Yeah Politics Yeah Politics - My Spin Homepage

Tuesday, January 08, 2008 

The Democratic race so far

Democratic Race

Election Guide 2008 - Presidential Election - Politics

Clinton 65,129 - 39%
Obama 60,766 - 36%
Edwards 28,088 - 17%
Richardson 7,952 - 5%
Kucinich 2,423 - 2%
Biden 366 - 0%
Gravel 232 - 0%
Dodd 116 - 0%

Well Clinton proved she’s not out, Hillary is still my bet to win the nomination, Hillary is a fighter and her warchest is second to none. What she needs to do now is show a capacity to change and show that she’s willing to learn from new experiences and isn’t so closed minded. The race is Clinton’s to lose and she’s far to shady to give up so easy, Hillary is far and away the most qualified and capable Democratic candidate and she needs to show that in a more humane way. The “ice queen” routine isn’t going to win her anymore votes she has to keep up the pressure on Obama to win.

Obama, well what can I say about a man that has no experience and is running entirely upon his charisma and skin color. As for the experience problem, Bill Clinton faced the same problem and he over came it, however Bill had far more experience in leading that Obama, Obama needs to express his plans and show that he has some idea of how to lead. I say this because nothing and I mean nothing in his professional career shows he has the experience or preparation for handling our nuclear launch codes. As for race, I think it’s his best weapon, white people will vote and support him just out of fear of appearing racist, Obama’s biggest threat comes from within the black community. Men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton see this as an opportunity to get back and whites and will want to exploit Barack for their own personal gains. Obama is on the right track and is campaign doesn’t need a lot of tweaking; he just has to prove he’s capable to lead.

Edwards, THANK YOU GOD THIS SCHMUCK IS ON HIS WAY OUT, nothing about him is honest or sincere. He is pimping the poor for his own personal gain, he doesn’t even have any plans all his public speaking events consist of him just talking about the down trodden and the impoverished. Well John what are you going to do, huh, you’ve had months to let me what you are going to do and instead and I hear is you patting yourself on the back and you disgust me you pitiful pathetic loser.


The GOP race so far


The Primary Season: 2008 Republican Calendar

Race Status Candidate Votes Vote % Del* Precincts
New Hampshire

County Results

McCain 50,680 37%
Romney 42,814 31%
Huckabee 15,765 11%
Giuliani 11,814 9%
Paul 10,864 8%
Thompson 1,648 1%
Hunter 702 1%

Tonight’s big winner is probably Romney, in my opinion he is the new front runner on the GOP side. He had a good showing in Iowa and another strong showing in New Hampshire. Iowa is a good indicator of who has the capability of running a national campaign and it weds out the third-tier candidates. Romney (pure populist and doesn’t have my vote) has shown that he can run a national campaign and can appeal to a mass audience, Huckabee did well but proved that he doesn’t have the national appeal perhaps to win the nomination. McCain (the best GOP candidate honestly, despite the fact he once rode a triceratops to middle school) he was predicted to win this race ahead of time and it’s far to early to say where he stands. I won’t rule McCain as a front-runner until he wins both Michigan and South Carolina.

The big loser is of course Giuliani, he didn’t campaign in Iowa in order to solidify his front runner strategy. I’ll explain, he was the front runner and if he poured lots of money and time into winning Iowa and won it wouldn’t be much a victory (come on he was the front runner he should win) well by not running there he could blame any lackluster performance on not campaigning there, but if he won or at least had a good showing it would prove he was indeed the front runner for a reason. Well Rudy, looks like plan A failed and your screwed, Giuliani’s chances now are slim at best, I place him and Edwards on the exact same level , they are both populists and it would be a travesty if either man won, and I’m so happy people have seen through his BS and he’s on his way out.

Thompson’s numbers were inflated and I believe the voters see through his “Hey I’m Regan but I’ll buy you a beer!!!”, yeah sorry Fred I’m not buying it. He had a great showing in Iowa despite his lack of a real message and absence of real presidential charisma. He’ll remain a strong third or fourth place finisher and will keep the heat on the front runners but he’s out. Plus Thompson lacks the money to have a strong presence as well.

Ron Paul, Ron Paul….Ron Paul, he’s doing great for a third party guy. The big risk he poses is if he doesn’t get the nomination and runs as an independent. Reason being is he could prove to be a next Ross Perot, while that’s a good thing, Ross Perot cost Bush Senior the nomination by splitting the Republican vote. I like Ron Paul and what he is saying is sooooooo true and I would love for nothing more than to see his ideas implemented but Ron it’s time to bail out. Your ideas are the best for this nation but your presence will only split the GOP vote and that means a Democratic victory, which only means increased socialism and abandonment of personal responsibility. Ron I love you and this nation to much to support your candidacy, sorry buddy.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 

Zakaria: Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?

At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?


