There Were two Other Candidates
There is no true democracy in America. That fact is reflected with crystal clarity by the biased actions of the powerful American media. The American people have been manipulated since the beginning of the U.S. presidential primary season, ( well, actually a little longer then that) and tonight in California in all came to fruition.
There were four candidates at the debate tonight, but based on how the debate was run by CNN and Politico.com, there may as well have been two and a half candidates. There is no way that that can be portrayed as fair democratic representation of the choices that the American people have. The media, as it has done throughout this primary season, has effectively played the roll as Dictator to he American people.
Does one have to be a Ron Paul supporter in order to be angered by the travesty that occurred tonight? Not really. Consider the post debate debacle. What topic got the most chat time with Anderson Cooper and the so called "best political team on television"? In case no-one noticed, it was all about Hillary and Barack. I wonder how much time Wolf Blitzer and company will spend tomorrow night, during the Democrats time in the spotlight, talking about the Republicans? Don't hold your breath.
I have learned a lot in the past few months. I've learned about how frustrating it is to support a viable candidate that the media doesn't take seriously.
As far as this blogger is concerned, the only two men who talked with any substance tonight were Paul and Huckabee. I don't like Huckabee's religious background, but the man brought up some excellent points. I particularly liked his argument that Jefferson's vision for America was right while Hamilton had it all wrong!
McCain was an arrogant prick as usual. Does he honestly think the Republicans lost the 2006 mid-terms over financial mismanagement and not the war in Iraq?
Romney's argument that the American people would rather pick a Governor to be President over a member of congress. Statistically, perhaps, but did he really want to go there? George W. was Governor of Texas. Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia. Need I say more?
In conclusion, had I been in Ron Paul's shoes, I would have stood up and left the stage. That probably would have made a bigger impact on the debate than anything that was actually said tonight. But that's not Ron Paul's style. He has too much class, and too much self-control to do anything like that.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
End of the line for Giuliani?
So when is he going? Rudy says he'll bow out in California. Will that be before the debate of afterwards?
I can somehow see Rudy G. sticking around just for spite. Just to nab a few more debate questions from Ron Paul. Just to rip one more very audible and sarcastic sinker when Paul answers another question with his trademark honest candor.
Well the last laugh, or snicker, is on the "Hero of 9/11". Seven states later Rudy G. has one, ONE, delegate to Ron Paul's 6.
The sooner he leaves the better, and I am sure that I will not be the only person wishing Rudy good riddance.
I can somehow see Rudy G. sticking around just for spite. Just to nab a few more debate questions from Ron Paul. Just to rip one more very audible and sarcastic sinker when Paul answers another question with his trademark honest candor.
Well the last laugh, or snicker, is on the "Hero of 9/11". Seven states later Rudy G. has one, ONE, delegate to Ron Paul's 6.
The sooner he leaves the better, and I am sure that I will not be the only person wishing Rudy good riddance.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Ron Paul Hoping For "Grand Showing" In Maine
Why Maine?
There's probably a good reason why Republican Presidential hopeful Ron Paul in up in Maine this week, instead of mixing it up with the big boys down in Florida; Dr. Paul says he has the toughest immigration policy of any of the candidates in either party. With the possible exception of Mitt Romney it's probably true.
Paul's against granting amnesty for illegal immigrants . He's also for bringing U.S troops home from just about every station around the world and militarizing the southern border. This is obviously not playing well in a State whose second language is English.
Still, I question the wisdom of Paul's "Main Strategy". It reminds me somwhat of Rudy's Florida strategy, and we all know how that's working out.
According to CNN, Paul has more cash on hand than either McCain or Huckabee, and it seems to this blogger, that mixing it up with the frontrunner's and competing for that 11% of Florida's undecided voters might not have been a bad thing, considering Paul has the cash to through around.
The Paul campaign must believe they can actually win Maine, and that such a win would have enough legs to carry them through Super Tuesday with a relatively good showing.
I'm a skeptic. I think the poor showing in Florida is what the television hypnotized American public will see, and when Fox News and the rest of the media don't even mention Paul's name in relation to the Florida Primary--which they won't--then it's game over for the Paul campaign.
It's too bad really. Paul had enough cash in his coffers to threaten Giuliani's meager 15% polling in Florida and he probably could have pulled it off.
There's probably a good reason why Republican Presidential hopeful Ron Paul in up in Maine this week, instead of mixing it up with the big boys down in Florida; Dr. Paul says he has the toughest immigration policy of any of the candidates in either party. With the possible exception of Mitt Romney it's probably true.
Paul's against granting amnesty for illegal immigrants . He's also for bringing U.S troops home from just about every station around the world and militarizing the southern border. This is obviously not playing well in a State whose second language is English.
