A lot has happened since I last commented on the Presidential race. Fred Thompson, an ex-Tennessee Senator and well-known 'Law and Order' T.V. star has all but assured his entering the race on the all ready packed Republican side. John Edwards has run out of feet to shoot himself in, and Barrack and Hillary continue to battle it out. Although it's definitely early, the race on both sides is very much still in the running. Of the two, the Democratic ticket looks to me to be the closest to being decided with Hillary Clinton all but anointed but still not guaranteed. I'm still waiting for that picture of Barrack Obama sitting with his classmates in that Madrassa (Muslim school) he attended in his youth. Rest assured, Hillary's people are all over it and if that picture exists, you will be seeing it. My guess is she'll use the tactic of leaking it to some conservative publication and try to blame it on the right wing thereby killing two birds with one stone. Never underestimate Hillary, that cat has claws.
The award for most disappointing run goes to Senator John Edwards (D-SC). My friend Steve from Studio1714 likes to joke about Senator Edwards having the nearly the same name as the John Edward who talks to dead people. He may have to use his namesake to contact his Presidential run if he keeps making missteps. I for one, liked Senator Edwards when he first entered the scene, but after watching him over the past few months, I'm beginning to think he just doesn't have the good sense necessary to win and lead. Edwards based his run on being the champion of the working man, the middle class that has built this country. By pointing out the disparity between the ultra-rich and the sinking middle, Edwards hoped to rally people to a vision of a New America where affluence is not as celebrated and the lower class is more appreciated. Soon after he began his run though, Edwards moved into his new 28,000+ square foot home, the biggest in his county. This reeks of hypocrisy from a man who shuns the notion of "Two Americas" one rich beyond belief, the other struggling. Not long after that, he again shot himself by defending a blogger that he hired for his website who posted anti-Christian rants. I guess Edwards doesn't think the Christian vote matters in the south, he couldn't be more wrong. To me, it looks like John is all but out of the running.
The Republicans, on the other hand, don't seem to have a clear consensus on what they're going to stand for this time around. Their field is littered with people from all fractions of the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani, the ex-Mayor of New York, is still leading the pack in all the polls, although I find it incredibly hard to believe that the Republican Convention will elect a man who is basically Pro-choice, pro Gay Marriage, and has been married 3 times. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is the alternate choice so far for the Republicans with Fred Thompson moving up fast on the more Conservative side. Republicans are always searching for their next Ron Reagan and Thompson could fair far better than the polls indicate. Mitt Romney is still my choice for a Dark Horse, he has values, is moderate on most issues and has a sparkling clean record, something extremely rare nowadays. He does however, desperately need a vehicle to get himself more noticed if he's going to have a shot. My advice to Mitt; portray yourself as an uncorrupted Governor of a successful state willing to work with both sides, and point out the extensive moral failings of your opponents.
Well, that's it for now. I'll keep you all posted from time to time as the race heats up. The War in Iraq is without a doubt going to be a major issue in '08 and Women will be a HUGE factor if Hillary gets the Democratic nod. Anyone who doubts this should look at Michigan's past gubernatorial election where women came out 60% for Governor Jennifer Granholm despite her being possibly the worst Governor Michigan has ever seen. If things don't change dramatically, you all might want to get used to the idea of President Hillary Clinton....unless Barrack finds a slightly stained blue dress. H.C.
6 comments:
Hey H.C., yet another great piece.
However, I noticed your show on Studio1714 on YouTube and again here, that you have refrained from mentioning Dr. Ron Paul who is also a Republican Candidate.
You see, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. He wants ALL departments of the Fed. abolished since they are UNconstitutional.
And also the IRS, and Federal Reserve.
He wants us out of Iraq too.
He has won both foregoing debates by almost 2 times more than the other candidates in 30,000 people polls. NOTE: Not 1,000 polled.
Why haven't we heard this in most of the mainstream media? Because they are owned. And I mean that in the (prison) sence. The powers that be do not want this info out.
They want to keep thier power, by not having Dr. Ron Paul getting elected and helping to take it away. And who are the powers that be? The Federal Reserve, which is a (PRIVATELY) OWNED CORPORATION.
It is no more "Federal Government"
than Federal Express.
Ahhh, you say: Ron Paul doesn't have a chance to win, therefore it is a wasted vote.
And hopefully I got that wrong, because one should vote for a candidate that is correct with one's views period.
There's been a sham that's been going on since 1933 than most Americans know about, and wouldn't believe me if I told them.
Trust me! Everyone wants Ron Paul for President!
Watch on Google video or YouTube:
"Freedom to Fascism"
It's about 2 hours long, watch all of it at one sitting.
Then you'll start to get where I'm coming from. Ron Paul is near the end of the film.