My Spin

You sir are either discounting a great many facts or are oblivious to them

Iran the real story

There is considerable amount of speculation regarding Iran and what it’s motives are for acquiring nuclear technology. All of which are grounded in some truths, the degree of which is determined by your level of fear and gullibility. First Iran is and has been since 1979 a hostile nation dedicated to the notion of spreading global Islamic Revolution. They see it as their place to purge the non-believers and establish their “city on a hill”. Iran has not invaded another nation but instead has found itself on the defensive for much of the last 50 years. Iran has a massive “chip on it’s shoulder” and rightfully so, they have been manipulated and used for decades, all the benefit of Western Nations. Iran now has the power and capability to extracting it’s revenge, and you believe it won’t? Why not, Iran is no better or no worse than any other nation, Iran wants power in the same way all nations want power, Power is security. What makes Iran unique however is Iran wants security for it’s faith most of all.

There are multiple possibilities motivating Ahmadinejad to act in this fashion

1. Iran wants the West to invade it’s soil and seemingly topple their regime, thereby luring the West into a false sense of security and supremacy. In doing so the West (America) will greatly overextend it’s current military capacity and will be forced to institute a draft or some compensatory government service. Moreover it will require each of it’s citizens to sacrifice something to the war effort. Iran is betting on America being to lazy, apathetic, spoiled, and cowardly to ever unite for the common good as they did during WWII. Evidence can be found in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, America lacks the cohesion and backbone for sustained military entanglements. Our inability to cooperate or be submissive to government rule erodes the military options in warfare and it’s ability to conduct orchestrated death to the enemy. Iran believes American’s are to self-interested to ever co-operate with one another, we will never forgo our personal interests in favor of the collective. With our armed forces spread to thin and our people divided Muslim extremists will strike using fear in the hope of exposing our governments inability to protect us. Our fear will topple our system of government in favor of a more military authoritarian style regime, much in line with the former USSR, thereby destroying our democracy. That is if we don’t fall all together, the Western Roman Empire fell because of infighting, a diminished military presence, and a breakdown of strong political leadership in the face of the barbarian hordes. Iran will try to weaken our resolve by seemingly sacrificing itself. Iran will become a martyr for the cause of global Muslim domination. Ahmadinejad wants the become a hero, a martyr, to be honored and remembered forever.

2. Iran would never declare formal war on Europe or the USA, it’s suicide to openly attack NATO, combined no nation or ideology could survive, just look at Saddam Hussein in 1991. What Iran will do however and this can be seen in Iraq, they will declare war on Sunni’s across the world not individual nations/states. Iran will use Hezbollah in just the same fashion they are using against Israel to attack Sunni’s across the world. For instance, Iran could never attack France directly, but it could easily attack the large Muslim population in Paris. In doing so they would cause panic in the streets and a war across the continents forcing the West in get involved in order to anarchy in the streets. Evidence of this fighting can be seen in Iraq right now, where the fighting has less to do with material gains but instead with ending a millennia old blood feud. Iran wants the glory of leading the new Muslim “Church”. By using non-state actors to do it’s fighting for it Iran can remain guilt free and the West could not invade without international condemnation. If NATO was to ever invade Iran with the intention of ending this blood feud Iran would meet them with nuclear weapons thus bringing about mutual assured destruction across most of the world. Iran would win by default.

3. They want nuclear technology to prevent the West from invading and will leverage it was a barging tool in the same fashion that N. Korea is. Iran knows that America is to weak currently to invade and control the Iranian population. Iran intends to blackmail the West into giving it large sums of money in order to prevent nuclear war. This is a two fold solution, 1 Iran gets a new power source, 2 Iran can extort money from the West to support it’s waning religious leaders.

4. Russia is pulling the strings, they hope to instigate WWIII, in doing so they will become the arms dealer to the world. In much the same fashion as the USA was during WWI, the arsenal of democracy as they were known, Russia want’s the Middle East to become a barren waste land so everyone has to turn to Mother Russia and the worlds new energy superpower. Russia under Putin has seen great and radical change and they see their opportunity to return to superpower status. However the means have changed, they no longer wish to attain it militarily but economically through the arms and commodities trade. They plan to follow the US model of international influence. Can’t beat them, buy them.

I have no knowledge of the mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I can only imagine what he is thinking. Don’t forget you can’t run for office in Iran without the blessing to the Supreme Anyone claiming to have some forewarning or secret knowledge is simply lying or is attempting to use it as a means or obtaining political power. Iran is most certainly a threat to the West, a threat that will not go away and will only respond to offers it wants to. The power rests with Iran, the USA is weak and vulnerable, Britain is under siege by Muslim terrorists, France lacks the will for war, Germany is to guilt ridden to ever lead an attack, and Russia seeks to profit off the war. Where will this end, I can assure of this not one person currently running for the office of President of the United States has a clue or is qualified to make such a determination.

We’re screwed….

Thursday, September 13, 2007 

Satellite failure revives space weapons flap

Russian space experts are wondering whether the United States used an anti-satellite weapon last month to kill a small Russian research satellite, the Novosti news agency reported Wednesday.

The claim that the Pentagon intentionally crippled the satellite brought an almost immediate denial from U.S. military officials.

