Political JUNGLE

Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary, recently wrote a book supposedly airing the dirty laundry of the White House.  The problem is he didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. In his book he also does something groundbreaking.  He blames everything on Bush and his administration.  McClellan, join the droves of media lemmings who will turn their back on you the minute something more newsworthy surfaces. 

In addition, everyone being interviewed that was close to him or worked with him is adamantly refuting his book.  Not to mention who will trust him now?  Even liberal democrats, who are his new best friends, won’t trust him tomorrow. 

So, congratulations McClellan, you made some money, you got your 15 minutes of fame, but you’ll have no friends, you lost any career in politics, and more importantly you lost all respect.  You’re a weasel.  

Most disappointing is that it again displays the dirty and deceitful side of politics.  It leaves many of us wondering if there are in fact honest people in Washington.  That should be the focus of criticism surrounding his book, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH.        

Will Obama pick Clinton as his running mate?  

Well, does Obama really want to be co-president?  Not with Hillary, but with Bill.  Doubtful. 

Finally there is some admittance that Bill Clinton may not be the savior and hero that liberals make him out to be, or at least remember him to be.  As Hillary is being discussed as a possible running mate of Obama, creating a sure win for the democrats, some are questioning that idea. 

One simple reason is that when you get Hillary you get Bill. Some of Clinton’s own strategists are skeptical that Obama would bring her on because of the package deal including her husband.    The package includes a former president that had sexual relations with an intern in the oval office, a president impeached for lying, a president that did nothing really of importance internationally.  A president that allowed the economy to ebb and flow as normal, admittedly with no real problems, but also didn’t really accomplish anything great.  And of course Obama would get Hillary.      

It seems Obama may fear that baggage, and also fear it could discredit his whole “Change”, or “Washington Outsider” appeal.  A former president doesn’t really fit in with those slogans.  

He won’t choose Hillary. Although you never know.           

Is race really an issue?  

Obama loses Kentucky huge, but wins Oregon by double digits. 

Cable news networks break down the exit polls by every demographic possible, but can race really be considered a factor?  Obama won Iowa, a state largely populated by whites, and wins Oregon, even after the Rev. Wright debaucle.  Supposedly its the upper middle class educated yuppies that flock to the polls for Obama.  He seems to have that group in his pocket.

So again, what about race?  Everyone seems to think he has the black vote locked down, but I beg to differ.  His race does not, and should not matter, as much as the media and certain civil rights activists seem to want to make it matter.  Granted, in some states he did get a resounding percentage of black voters, but the race discussion needs to cool down.

And keep in mind, he’s as much white as he is black.    

Sen. John McCain is making a point to reach out to young voters.  Last month at Villanova University he declared he would actively pursue these younger Americans. This understandably created some media attention, as McCain is the oldest candidate, and presumed to relate the least to 20 something voters. Although if he’s paying attention to recent polls, like an April 21 MTV survey of 18-29 year olds that showed Obama beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, you can understand this new found youth drive.  

In all fairness it really shouldn’t matter how old the candidate is, but how his or her policies affect the youth, and their future.  The problem is that many young voters don’t look deep enough into the issues to find the truth.  It’s not that young people aren’t educated, or smart, but instead respond to speaking cadence, and appearance, or what’s considered trendy or cool.  

If McCain continues to stay strong on issue, and avoid the “heart string” approach and victim mentality, he’ll win over the younger voters.   Because young people do care about issues that are presented with rational argument in a way they can relate to.  Many young people hinge their vote on the Iraq war and the environment.  McCain is attempting to be strong on the environment, but his Iraqi policies may hurt him, although they shouldn’t, because he is best fit by far to deal with that situation. 

And after finally standing for something when he defended Bush’s remarks regarding the appeasement of terrorist nations, McCain might actually man up, present these ideas, and debate Obama.      

As I was gearing up to remark on McCain’s speech about what this country would be like four years after his presidency, another story broke far more interesting.  It wasn’t the story itself that seemed more important but its glaring comparison with the speech McCain just delivered.   The parallels between these two images, these two news stories, these two men were fascinating.   Fascinating because within minutes we saw the drastic difference between a presidential candidate and the President.  Not only the difference between them, but the difference between the reactions to them. 

As president Bush spoke in Israel, condemning terrorists, rogue nations and those who want to meet with them, the Obama camp suddenly lambasted him.  This began moments after McCain surmised his 30-minute speech on how we can all get along, and what will be his apparent attempt to avoid confrontation with the other side of the aisle.   

