OK, then...bring it on!

In what might be the most stunning thing that I have heard this week, President Bush has not only declared that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president, he also called Senator Barack Obama "intellectually lazy". I haven't even gotten to the real shocker: He is advising Clinton; giving her tips on how to deliver speeches if elected president. The source of this story comes from the upcoming book by Bill Sammon, "The Evangelical President".

To Hillary supporters, this is a positive for their candidate; this revelation makes her look like George W. Bush's natural successor. Without any big publicity, the story makes the other candidates look like unqualified dwarfs trying to get a seat at the grown-ups' table.

I have been open about my full-hearted support for Obama, and I would just like to say that this story can be a negative for Hillary. Imagine a political ad featuring the President and Hillary in the Oval Office. It would look as though she were Bush's favorite Democrat(remember what Ned Lamont was able to do to Joe Lieberman in 2006?). I'm not saying Obama should go on the offensive right away, but if this story gets any bigger, I wonder if Clinton-leaning Democratic primary voters would be less inclined to vorting for her.

Obama needs to beef up his advertisements now. He needs to remind primary-goers that he represents change, not the status quo or the failed leadership of the past.

Photo: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/exhibits/dianawalker/images/Clintons_with_Bush_JuniorL.jpg

True Conservative, Radical Candidate

I need not remind anyone who is following the presidential race how Republican Ron Paul is stirring quite a buzz in the media; he has the most requested videos of any of the candidates on YouTube, of all things. His views, which may be a stark departure from his GOP rivals, are remarkably similar to Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich: a libertarian belief that government(whether intervening in social or economic issues) is essentially bad. I do not necessarily agree with this assertion, but I would like to point out Congressman Paul to any neo-conservative or religious zealot who claim to represent the Republican Party.

I decided to attend his campaign rally in Mountain View last month. I would have never guessed it was a rally for a Republican candidate: anti-war activists, anti-WTO punks, pro-life activists, pro-gun rights punks, the Minute Man Militia, minorities, old people, young people, they all united behind one candidate.

Realistically, Mr. Paul will not win his party's nomination. However, he has no doubt shaped the GOP debate(really angering Rudy when he said that 9/11 had occurred because of American foreign policy, and not the mere fact that the Arabs just "hate us")and woke up many Republicans who have been asleep as their party was hijacked.

Sheiks and Steering Wheels

We all dread going to the DMV; long lines, tired-looking people, and of course the usual rude "customer service" representative. Despite our mutual loathing for the "Department of Moronic Villains", we as Americans take our privilege to drive cars for granted. After all, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not permit women to drive; it is the only country in the world to do so.

However, according to the Associated Press, women are finally banding together, forming a committee to urge King Abdullah to allow them to drive automobiles. It is highly unlikely that the monarch would give such a basic right to women at this time.

I have always been an opponent of the Iraqi invasion, and I do not like the idea of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries. However, I do find in unfortunate that the Saudis are one of our closest "allies". If the United States is to show moral authority by upholding democracy and denouncing tyranny worldwide, it is certainly showing hypocrisy by befriending downright enemies of human rights.

The only way to win this "War on Terror" is by winning the hearts and minds of those who feel that they are oppressed. Getting into bed with their oppressors surely will not make us look like a liberator, or an "arsenal of democracy."

Goodnight, and good luck.

Photo: http://www.digitaljournal.com/images/photo/saudi_women.jpg

How can Republicans keep the White House in 2008?

Every, if not, most polls show that, in a hypotheical general elction, a Democrat will be the 44th president of the United States. This should have Republicans worried.

However, in order to avoid a wipeout in November of 2008, the Republicans have to do one of two things:

1. Nominate Rudy Giuliani as their nominee.
2. Nominate an anti-war/troop surge candidate(Paul, Brownback, or Hagel)

The second part is much more difficult to attain. I'm not sure if Hagel is going to jump into the fray, and Brownback is so far to the Right on most other issues that he would hand over the election to the Dems.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is rare breed of Republican: an honest libertarian who stands up for Goldwaterian ideals. His rhetoric strikes a chord with many paleo-conservatives, but the mainstream establishment GOP cannot stomach the man.