"There's no way this is a credible story," U.S. Navy Capt. James Graybeal, spokesman for the U.S. Strategic Command, told "We've checked with everybody, we have talked to everyone."


My Spin

My prediction has been for sometime that the next evolution in warfare will be both a dramatic departure of current conventional strategies and mold into fourth generational warfare. First, large and less mobile vehicles or troop numbers will be abandoned in favor of small precise strike forces (along the lines of a counter-terrorist unit, in most cases) to target non governmental actors.

The Second type would include a satellite arms race, why, because the West is losing interest in war as a means to influence policy. The evolution of the media has played perhaps the greatest impact in that swing in public opinion. Evidence is this new media can be found in Israelis failed invasion of Lebanon. The Israelis would certainly moved further and engaged in the urban street fights. They couldn't because everywhere they looked there was a camera recording their every move. They were already labeled the aggressors in the war so the recorded fighting always portrait them has cruel invaders despite Israelis provocation for being there. People watched the war at home and were shocked thus public turned against the Israelis in such a way as to dissuade them from fighting. They lost because their military didn’t perform, the military couldn’t perform because of the cameras in their face. This isn’t going to change the people are willing to watch this and the networks are more than willing to put in on, ratings are a powerful means of pushing social change.

The satellite race will consist manly of armed satellites capable of disarming other satellites. Satellites have been an instrument of war for decades now, almost all communications and much of surveillance is performed in space via satellites. Destroy a satellite and you could knock out your enemies telecommunication systems which makes the public mad and hurts the governments ability to wage war. Plus these attacks hamper information gathering and gives the aggressor the edge in the ensuing conflict.

The argument can be made that the Space Race was perhaps the most beneficial period of scientific exploration of this century, the creation of the modern computer is just 1 example of what we gained during this period. If war moves off planet for the first time what would the scientific gain’s be. The means of space voyaging would be radically different that we see now, surely size of the space craft would be the first change. Which could prove to be the next push our world makes in it’s desire to investigate other worlds. That is so long as those satellites are not armed with nuclear devices, which would only complicate matters fuller.

I’m going to get up on my soap box now…

Man-kind works best in the conflict high-stress environment. Our brains evolved in that pattern, having to make quick judgments resulting in life or death outcomes forced the mind to think clearer, faster, and with some foresight, imagination. President Kennedy created such an environment when he pledged that America would be on the moon in ten years. Scientists were given unlimited budgets and creative freedom to do whatever it took to get the job done. The result was the greatest achievement modern man has ever accomplished. We landed on the moon and it only took ten years, we learned a lot since then and our means of production are far faster that they were then. Not only will our ideas be bigger (and deadlier) they will be faster, stronger, not any safer, but all around better than what Neil Armstrong had. Could this conflict prove to be the step necessary to put a human on another planet? If so how long will it take before we colonize another planet, then another, and another. Or, will be blow ourselves up before any of this can come to happen.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 

Lebanon: One Year On

On July 12, 2006 the first Israeli rockets struck Beirut's southern suburbs and its airport.

On 14 August, 34 days later, a UN-brokered ceasefire went into effect and finally, on September 8 hostilities formally ended when the naval blockade of Lebanon was lifted.

One year on from the war in Lebanon Al Jazeera is running a series of special reports on how an intense month of fighting last summer had, and continues to have, a profound effect on the entire region.

The conflict officially involved the Israeli military and Hezbollah, but throughout the region it had profound implications on other nations, governments, political parties and their leaders. And in virtually every case, the war damaged them all.

In Israel, the government of Ehud Olmert has come under significant criticism both from the international community but also from within his own country.

Earlier this year, the Winograd Commission issued its interim report into the actions of the Israeli government last year. The conclusions were extremely critical of Olmert for lacking "judgement, responsibility and prudence" in opting for war in the first place.

Olmert's popularity has sunk and the final draft of the report, now expected in October could yet bring down his government.

Within Lebanon, the country's infrastructure was severely damaged, and around 1,000 people were killed, the majority of them civilians.


My Spin

I don't believe people realize how important this war is. First, small bands of fighters were able to keep the whole of the Israeli army back forcing them to retreat. Second of all the media in what it hopes is some kind of moral victory over the forces of evil hoped to sterilize this war by video taping as much of it as possible. What we say here was the first war prevented or stopped almost entirely because of news coverage.

Allow me to elaborate, Israel and China are probably the two countries who care the absolute least about what you think about them. What we saw here was the media bending the Israeli resolve and eventually breaking it in twain. How did this accomplish this magnificent task, they showed the world the ugliest thing in the world, humans at war. What some reporters hoped would sky rocket their career, win them awards, or secure them a million dollar book deal, instead they showed the world the depth of our hatred for one another. Thus in doing so the media gained more power than they have ever had previously, they have the power to stop wars.

The power of public opinion and fear, that is what the media has a monopoly over. The media tells us what to fear and what is good for us, who gives them this power? Answer you do when you don’t challenge their “fairness” or “objectivity”, the media can put whatever crap they want up there and the ramifications can be enormous. Example, Fox News, and CNN’s oh so fair Broken Government Segments just before the 2006 elections.