Still, I question the wisdom of Paul's "Main Strategy". It reminds me somwhat of Rudy's Florida strategy, and we all know how that's working out.
According to CNN, Paul has more cash on hand than either McCain or Huckabee, and it seems to this blogger, that mixing it up with the frontrunner's and competing for that 11% of Florida's undecided voters might not have been a bad thing, considering Paul has the cash to through around.
The Paul campaign must believe they can actually win Maine, and that such a win would have enough legs to carry them through Super Tuesday with a relatively good showing.
I'm a skeptic. I think the poor showing in Florida is what the television hypnotized American public will see, and when Fox News and the rest of the media don't even mention Paul's name in relation to the Florida Primary--which they won't--then it's game over for the Paul campaign.
It's too bad really. Paul had enough cash in his coffers to threaten Giuliani's meager 15% polling in Florida and he probably could have pulled it off.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
South Carolina Folow-up...
Why Just Having A Good Message Isn't Enough
The unfortunate truth is that most voters in any country are ignorant when it comes to solid knowledge of the issues. It takes just one person with charisma, and good oratorical ability to come in and sweep folks off their feet. Germany came to that unwelcome reality in 1933, but charisma doesn't always have to be a bad thing.
We Americans have had our Lincolns, Roosevelts, and Kennedys, all fully capable of walking into a room and captivating an audience. Now we have Barack Obama.
It suddenly occurred to me that if Thomas Jefferson ran for President today, he would probably have about as much chance as say...Ron Paul. And if the truth be known, Ron Paul is a much better public speaker than Jefferson ever could have been!
Jefferson didn't care much for the art of public speaking, probably because he was so terrible at it. He was so bad, in fact, that instead of giving and annual State of the Union "address" he simply sent a copy to Congress to be read. That seemed to be enough because we all know how well Jefferson could write.
Ron Paul likes to say that people have jumped on his band wagon because of his message, and he may be right. It's a good message. It's a solid message, and perhaps one of the most sensible, and constitutionally sound messages I have heard from any candidate for President. But the sad truth is that the mainstream isn't buying it. The reason for this is simple...the messenger lacks the charismatic flair that Americans demand in their candidates. Americans like to be sold something. Granted, the last two elections didn't give Americans much of a consumer choice, but that's about to change.
The election of 2008 promises to be different. Barack Obama, just spelled out that difference with resounding clarity in South Carolina. Fact is, if Barack goes on to grab the Democratic nomination, the Republicans might as well pack up their campaign headquarters and head home because the result in a national election will probably resemble the South Carolina Democratic primary.
The unfortunate truth is that most voters in any country are ignorant when it comes to solid knowledge of the issues. It takes just one person with charisma, and good oratorical ability to come in and sweep folks off their feet. Germany came to that unwelcome reality in 1933, but charisma doesn't always have to be a bad thing.
We Americans have had our Lincolns, Roosevelts, and Kennedys, all fully capable of walking into a room and captivating an audience. Now we have Barack Obama.
It suddenly occurred to me that if Thomas Jefferson ran for President today, he would probably have about as much chance as say...Ron Paul. And if the truth be known, Ron Paul is a much better public speaker than Jefferson ever could have been!
Jefferson didn't care much for the art of public speaking, probably because he was so terrible at it. He was so bad, in fact, that instead of giving and annual State of the Union "address" he simply sent a copy to Congress to be read. That seemed to be enough because we all know how well Jefferson could write.
Ron Paul likes to say that people have jumped on his band wagon because of his message, and he may be right. It's a good message. It's a solid message, and perhaps one of the most sensible, and constitutionally sound messages I have heard from any candidate for President. But the sad truth is that the mainstream isn't buying it. The reason for this is simple...the messenger lacks the charismatic flair that Americans demand in their candidates. Americans like to be sold something. Granted, the last two elections didn't give Americans much of a consumer choice, but that's about to change.
The election of 2008 promises to be different. Barack Obama, just spelled out that difference with resounding clarity in South Carolina. Fact is, if Barack goes on to grab the Democratic nomination, the Republicans might as well pack up their campaign headquarters and head home because the result in a national election will probably resemble the South Carolina Democratic primary.
Barack Sinks Hillary's Ship in S.C.
I just sat watching Barack Obama drive the last nails in Hillary's coffin. What a victory speech! I don't even like speeches, but I liked this one. I couldn't help but chuckle at the fact that, a couple of nights ago, all the Republican candidates, save Ron Paul, were touting Hillary as their future opponent. But none of them watch or pay attention to the polls.
McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against Barack. Nor do any of the "top tier" Bozo's running for the Republican nomination. That's why they were touting Hillary during the last debate. They would rather run against Hillary, not because she's a woman, but because she is perceived by many American voters as a cold heartless bitch. Like I said before, perception, and image mean so much to Americans.