As McCain was talking about political harmony another man was actually standing for something.  Isn’t it true that when you’re standing up for something you believe, you’ll have people that hate you and people that love you.  If you wander around in the middle you will have neither.  

McCain has great ideas, and no doubt knows how to fight as a war hero, but he seems to have lost that fighting spirit.  He seems to have lost the strength to stand alone on that pier because he knows something is right.  I’m sure you had that teacher or coach in high school that seemingly everyone hated.  We all did.  Its not until years later that when thinking back you remember them.  Not because you hated them, but because you respected them.  Because they actually stood for something. 

I fear McCain in his attempt to be moderate will in fact be moderate.  Great people are never moderate.  This doesn’t mean all people on the fringes of insanity are great, but they are probably passionate, at least.  

Underneath it all McCain must have some passion and strong opinions, but he needs to let it out and take the potential strife that may follow.  Of course it’s a good thing to maintain a level of bipartisanship, but if you try to appease everyone you won’t get anything done.      

The fact that President Bush can immediately get this type of a response from the Obama campaign also says something.  First of all, it again proves, as mentioned in earlier blogs, that Obama will play up anything to allow people to feel sorry for himself, and make it an attack on him.  It also says Bush’s tenacity and willingness to take a stand upsets many liberals.  

Although a slightly different topic, Obama’s eagerness to respond to Bush’s comments as “Sad,” and to act so offended will not help him in the long run.  Obama needs to stop playing the role of victim, and start showing he has some strength, if in fact he has any.   

In his ongoing strive to tote the line of moderate republican John McCain again voices his concern for the environment.  A Republican speaking out about “Green” efforts has seemed to hurl many prominent conservatives into a further state of disgust with their presumptive nominee.  At the same time it also has liberals complaining that McCain will not be the environmental president that he claims.  

Up until now McCain has basically laid low, hovering below the radar of criticism.  At least now he’s getting back on the bike and taking the chance he might fall.  And he might, but conservative pundits need to just stop.  Stop complaining that McCain’s concern for the environment is just another reason he’s not in stride with the conservative base.  This is part of problem.  The more conservatives endorse this idea that liberals are the only ones that care about the environment the more it just politicizes the issue.  

There is understandable criticism that McCain’s apparent passion on the topic is merely to maintain independents and corral the post Hillary democratic voters.  Pandering is always a part of politics; you just hope it’s not the case with your candidate.   John McCain also talked about his long record of working with environmentally friendly legislation.  Keep in mind he has a long record with everything.  He’s been in senate for over 20 years.   

“We can have a good economy and a good and beautiful environment in this nation,” McCain said.  

As long as he maintains the economy and conservative ideals, while steering clear of scare tactics, this can only be seen as a positive thing.  Global warming theories and skeptics aside, this is about the environment, our health, our well-being and our future.  Not to mention lowering gas and energy prices.   

“You can dictate a lot of things, but you have to unleash the innovative power and entrepreneurship of America in order to achieve these goals, …and I believe the proposal I have is doable,” McCain said in answering questions.  

Using the free market may be McCain’s biggest difference from his big government, lets just use tax dollars, democratic competitors.         

Young people will flock in droves this November to pull the lever in the presidential election.    Surveys and polls suggest these under 30’s are voting more than ever.   Many of them gather information on the internet, and through online groups formed on interfaces like Facebook, the social networking website invented in 2004, designed mainly to appeal to college students.  

Admittedly, much of the youth vote can be attributed to the rise and popularity of Obama. But are these young voters truly informed? 

Readers Digest did a story about this younger generation and gathered some interesting information, so check it for further insight.  The Facebook Election,  also linked in my News Across The Web section.   

This Facebook phenomenon is not a new thing, but as the general election gets closer it could prove important.  Young people have increasingly swayed over to the democrats in the last 20 years.   Going back to Super Tuesday, more than 3 million under 30’s headed to the polls, with 2 million checking the box on the democratic side, and 900,000 voting for the GOP, according to CIRCLE.   And that’s just in a primary. 

Anything that motivates young voters to get involved is a positive thing, but it’s also important to help them become properly informed.  The democratic candidates have really fed off the emotional vote, and likeability factor.  Obama especially has been able to capitalize off this idea.  

Obama is smart to target this demographic, but is he really looking out for their best interests?    

Facebook and MySpace type places are great for getting young people involved but I encourage you to look further, and really research and form your own opinions.

Stay tuned for a complete layout and analysis of the differences between McCain and Obama. This will be based solely on policy and issue. Maybe I’ll throw Clinton in there for good measure.