What made this conflict historical was the media caused Israel to back down because the public opinion of them waned so much they couldn’t keep the war going without severely damaging their reputation. Therefore, they lost that fight and the terrorists won, it’s just that simple. The media is exploring new territory and frankly, I do not trust them with their new power.

Saturday, March 24, 2007 

House OK's Irap Pullout Deadline

House OKs Iraq pullout deadline

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, but the president reiterated his vow to veto the bill, saying the House had “abdicated its responsibility.”

Bush appeared at the White House alongside veterans and family members of troops to accuse Democrats of staging nothing more than "political theater" that delays the delivery of resources to soldiers fighting in Iraq. If the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, Bush said troops and their families “will face significant disruptions.”

“A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job,” the president said.

“These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects,” he said. “This is not going to happen.”

The victory for Democrats is part of an epic war-powers struggle, and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Ignoring the veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.

”The vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

Pelosi victory
The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi., who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party’s more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

“The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success,” said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

My Spin

“What we’re trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had helped write the bill.

Well that is just what you’re going to get jackass…

This war however won’t be reminiscent of the Czech Slovak Velvet Divorce it will look much more like the American Civil War, long bloody and seemingly without end. We started this war, right or wrong we’re there right now in the mess we created. You cannot enter another country kill its leader destroy its government and erode its civic ties and then just up and leave, it’s rude. Not to mention it’s provication for genocide, if you support this resolution the blood of every Iraqi that is killed will be on your hands.

There is no of this “Oh, I didn’t support the war so I’m not to blame” speech going on, fact is your democratically elected government acted in accordance to all proper domestic laws and got the ok from your democratically elected Congress and went to war in your name. We all have blood on our hands and the only way to remove it is to fix what we started and leaving less than half way in to achieving our goal accomplishes nothing but vindicating our enemies and empowering them to commit more acts of terrorism.

Look I think the war has imploded under the weight of it’s own thinly veiled façade of lies and gross ignorance of the people and political culture of the people we invaded shown by the Congressional and Presidential leadership. However we started this war and we have to fix it or else it will end just as the Korean War did and again in Vietnam. This war will guide the direction our foreign policy will take for probably the next fifty years, we can be on the receiving end or we can be the leader we have risen the be. Now is the time for us to shine and do the right thing, fix the problems we created not run and hide because we are too selfish and apathetic to the plight of our fellow man.

This coming civil war could be the spark needed to ignite WWIII the Islamic nations are looking for a fight and we threw the first punch how can we possibly expect to talk our way out of this one. Running away accomplishes nothing but making us lose face in front of an enemy that swears his undying hatred for us daily and dreams of crushing our nation. We need to fight back, it is the only way to fix our blunder.

Why Democrats are the enemy
Nothing the democrats have done since the start of the war is about helping the troops or fighting for any of the noble ideas this country (in theory) stands for. They have created a zero sum game in which the only way they can “win” (this shouldn’t be about winning or losing, people are dieing all over American pettiness) is to humiliate and break George W Bush. In a zero sum game the only way to achieve your goals is the cause your opposition to fail in achieving theirs, how is this good for America? Regardless of how you feel about Bush HE IS OUR PRESIDENT, for good our bad he is our leader and you don’t undermine your leader to this degree and expect any good to come of this. What the Democrats are doing is a low-level coup against him where they hope to bind him and essentially strip him of all power. Why you may ask, they still haven’t accepted they lost the 2000 election.

The only fair way to do a recount is to recount the whole county you can’t select certain counties and claim that they are the only messed up ones. I guarantee you that every county in the country has elements of voter fraud and messed up ballots. You recount everywhere to be fair.

Back to the war, the Democrats hope to destroy Bush so they can take over and gain power.

All their “opposition” serves as is a power grab in the hopes of persuading voters through lies and bullying that Republicans mean them harm.

The revolutionaries of the 60’s (and they were revolutionaries hoping to topple the status quo and current system in hopes of creating a regime in line with their bong enhanced political mindsets) viewed this fight as a struggle for the soul of the nation and escalated the fight to mythic proportions in order to win. They hoped to break the resolved of LBJ and Nixon they succeeded but at great cost. The cost? The very will of the nation to stand united moreover they permanently drove a wedge between the contrasting political ideologies and framed the argument completely upon the idea of right and wrong back and white.

It’s never that easy, nothing except paint is black and white, all political structures and ideas need to exist in a grey area of compromise because it’s impossible for a leader to be all things to all people and it’s wrong to try to impose your ideas on others.