Barack will not get my vote because I'm not deceived by the charm, the wonderful speaking ability, or youthful appearance. Despite all of that, I don't agree with the man on the issues.
I'm sitting here, second cup of coffee in hand, rehashing Barack's "Blue Print for change". Wonderful stuff. Really, it is, but let's focus on one small issue under his plan for the economy and educating the workforce. Who wouldn't want American schools to be competitive with the rest of the world? I live in Germany. I'm sick and tired of listing to Germans look down their long. bony, and dreadfully arrogant snouts and tell me how sub par American education is when matched with theirs. That's not entirely true first of all, and I could argue way but I'd be veering off my main point; that being, the problem with Barack's blueprint.
America is a huge country. In fact, its fifty individual "countries" bound together by one Constitution. No where in that Constitution does it suggest that the government of the United States of America should finance and overseer the schools in each of the 50 States. In essence, that is why we have state governments in the first place. Logically speaking why shouldn't a state government know better the educational needs for its schools? Perhaps Congress would have to pass a law that forced each State to live up to a particular standard, but that would be much cheaper than paying for the expansion of the Department of Education with American tax dollars.
That's the problem with Barack "Blueprint for Change" in a nutshell. There is no way to escape the fact that taxes will have to be raised in order to finance Barack's Utopian America. Still, great speech!
McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against Barack. Nor do any of the "top tier" Bozo's running for the Republican nomination. That's why they were touting Hillary during the last debate. They would rather run against Hillary, not because she's a woman, but because she is perceived by many American voters as a cold heartless bitch. Like I said before, perception, and image mean so much to Americans.
Barack will not get my vote because I'm not deceived by the charm, the wonderful speaking ability, or youthful appearance. Despite all of that, I don't agree with the man on the issues.
I'm sitting here, second cup of coffee in hand, rehashing Barack's "Blue Print for change". Wonderful stuff. Really, it is, but let's focus on one small issue under his plan for the economy and educating the workforce. Who wouldn't want American schools to be competitive with the rest of the world? I live in Germany. I'm sick and tired of listing to Germans look down their long. bony, and dreadfully arrogant snouts and tell me how sub par American education is when matched with theirs. That's not entirely true first of all, and I could argue way but I'd be veering off my main point; that being, the problem with Barack's blueprint.
America is a huge country. In fact, its fifty individual "countries" bound together by one Constitution. No where in that Constitution does it suggest that the government of the United States of America should finance and overseer the schools in each of the 50 States. In essence, that is why we have state governments in the first place. Logically speaking why shouldn't a state government know better the educational needs for its schools? Perhaps Congress would have to pass a law that forced each State to live up to a particular standard, but that would be much cheaper than paying for the expansion of the Department of Education with American tax dollars.
That's the problem with Barack "Blueprint for Change" in a nutshell. There is no way to escape the fact that taxes will have to be raised in order to finance Barack's Utopian America. Still, great speech!
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Mitt Romney is Mormon. So what?
What could any red blooded American possibly have against Mitt Romeny's religion. The Mormans (officially the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints) represent a true American made religion; not the Baptists, or the or the Methodists and certainly not the Catholics. In short the LDS is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and Mom's store bought Apple pie. Actually more so, considering that none the three items mentioned have truly American origins.
So why the big hoopla over Mitt Romney 's faith?
Ignorance is the only possible culprit. Freedom of religion is protected in the U.S. Constitution in case some of you may have forgotten. If you're uncomfortable with this reality then maybe you should move over here to Germany where the only two accepted state religions are Catholicism and Lutheranism and everything else, including the Baptists, are considered a sect...right next to Scientology.
So why the big hoopla over Mitt Romney 's faith?
Ignorance is the only possible culprit. Freedom of religion is protected in the U.S. Constitution in case some of you may have forgotten. If you're uncomfortable with this reality then maybe you should move over here to Germany where the only two accepted state religions are Catholicism and Lutheranism and everything else, including the Baptists, are considered a sect...right next to Scientology.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Patriot Act Must Go!
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin in 1755
I was talking to a Russian colleague at work the other day. The subject of personal liberty came up. I'll call my friend "Ivan". Ivan suggested to me that giving up personal liberties for the sake of protection is not necessarily a bad thing. I disagreed of course. I vehemently argued that I don't need the State to watch over my telephone lines, internet connections, and daily routines about the city, in order to keep me and my family safe. I'll take my chances, thank you very much.
Ivan couldn't understand my logic and, I expected as much. He's the product of the old Soviet system. Ivan truly believes that the government knows much better about how we should live our lives than we do. Fair enough. Like I said, Ivan's a product of his environment. Things become a little bit disconcerting, however, when I hear an American say the same thing.