All the talk about Obama becoming another democratic failure in the flavor of Dukakis is getting spicier by the minute.

The reason Dukakis was labeled weak, or elitist, or wimpy wasn’t because he necessarily was, but because he couldn’t handle the criticism. If you allow people to feel sorry for yourself, eventually they begin to think you actually are weak.

This was highlighted in Friday’s post, but with the continuing discussion on the topic and the Dukakis comparison it needed further elaboration. Some democratic strategists are blaming this on the mean Republicans. How dare they point out deficiencies in their opponents? Maybe this double standard shouldn’t be referred to as the “Obama Standard”, as I did in the previous post, but “The Liberal Standard.”

The Liberal Standard states, “If anyone criticizes you on issue, immediately cry dirty politics, then fire back with some personal attack not based on an actual issue, then blame someone else, then say you were quoted out of context, and then criticize again, and end by literally crying.”

The Liberal Standard didn’t work in the late ‘80s, but I fear it will work now. People are frustrated with the state of the country in 2008, as opposed to the generally positive thinking in 1988. Not to mention this new “wimpy” liberalism has taken over. 

In addition, the Democratic Party has turned further left, and their voters along with them. This, in combination with the Obama love affair, might result in blindly voting for change. I think, or at least hope, that people vote based on the candidate’s policy suggestions, and ideas of where he or she would like to take the country. Not just, we need something different.

Obama will gain respect if he just man’s up and responds to criticism, which by the way is based on things like, Jeremiah Wright, actual recordings of him referring to gun slinging middle Americans, and his extremely liberal votes in the senate.

Susan Estrich, in her column, “Could Obama Be Another Dukakis,” explains that Republicans will do what they did to Dukakis, and paint Democrats as liberal and out of touch with Americans.

I’m sorry, but Liberals paint themselves. Republicans just point it out.

When pointing out that liberals are actually liberal is considered negative campaigning you know something is wrong.      

If Barack Obama isn’t careful he’ll brand himself as the weaker candidate without even trying.  
Anytime criticism is sent his way he calls it dirty politics, name calling, or anything else that allows people feel sorry for him.  The problem with this tactic is that when he actually decides to criticize McCain on issue or character he won’t be able to.  It would be considered a double standard right?  Wait, that’s what just happened.
 
McCain simply says that he thinks it’s a justifiable topic that Hamas is supporting Obama.  Obama comes back at McCain with, “For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.”  Just as he cries dirty politics he slams McCain’s age and mental state in the same sentence. The Obama Standard.

This has been one of the problems all along with the Obama’s campaign.  He has positioned himself as the “weak” candidate.  Weak in that anytime someone criticizes him on issue, policy, or experience, he calls it mudslinging or name-calling.  That to me is weak.  Instead of coming back at McCain with a rational argument he bails out. If he can’t handle what little heat McCain has thrown his way, how are we to believe he can handle terrorists, Iraq, Iranian nuclear threats, or any foreign affair for that matter?

However, it was a good move on Obama’s part to begin the debate with McCain because it strongly suggests his victory over Hillary Clinton.  Not to mention the media are covering it as if he’s already won. 

The more people think Obama is going to win; the less likely they will vote for Hillary.   

Civil rights activist, Al Sharpton, was arrested alongside a couple hundred others for protesting the acquittal of three police officers in the fatal shooting of Sean Bell.

Sean Bell was shot by police on his wedding day outside a nightclub in Queens.  

Sean Bell was an African American.   

The three cops involved in the shooting are Mexican, White, and African American.    

There may be some validity to the argument that the 50 bullet barrage of shots in this occasion were excessive, but thats not the argument I’m confronting.

Al Sharpton claims this protest is about the use of excessive and unfair force in minority neighborhoods. The question is should Al Sharpton, and others, make this about minorities?  Is that really the issue here?  Were these cops malicisously going after this guy because he’s a minority, or lives in a rough neighborhood?  There’s no easy answer.  

The solution, however, is consistency. Al Sharpton needs to have consistency, whether the victim white, black, or any other race, to be accepted as a true civil rights leader.

What if the man shot by the police was white?  Would this have ever been a story?

Sharpton does a lot for the black community, but the ideas he promotes are not always those of togetherness, responsibility, and hard work.  

“Today we want motorists to think about how three (other) motorists were shot at 50 times for no reason,”  Al Sharpton said in referring to the protests.  

The protests were technically referred to as pray-ins.  There is no argument against his right of free speech, but against his continuing interest in the racial divide.