The Liberals have greatly weakened the United States bargaining power in armed conflicts, Bin Laden nailed it when he called the US Military paper tigers, we are weak and afraid to fight. It’s important to note that our enemy is not. We are fickle and selfish, we only want what is easy to obtain, and we refuse to take responsibility for our actions there is always a third party to blame. Thanks to the liberal tendencies I’ve picked up in my 25 years I blame the Democrats for all this, you have weakened America all so you could get re-elected. You care nothing about anyone that doesn’t agree with you and these enlightened open-minded liberals refuse to even acknowledge any of the merits of any other point of view that in away way differs from their own. Tolerance and understanding don’t come with Buts at the end, it’s universal and it’s fair. Which oddly enough brings me to our other public enemy…

Why Republicans are the enemy
There is no such thing as good and evil, they are man made constructs. God does not speak to you, and this war should never ever have been turned into a religious war predicated upon the idea that we are right because we worship the correct way are you are evil because you pray to the same god the wrong way. You think Western Nations would have learned this lesson after the Reformation when hundreds of thousands (if not more) died because we couldn’t agree on how to worship the same god. Freaking idiots.

It’s never that easy nothing except paint is black and white, all political structures and ideas need to exist in a grey area of compromise because it’s impossible for a leader to be all things to all people and it’s wrong to try to impose your ideas on others.

All their “opposition” serves as is a power grab in the hopes of persuading voters through lies and bullying that Democrats mean them harm.

(Catch the similarities in tactics)

The Republican Party as we knew officially died in 1994 when we saw the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement, a populist based Christian movement permeating with hatred for non-Christians and non-Christian points of view. They do however worship at the alter of two gods, one Christian and the other the all mighty dollar.

This is the party that dreams for the glory days of old, where you could beat your wife with little reason, where gays hide in the closet where they belonged and any talk of science in the classroom would lead to you being run out of town as a heretic. It’s important to note that the last time we had a Christian nation we burned women at the stake for maybe being witches and we savagely brutalized the native population in the name of manifest destiny.

These days are over for a reason, people want the freedom to be as weird and odd as they feel, is it a good thing yes and no, do gay guys freak me out, yes, but I’m not going to run over and beat them over the head with my bible to prove my point. I don’t care who you have sex with so long as they are of age and it is consensual. We are all equal on this earth so no one person is better in the eyes of god. As such, any attempt to regulate the country based on religious principles should be discouraged because it’s dangerous.

When you base laws on religious principles they become unquestionable and when a law becomes unquestionable it is totalitarian and against the tenants of a democracy. Moreover lets say we do decide to abandon our democracy in favor of a Christian Theocracy (you know a Theocracy, just like they have in Iran, a nation totally run by the religious establishment doesn’t everyone in Iran look happy and content with the religious totalitarianism and oppression visited upon them daily) to do so would fundamentally alter the notion of freedom and ability to express ourselves.

Now as for taxes and limited government, the Republicans of old got it right. Limited government with personal responsibility is the best means of promoting freedom and ensuring economic prosperity and in my opinion the only real way to fight poverty with out bringing everyone down. Now there are no differences between the parties when it comes to government spending (actually the Republicans might actually be worse than the democrats) both parties believe in huge government spending and eroding the foundation of personal liberty. The Republicans believe that social control based on Christian moral principles are the most effective means of sustaining the status quo rather you like it or not.

The fact is the status quo is supposed to change to reflex the people living in it, to ignore it or forcibly alter it is totalarinism, in other words it stands in direct contrast to our current form of government standards. The best way to promote personal freedom is a strong sense of states rights. The Republicans under Lincoln greatly expanded on the notion of the federal government with his heavy-handed micromanaging approach and the presidents the proceeded him continued him in this tradition. The nation was founded as a series of independent states banding together for the common good but each retained state sovereignty. However, in the last 130 years we have seen this completely erode takes in large part to the liberal wing of the Republican Party in the age of Lincoln. Both parties believe that it is now the role of the federal government to regulate everything (fact remains what works in California does not always work in Kentucky, and broad over regulated policies are bad for the public because they do not reflect cultural and or socioeconomic differences between peoples). This practice has to stop and it should be the Republicans leading the charge since in principle they are the party of limited government.

I covered many things only maybe half of what I wanted to but frankly I’m pissed off and I’m thinking of moving to Australia where they seem to have their act together. I didn't even proof read this post before publishing it, I was that taken in the moment.

Oh and as for the next election our choices are

Hillary – lying heartless bitch obsessed with making it into the history books with ideas only half as good and her husband was able to pitch them

Obama – a populist with no experience, it’s like buying a Ford car you want to buy one but you’ve been burnt by them so many times in the past it leaves you a little “gun shy” (oops did I say that), populist does not work it’s ignorant to believe one person can be everything to everyone, the man it a complete phony with no ideas of his own

McCain- a smart but bitter man that has been running for president as long as Hillary (2000) he missed his chance the former media darling sold his conservative card to long ago. He’s like a double agent the liberals fear him because they don’t know if they can trust him and conservatives fear him because he’s spent to much time on the other side and could have become tainted

Giuliani – just because he did a good job running New York does not mean he can run the nation, what does he stand for as well, he’s to liberal to be a neo-con and to conservative to be a democrat, I can’t place this guy but the best he can hope for is a vp spot

Romney – Mormon, next

Moreover, anyone I let off this list, frankly your chances of making it are to slim to be taken seriously, see you at the convention where you kiss the ass of the guy that just whooped you by 25% points.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, November 10, 2006 

Libertarians emerge as a force > GLUM Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn't just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush's much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America's fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.