I nearly fell over in disbelief a few months ago upon hearing an American being interviewed about the so-called "Patriot Act" say, "Hey, if it keeps me and my family safe from them terrorists over there in Iraq, then I don't mind giving up a little freedom."
Well, I mind. I also have the comfort and profound joy of knowing that Ben Franklin minded as well.
I sometimes wonder if Americans have any sense of historical perspective or, if the sum of their historical prowess can be found in a 3rd grade history book. I shudder to think the latter.
Your's truly will not vote for any candidate who chooses to retain the Patriot Act in any way shape or form. That leaves me but with one choice...that nut case, Ron Paul.
I was talking to a Russian colleague at work the other day. The subject of personal liberty came up. I'll call my friend "Ivan". Ivan suggested to me that giving up personal liberties for the sake of protection is not necessarily a bad thing. I disagreed of course. I vehemently argued that I don't need the State to watch over my telephone lines, internet connections, and daily routines about the city, in order to keep me and my family safe. I'll take my chances, thank you very much.
Ivan couldn't understand my logic and, I expected as much. He's the product of the old Soviet system. Ivan truly believes that the government knows much better about how we should live our lives than we do. Fair enough. Like I said, Ivan's a product of his environment. Things become a little bit disconcerting, however, when I hear an American say the same thing.
I nearly fell over in disbelief a few months ago upon hearing an American being interviewed about the so-called "Patriot Act" say, "Hey, if it keeps me and my family safe from them terrorists over there in Iraq, then I don't mind giving up a little freedom."
Well, I mind. I also have the comfort and profound joy of knowing that Ben Franklin minded as well.
I sometimes wonder if Americans have any sense of historical perspective or, if the sum of their historical prowess can be found in a 3rd grade history book. I shudder to think the latter.
Your's truly will not vote for any candidate who chooses to retain the Patriot Act in any way shape or form. That leaves me but with one choice...that nut case, Ron Paul.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Is the American Election Process Fair?
After watching MSNBC's Republican Debate in Florida last night, I can surely understand why Ron Paul's followers have been so up in arms for most of the American election process. Their man is clearly getting screwed, but then try being a Dennis Kucinich supporter!
Bottom line is, the American election process is an immensely unfair process that is somewhat exacerbated be the enormous gullibility of the American people. Not all Americans, mind you. There are some Americans who actually read. Still, I would venture to say that the majority of American citizenry depends on information from televised "talking heads" and the American media knows this.
Americans have a nasty habit of liking the outer appearance of the nutshell without ever having really examined the nut inside. For example, they love Barack's charming smile, Hillary's moment of tenderness, and John McCain's tough guy exterior, but do they take time to really study what each and all of the candidates really stand for? By all indicators, no. That makes the image of an American candidate a major factor. American Philosopher, Noam Chomsky said it best. "Elections are run by the same people who sell toothpaste. They market candidates the same way." This is so true; so blatantly obvious. Those Americans who are sold on Crest, love Barack Obama.
I'm not necessarily convinced that there is a conspiracy per se against the likes of Ron Paul. It's more like the "ignore" button on Yahoo chat. "Ron Paul is a nutter, let's ignore him." That sort of thing. Is that fair? Of course not but like the American novelist William Goldman said, "Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death."
I'm pretty much convinced that no political process, anywhere, is unequivocally fair, but if the American version is the most fair we can get, then we free people of the world are most surly in serious trouble.
Bottom line is, the American election process is an immensely unfair process that is somewhat exacerbated be the enormous gullibility of the American people. Not all Americans, mind you. There are some Americans who actually read. Still, I would venture to say that the majority of American citizenry depends on information from televised "talking heads" and the American media knows this.
Americans have a nasty habit of liking the outer appearance of the nutshell without ever having really examined the nut inside. For example, they love Barack's charming smile, Hillary's moment of tenderness, and John McCain's tough guy exterior, but do they take time to really study what each and all of the candidates really stand for? By all indicators, no. That makes the image of an American candidate a major factor. American Philosopher, Noam Chomsky said it best. "Elections are run by the same people who sell toothpaste. They market candidates the same way." This is so true; so blatantly obvious. Those Americans who are sold on Crest, love Barack Obama.
I'm not necessarily convinced that there is a conspiracy per se against the likes of Ron Paul. It's more like the "ignore" button on Yahoo chat. "Ron Paul is a nutter, let's ignore him." That sort of thing. Is that fair? Of course not but like the American novelist William Goldman said, "Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death."
I'm pretty much convinced that no political process, anywhere, is unequivocally fair, but if the American version is the most fair we can get, then we free people of the world are most surly in serious trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