Take care,
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
Hey Rod,
Your correct in assuming that I didn't mention Ron Paul because I don't think he has a chance. I usually only address the top four candidates according to the majority of the polls I'm watching. But, for the record, here's my quick synopsis of Dr. Ron Paul's campaign, (that I have only been following since the Republican debates). You define Dr. Paul as a
"Constitutionalist", I would add the word "Strict". Meaning that Dr. Paul adheres to the constructionist view of the Constitution, "The Founding Fathers said it, that ends it," view. I believe it is not serving him very well because most people, myself included, believe that the meaning of the Constitution is determined by the Supreme Court and is somewhat adaptable to the times. We can argue it, but certainly past precedent has shown the S.C. to be ambiguous at best in some of it's decisions. You point out good examples of what is seen by some people as extremist ideas from Dr. Paul, such as dismantling the IRS or the Federal Reserve. While I would do cartwheels if the IRS was dismantled and would LOVE to see the Federal Reserve brought out of the shadows, most people are not going to support that much change because they fear what would come after. Dr. Paul is forgetting that most people think on about a sixth grade level, unfortunately. While Dr. Paul is the darling of the Internet set (are those the people who were polled?) in much the same way Howard Dean was, the Net leans far further left than it does right. I can't really see a Republican candidate getting the same mileage out of it that Dean did. I would love to see Dr. Paul do better mostly because I, like you, like applecart tippers. There is definately something wrong with our system when it keeps spitting out candidates with names we recognize because their father was President or their husband. (I'm certain our Founding Father would not approve) I would love to see them lose control and maybe the Internet is the way (or I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to change people's way of thinking here). Whether of not we can institute change is still up in the air, but the stakes are too high for me not to try. I'll be watching his campaign a little closer from now on for signs of strength, but if you agree with his stands, by all means vote for him whatever his chances. I voted for Ralph Nader twice myself simply because the other candidates did not deserve my vote.... and that's reason enough for me.
H.C. said: " I believe it is not serving him very well because most people, myself included, believe that the meaning of the Constitution is determined by the Supreme Court and is somewhat adaptable to the times. We can argue it, but certainly past precedent has shown the S.C. to be ambiguous at best in some of it's decisions."
Rod: Hi H.C. :)
If you can produce any common law (Supreme Court Rulings) in re any of the Federally created Departments, i.e. Dept. of Ed. then please cite it or them where they are ruled as Constitutional.
On another point. The U.S. Constitution should never be viewed as a work in progress unless an Amendment is approved.
Otherwise, it's like playing poker where you or I can change the rules in the middle of a hand.
This statement is also in mind where the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled itself the ruling power of the Constitution.
That's why the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 8th Amendments do not apply to the citizens of a state.
Oh, that's right. You're a 2nd Amendment fan. Well, are ya still feeling warm and fuzzy inside?
Thomas Jefferson was a pre Lincoln Republican. He was for state's rights. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court - John Marshal, was Jefferson's cousin. Marshal was a Federalist. They hated each other.
Under his rulings, the citizens of a state had none of the first 8 Amendments apply to them from 1833 - 1934, citing: Barron v City of Baltimore.
A constitution is a contract, inherent to the people, and between the people and those that wish to govern them. The inherent power, therefore lies in the hands of the people.
Not a Supreme Court.
Jefferson warned of this.
Indeed, Congress can pass any law disallowing the Supreme Court to review it. They already have done so, recently, it's in - The Patriot Act I.
The power is in the hands of the people (via vote and or Amendment.
And yes, those 30,000 polled, in re the republican debates, were mostly internet if not all. But, they recorded your IP addy so ya couldn't vote more than once.
Ron Paul won both debates, by almost double the other candidates.
Watch on youtube or Google video:
"Freedom to Fascism"
And go to: www.ronpaul2008.com
Take care my man. :)
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
Hey Rod,
I bow to your extensive knowledge of the workings of the Supreme Court. However, since there are a ton of laws on the books that are "Constitutional" merely by not being deemed "Unconstitutional" because they never appeared in front of the S.C., I'm not really sure about your argument that they (IRS, FED RES., Dept. of Ed.)are unconstitutional (If it's never deemed unconstitutional is it constitutional by default?). Your info about the states rights as far as the Amendments was very interesting and I'm not feeling very warm and fuzzy at all. I wish I shared your optimism on the power being in the hands of the people, the 4th Amendment in particular is a travesty and yet it feels like there is very little we can do. I am, however, in favor of trying. A good book on the subject, which you've probably already read, is Andrew P. Napolitano's "Constitutional Chaos" where he outlines how far we've drifted away from our Founding Father's intent. The problem stems from people's inherent willingness to sacrifice rights whenever they feel threatened and the Government's willingness to power grab whenever they can. I seriously don't think we'll ever see a time when people will get behind disbanding the IRS simply because they have been trained to believe the government is the answer to all their problems, and that income redistribution is a good way to fund it. Thanks for all the good thoughts.
H.C. Said: "However, since there are a ton of laws on the books that are "Constitutional" merely by not being deemed "Unconstitutional" because they never appeared in front of the S.C., I'm not really sure about your argument that they (IRS, FED RES., Dept. of Ed.)are unconstitutional (If it's never deemed unconstitutional is it constitutional by default?)."
Rod replies:
There are 2 subjects involved here.
1. Many laws in practice today may or may not be later deemed unconstitutional.
2. Where does the U.S. Constitution authorize the creation of the Dept. of the IRS or the Dept. of Education, etc?
Here's one for ya, Why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to make Alcohol illegal, then another Amendment to make it legal again, but "POT" is illegal without an Amendment?
Still liking the idea of a "living constitution"?!
See, no one is challenging them in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Therfore, the laws stand, and the created Departments stand.
Take care,
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
Hey Rod,
I'll leave you with the last word, I would however, consider myself somewhere between a "Living Constitutionalist" and a "Constructionist" How about a "Change it as little as possible....ist" Thanks for all your great contributions to this discussion. I'm sure everyone is a little more enlightened, I know I am.
Post a Comment