In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.

Does this mean that the libertarians are becoming a force in national elections, much as Ralph Nader managed to cost Al Gore a victory in 2000? Hope springs eternal among third-party afficionadoes, but the nature of the American electoral system, which directly elects representatives in a first-past-the-post system, makes it nearly impossible for third parties to gain traction. The last time it happened was in the 1850's, when the Whig party dissolved over internal disputes about slavery, opening the way for the emerging Republican party to put Abraham Lincoln in office. And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one's goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation's economic policy leftwards.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Libertarians emerge as a forceAn Election Not Won But Lost from Josh's Weblog
The GOP abandoned its libertarian wing and we sat it out, voted for gridlock, or just plain voted “L.” The Libertarian Party website has a long list of candidates that drew more than 1% of the vote, and I'm not... Read More …
Tracked: November 8, 2006 8:19 PM

Good election news from
s regular reades no doubt could guess, I'm not exactly cheerful about spending the next two years hearing about Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel, and Judiciary Chair John Conyers. And I'm disappointed by the departure of ... Read More …
Tracked: November 9, 2006 12:09 AM

One Small Political Observation from Knowledge ProblemLynne Kiesling Notwithstanding the potentially pivotal role that the libertarian candidate in a Montana race played in creating a Democrat-controlled Senate (thanks to Todd Zywicki), I'm still not convinced that what the Economist observed yesterday is... Read More …
Tracked: November 9, 2006 3:35 PM

My Spin

Hugh Hewitt put it best
In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who hada
bad client while writing this blog. That client was the Republican Party
whichhad broken its Contract with America from 1994 and had become unmoored from
itsconservative principles. As its advocate, I couldn’t make a more compelling
casefor Republicans staying in power than the fact that the Democrats would
beworse. I believed in that case, but when that’s all the party gave its
advocatesto work with, you can honestly conclude that Republicans got this
drubbing theold fashioned way – we earned it.

This election was a grand display of how out of touch the Republican leadership really is.

The Libertarian’s have always been the “red headed stepchild” of the Republican Party, a small but committed group dedicated to the principles of individual responsibility, pro capitalism, states rights, and a small federal government. Of that list how many of those things apply to our current administration, zilch. Granted these are Libertarian values but in practice these values were the core platform of the Republican Party and that was what separated them from the Democrats.

It’s a sad day when Libertarians can be said to be carrying the flame of the old Republican order. A Democrat can make a dozen or more reasons they won this election but ultimately it comes down to this, In practice what real difference is there between Republicans and Democrats anymore (except their stance on religious matters, where Republicans have taken a decidedly pro-religious stance) voters are not as dumb as people would like to believe. Voting numbers rarely reach more than 30-40% of the population so I like to think at least a third of that number actually know what is going on and are not fooled into thinking that this is the Republican party of Regan or even George Bush Sr.

Simply put the Democrats won because the Republicans have abandoned their traditional platform of smaller government, less government spending, and strong national security, not to mention that have sold the party to the fringe elements of the Christian Coalition. Where has all this gotten them, it elected Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House ewwwwwwwww, the public on the whole has lost faith in George W Bush, so what harm was there in voting for a Democrat it’s basically the same person only with a more flashy tie.

Democrats have claim a mandate but look at all the races they one, almost everyone of the ended with a slim margin of victory of less than 5 thousand votes and many of them were hovering around the 2 thousand mark. Hardly an overwhelming show of support basically they won by a thread but that thread was just enough in every important race for them to win. The people still believe and want these old school Republican values they just couldn’t find them anywhere.

I seriously doubt the Republicans will see this as a moment of truth, there are no Newt Gingrich’s in Congress anymore. There is a monumental leadership void across the board in Congress on both sides of the isle. Now is the time for Republicans to go back their roots but they won’t. They much like their Democratic brotherin have found out there are riches to be had in manipulating the government to their own needs, plus it’s easier to be a populist as opposed to making a stance on a issue. Currently practically all politicians in America are populists both parties a littered with them. The public wants someone of substance someone who actually stands for something and isn’t out for themselves.

The Libertarian party is in the great position of being able to capitalize on this, if they start running a strong PR campaign emphasizing their core values and how the Republicans have abandoned them they stand in the unique position of obtaining some political clout. Look at Ross Perot, in the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote. The people will support a third party if they know who they are voting for, Perot used his massive fortune to buy airtime and the people responded.

The key here is for the Libertarian party to win just 5 seats in the House, that is all it’ll take to reshape Washington. Why 5 seats, because I’m realistic enough to realize they stand no chance of winning the Presidency or taking over Congress, they are just to small and unknown. However all politics is local in theory and it is very possible to run a strong local campaign if the funding is there. If a qualified Libertarian candidate fundraised a million dollars and ran a great local race they stand a decent chance of winning in our current political climate, also you have to be very particular about the district can’t be to conservative or liberal has to be just right. Picking the right district is probably the hardest part truthfully.

