in a chris matthews interview(comments in bold):

I served with George Allen when he was governor. I dont think he belongs in public service, to be honest with you. There are Republicans who are capable and smart, thoughtful people, and hes not one of them. So you know, the people in Virginia are going to do what they want to do, but I…

Q. You make him sound like a knucklehead. Is that what you think?

Im not going to use those kinds of words.

Q. In other words, youre saying he doesnt belong in public service, because of why?

Because hes always shooting from the hip. He never thinks through what he means, and he caters to the wrong instincts in people. And I think using derogatory terms to people of color is certainly something that a public servant might not do.

this makes sense. our public servants should always think before speaking, cater to the best instincts in people, and always be careful not to use racial slurs. too bad howard dean doesn’t follow his own advice. yes, that’s howard dean, chairman of the DNC, lecturing senator allen on how he should behave. you know what they say about people who live in glass houses. if senator allen, who has apologized for what he said, isn’t fit for public service, then neither is howard dean.

until i heard these comments from howard dean, i was undecided about senator allen’s possible presidential run. if any success for allen annoys howard dean, i’m all in. 🙂 seriously, though, i am not going to make any unofficial or official endorsements this early in the game. the field is wide open for the republicans, and senator allen will have more than enough time to recover politically, and be a major player in ’08.

tags: george allen, howard dean, ’08 election

unfiltered