Republicans: Nominate for Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Rudy Giuliani is the most popular politician in America(60+ percent of registered voters give him a good approval rating). Most Americans agree with him on most of the issues: Pro-choice, anti-partial birth, pro-civil union, pro-gun owner and pro-gun control, anti-tax, pro-environment, and he's tough on crime and will be hard-as-nails in pursuing the War on Terrorism. Yes, he's solidly behind the troop surge, but at least people will know where he stands on the issues. Unlike his opponents, Giuliani is unabated in regards to his positions. McCain was once a "maverick" of the party, but is now sucking up to the 700 Club and all of its self-righteous leaders. Mitt Romney can't stop flip-flopping; at least John Kerry knew when to stop.

America likes strong leadership, and Rudy has proven it. And let us not forget what he did for NYC(Pre and Post 9-11). Crime fell by 67% and the private sector boomed. Impressive for a city once thought of as going straight to Hell. I personally like Rudy's undetered efforts to put mob bosses behind bars and prossecute them at the same time. Crime fighters always get a big plus with the voters; let me tell you, if there was a hypothetical election between Batman and Gandhi, the voters would elect the Dark Avenger in a landslide. An anti-death penalty liberal candidate should really rethink their position if Giuliani is the nominee(but try not to sound too "flip-floppy"). Thompson played a tough-on-crime knight on television, but Rudy is the real deal.

He's going to have a rough time in the primaries, but trust me GOP, you won't regret having Rudy as your nominee, especially if pitted against Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

My pick for the Republican nomination(and possibly the next president, given that Hillary is the Dem's choice): Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

photo: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_257171953.html

Is it a Massachussetts thing?

For every policy speech that Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney gives to a group of primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, there will always be a speech Romney gave a decade ago that would contradict it.

Most recent, the former Massachussetts governor gave a speech to a group of pro-lifers concerning his views on same-sex marriage; he strongly supports a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Of course, there is a decent chance that Mr. Romney once believed otherwise. The New York Times reported that in the mid 1990's, as a candidate for U.S. Senate, Mr. Romney told a gathering of the Log Cabin Republicans(in a Gay Bar; a Mecca for conservative Republicans) that he advocated civil unions for couples of the same gender. Meanwhile, he claimed that he would be "more gay-friendly" thatn his Democratic opponent, Senator Ted Kennedy.

Will this guy say anything to get elected? Apparently, this is the case. Unfortunately, people are buying it; Mitt Romney is the front-runner for the GOP nomination and has more cash-at-hand than any of his rivals.

John F. Kerry was "swiftboated" in 2004 for voting for the authoization to invade Iraq, but speaking out against the way the war was sun. Romney on the other had, conducted a radical overhaul of his beliefs, but is being defended by so-called conservatives. Still, one has to wonder: "Are flip-flops a Massachussetts specialty?".

Warner Out, Warner In

As one may know, I normally write a blog once a week. However, I felt compelled to make a very serious and full-hearted endorsement of a very special potential Senatorial candidate.

Most of you probably heard that longtime Virginia Senator, John Warner, recently anounced that he will retire from the upper body after twenty-plus years of public service. Many Democrats including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, believe that the best candidate to succeed Warner is, Warner...Mark Warner.

Serving as governor of the state from 2002 to 2006, Mark Warner has been an standard-bearer for moderates and bipartisan-thinkers alike. Upon leaving office, Governor Warner recieved an unprecedented approval rating of 72%. Until October of 2006, Warner was considered a possible candidate for the White House in 2008; he ruled out that venture, citing that he wanted to "return to life."

Americans want a candidate who crosses the Red-Blue, Liberal-Conservative divide. Historically, U.S. Senators make lousy candidates for President. However, I believe that "Senator" Warner sounds good for a possible candidate; that is, Mark, not John.

Photo:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15234727/