If the Libertarian party was to win 5 seats in the House it would offer them great political power, all be it no committee power but tremendous influence in roll call votes. To do so would the Republicans and Democrats to compromise on some issues in favor of Libertarian positions if they wanted Libertarian support on a bill, 5 votes can sway many many votes especially those along party lines.The hope would be that they could force some Congressional oversight on spending and reactionary votes that a designed simply to attack the opposing party. Plus it would offer another much needed view point that is by and large being overlooked.

Do I think it will happen, no, would I love to see a third party movement, hell ya!!!

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 

When did the Republicans give up on their principles?

My Spin
Republicans turned in their backbones for a populist agenda in order to secure more votes, basically they "drank the kool aid", rather than trying to fight corruption or promote a rational agenda they saw a chance to capitalize on government. In addition to that Republicans tied their fate entirely to the religious right which isn't a bad thing they just decided to . The party that was supposed to be about individual liberty, smaller government, a pro capitalism agenda, and individual responsibilty gave up, but why?
Gore Vidal once said, "It makes no difference who you vote for – the two parties are really one party representing 4 percent of the people."
Harry Browne made some good points WorldNetDaily: Where have all the conservatives gone?

There used to be two highly vocal political movements in America – the conservatives and the liberals.

Although there were subtle variations, the basic difference between them was this:
Liberals were impatient with society as it was and wanted to use the force of government to change it.

Conservatives were skeptical of change, and were reluctant to use government to force changes on society.

Today, however, it's almost impossible to tell the two groups apart.

1.The modus operandi of liberals has always been:
2.Cite a social problem.
3.Assume that this represents a failure of freedom that only the federal government can repair.
4.Propose a big-government program.
5.When someone objects, accuse him of ignoring the poor folks who are suffering.
6.When the new program fails to solve the problem (and instead makes it much worse), throw
more money at it, pass more laws, make the penalties more oppressive, and then ignore the
situation (until it's time to cite the failure as a reason to expand the program again).

In this way they've turned education into a federal responsibility – leading to unsafe schools and far too many illiterate students.

They've ruined what was once the best health-care system in history – making it terribly expensive, cruelly insensitive, and totally out of the reach of many people.

They've created a permanent underclass of welfare clients, made America's farmers dependent on the federal government, and polluted the environment by putting too much land in the care of irresponsible bureaucrats.

No matter how much and how often and how harmfully government fails at what it does, no matter how many problems it causes, liberals still ask government to bring about whatever they want.

Conservatives used to oppose these government programs – fighting them with economic arguments, pointing to unintended consequences, and citing the unconstitutionality of the proposals.

But no longer.

Conservatives have used the federal government to wage a horrendous Drug War. The result has been drug-dealing gangs in the streets, children killed in drive-by shootings, crack babies, increased drug use, and a trashing of the Bill of Rights.

And how do they propose to deal with this enormous failure?

Throw more money at it, make the prison terms more oppressive, take away more of our civil liberties, trash the Constitution even further. In other words, do more of the things that created the problems.

If someone objects, accuse him of ignoring the crack babies and the families hurt by drugs.

If government schools are a mess, cite uneducated children as a reason for a government program to subsidize private schools – which will surely turn those schools into clones of the government schools (as happened with private colleges).

If federal welfare is a tragedy, propose putting religious charities on the federal dole – so that they, too, can become beggars at the government trough, doing the bureaucrats' bidding in order to keep the subsidies coming.

If it's revealed that our military, the FBI, or the CIA hasn't perform its mission properly, throw more money at it, expand whatever program has failed, give more power to the bureaucrats. And if anyone objects, if anyone cites the Constitution, just accuse him of ignoring the victims of 9-11.

No matter how much, and how often, and how harmfully government fails at what it does – no matter how many problems it causes – conservatives still ask government to bring about whatever they want.

No difference
-In other words, conservatives now sound exactly like liberals.
-Cite social problems as justification for expanding the federal government.
-If anyone opposes the proposal, accuse him of being heartless or anti-American.
-Ignore the Constitution if it conflicts with one's pet crusade.
-And no matter how bad a program gets, the answer always is to make it bigger, more
expensive, and more powerful.

What did you get for your vote?
Conservative writers and commentators oppose big-government programs only if they're proposed by Bill Clinton or some other Democratic president. Then they're constitutionalists – sounding the alarm against big government.

At least with Clinton, there was an opposition party. But with a Republican in the White House, there's no opposition. Thus government grew more rapidly under Nixon, Reagan, Ford or Bush than it did under Clinton.

In 2000, many people said they were voting for George Bush because he was the lesser of two evils.

But it turns out that Bush is doing all the things Gore would have done – only now, there's no opposition.

So it appears that those people who chose Bush actually voted for the greater of two evils – big government and no opposition.

It's terrible when even the liberals agree

Lyn Davis Lear: Where Have the Conservatives Gone? The Huffington Post

Over the years I always thought of our Republican friends as good old fashioned fiscal conservatives. But now I wonder what has happened to them. Where have all the common sense conservatives gone? I don't understand how Republican moderates can tolerate the religious fundamentalists who have taken over their party and vow to force their religious and right wing social agenda on all of us.

I have this fantasy that out there in the country there is this sleeping giant of outraged moderate conservatives who will grab the power back from the party extremists during the next election. Wishful thinking.

One of the few moderate Republicans we can count on some of the time is John McCain. Recently he's said he would vote against the elimination of the filibuster. I love that, but I wish he would say it out loud, and forcefully. Like this:

The religious factions growing throughout our land are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. From where do they presume to dictate their moral beliefs to me? I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of Conservatism.

If you think I wrote the above for Senator McCain, you are mistaken. Those are the verbatim words of Senator Barry Goldwater who held McCain's seat thirty some years ago. I never thought of Goldwater as a moderate conservative. Yet in today's world he sounds like a flaming liberal. I wish we could bring him back and I wish we could find some others like him.

My Spin
I honestly think this loss is probably the best thing that could have happened to the Republican party and American politics in general. Let me explain,
1. Our government has lost all sense of itself and truth be told there is little difference
between Republicans and Democrats, except in terms of religion
2. The last three Republican-controlled congresses have been the biggest spenders in history. Fiscal conservatives are dismayed not just by the amounts Republicans have been spending, but by the manner in which it is being spent. Earmarks have exploded under the GOP.
3. Corrution is rampant, the Jack Abramoff scandal displays that - at least in my household as I was raised Democrats are the party of scandal and special interest and the Republicans were the party of business but at least they were more honest, well no longer
4. This will force them to reawaken and select better Congressional leadership, the heads of the Hydra have been removed the question is what takes their place
5. I'm certain the Democrats will squander these next two years the same way the
Republicans have and hopefully the public will see this and begin to demand more from their government
6. Bush needs a little oversight for two years he's had a free reign and it's time he started to compromise a little, espically since compromise is a bread and butter of politics
7. Nancy Pelosi is perhaps the worst thing that has happend to Congress in years and I'm certain she will reveal herself to be a bitter divider and will promote an ultra liberal objective at the expense of the public, if your a leader you have to create bridges not destroy them (like Bush and his Republican croonies have)
8. Rumsfeld stepped down so that shows Republicans are willing to work and reach across the isle, I doubt Pelosi will do the same
9. Republican ego's are a little to big and they had their time two years ago when they swept everything fair is fair, Democrats which had no platform in this election, they offered a better pitch to voters - 2004 Republicans used fear as their platform which worked great, 2006 Democrats used We're not Republicans to great success
10.Leadership vacuum across the board!!!!!!

The one area liberals and conversatives definatly differ is their view with respect to a particular office. You may hate George W Bush but he is still the president and deserves a certain level of respect as a result but liberals don't care about that. The same goes for public speaking events, Ann Coulter gets assaulted anywhere she goes for what she believes (yes I think she is full of it too) liberals trow pies and or anything they can get ahold of at her, they protest in front of buildings and insult whomever enters the door with screams of Nazi and Hate Monger. To date (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I want real proof) Conversatives don't do that, people on the religious right may but thats more of a religoius debate as opposed to a politcal one. That right there shows a certain level of respect for a persons.

A good site discusses the Regan funeral
The Veiled Chameleon: Are Democrats and Republicans the Same?

I’ve come to see that Republicans are two-faced. On paper, Republicans are easily more favorable than Democrats to a libertarian-minded person such as myself. On paper, they support lower taxes, less socialism, limited government, a rigid interpretation of the Constitution, property rights, parental rights and gun rights. In practice, they do little to permanently relieve the tax burden, they support wealth redistribution in a variety of forms, they’ve bloated the government to an unprecedented degree, they’ve made a mockery of Amendments One, Four, Six, Eight and Ten, they’ve been slow and inadequate in their response to the Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision. That leaves parental rights and gun rights. So if all you want to do is to teach your kid that God created the world in seven 24-hour periods or shoot empty beer cans for fun, the Republican Party has your back. Otherwise, it’s time to wake up and realize you’ve been duped.

A brief history of the Republican party and how they have changed in the last 20 years

About me

  • I'm citizen jerk
  • From United States
  • College - my major was Political Science and I graduated in May 2005 from a midsized university in Kentucky
  • Travel - Went to Eastern Europe this summer far I've been to two continents this list includes - all over Australia, Czech Rep, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Poland, and I can't forget Amsterdam
My profile

Last 10 posts

Y P in 8 Languages

  • Blogger Templates
  • Si Politica - En Espanol
  • Ouais la Politique - en Français
  • Yeah Politik - auf Deutsch
  • Yeah Politica - in Italiano
  • Yeah Política - em Portugese
  • نعم السياسه - باللغه العربيه
  • 좋아 정치 - 한국어에서
  • 该书政治-中国
  • Important Reports/Stories

    Analysis / In Depth

    Powered by Blogger
    and Blogger Templates
    Add Yeah Politics to Newsburst from CNET Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to Google Subscribe in FeedLounge Subscribe in Bloglines
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    More blogs about politics.