Friday, June 22, 2007
Obama's Already At It, and it isn't even 2008 Yet
If what happened today (at 2007 June 22 8:52 am in Chester, Virginia) is any indication of what is going to come in this campaign, it does not look good. I just got harassed today by a campaign staffer for Barack Obama asking for a donation to their cause. Whaaa?? It isn't even 2008 yet. 2007 isn't even half over. Yet these candidates are already going after my pocketbook. And not just any candidate, mind you. I would expect this happening maybe from Hillary Clinton, but not from Barack Obama. So far I have viewed Barack as one of the best candidates in the race, with a fresh new look and fresh ideas, such as that there is no such thing as "blue states" or "red states".
But when they start calling me in the morning, asking for my contribution, and not accepting no as an answer over and over and over again, it does not look good at all for the candidate whose supporter called, or even for the entire campaign. Am I now to expect that I will get similar harassing calls from Hillary, Richardson, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney and all the rest, and maybe even Bloomberg as well? I mean this woman would not stop, even when I told her it was far too early. I even mentioned Edwards by name to her, saying he has not called me yet.
OK, this is it. Right now I am keeping score. So far the score is Obama 1, the other candidates 0. This I will take into consideration in determining who I vote for in 2008 November. This score will not be a factor as far as major issues are concerned. I will not vote for someone who does not believe in evolution, or for someone who believes in denying gay couples the right to marry, or for someone who will keep persisting in this ridiculousness in Iraq that has torn apart the country, simply because their opposition kept harassing me with campaign requests. But it will make a difference among candidates who differ little, such as Edwards and Obama. Therefore, right now, the candidate I favor the most is John Edwards, with Obama, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich well behind, tied for second. But this could change by election day. And please, candidates. No more solicitations for support until 2008 January. And Mr. Obama, please fire this campaign lady.
PS. By the way, while preparing this blog for posting, I found a serious problem with Mitt Romney. His campaign site, www.mittromney.com , throws a video in your face immediately with Mitt Romney speaking his stuff. To me this is not acceptable. No site ever should have for its initial page anything with sound. It startles the viewer, and it may annoy people in the area of the person using the computer. Remember that many people will be visiting these sites from library computers. Please don't pollute sacred silent library space with inane campaign blurbs. Take that video down immediately, Mr. Romney. And by the way, this intrusion makes Mitt Romney the worst of about 20 candidates running right now. I won't even hyperlink his name to his site.
But when they start calling me in the morning, asking for my contribution, and not accepting no as an answer over and over and over again, it does not look good at all for the candidate whose supporter called, or even for the entire campaign. Am I now to expect that I will get similar harassing calls from Hillary, Richardson, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney and all the rest, and maybe even Bloomberg as well? I mean this woman would not stop, even when I told her it was far too early. I even mentioned Edwards by name to her, saying he has not called me yet.
OK, this is it. Right now I am keeping score. So far the score is Obama 1, the other candidates 0. This I will take into consideration in determining who I vote for in 2008 November. This score will not be a factor as far as major issues are concerned. I will not vote for someone who does not believe in evolution, or for someone who believes in denying gay couples the right to marry, or for someone who will keep persisting in this ridiculousness in Iraq that has torn apart the country, simply because their opposition kept harassing me with campaign requests. But it will make a difference among candidates who differ little, such as Edwards and Obama. Therefore, right now, the candidate I favor the most is John Edwards, with Obama, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich well behind, tied for second. But this could change by election day. And please, candidates. No more solicitations for support until 2008 January. And Mr. Obama, please fire this campaign lady.
PS. By the way, while preparing this blog for posting, I found a serious problem with Mitt Romney. His campaign site, www.mittromney.com , throws a video in your face immediately with Mitt Romney speaking his stuff. To me this is not acceptable. No site ever should have for its initial page anything with sound. It startles the viewer, and it may annoy people in the area of the person using the computer. Remember that many people will be visiting these sites from library computers. Please don't pollute sacred silent library space with inane campaign blurbs. Take that video down immediately, Mr. Romney. And by the way, this intrusion makes Mitt Romney the worst of about 20 candidates running right now. I won't even hyperlink his name to his site.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Hillary Video Puts Her in the Hype Culture
Yesterday I found out about a new video on Hillary Clinton. It was supposed to be a takeoff or spoof on the Sopranos:
I looked at the video. It shows Hillary Clinton coming into a plain looking restaurant. She sits down and peruses the songs in the juke box. These include "Superstar" by the Carpenters, "You and I" by Celine Dion, and "I'm a Believer" by Smash Mouth. While she is perusing these, her husband Bill comes in and sits down opposite her. She continues to peruse videos, while at the same time she orders carrot sticks for her husband. Then the video vanishes, and the viewer is invited to find out what the winning song is. This is to be Hillary's campaign song.
To me this video is about as funny and as interesting as this limerick by W. S. Gilbert:
There was an old man of St Bees,
Who was stung in the arm by a wasp.
When asked, "Does it hurt?"
He replied, "No, it doesn't -
I'm so glad it wasn't a hornet.
What's so special about eating at a restaurant and selecting songs out of a juke box? But what really got me about this video is that she put in some kind of contest or guessing game at the end. "What's my campaign song?" This reminds me of a raffle or a quiz game. I hear about these things in the pop culture a lot, but they don't belong with anyone with Presidential aspirations. Further, she intended this to be a spoof on "Sopranos". I don't know if it is or not, since I never watched that diva show, but to me this further disqualifies her as a possible US President. The Presidency is about soldiers dying in Iraq, immigration problems, the teaching of false information in the schools, abortion rights, the welfare of this country's economy, and most of all, the world's dwindling oil supplies. It is not about some silly TV program that some diviots conjure up in Hollywood. Hillary sets herself up as being someone trivial by doing stuff like this. Further, the show she selects is especially hideous. It's about violence, especially the sneaky, mobby, garroting type of violence prevalent in these crime families. She is hypocritical if she imitates this show while clamoring to get our troops home now. She is merely pandering to the masses, and this video to me, although it looks like a silly triviality, is really a form of propaganda.
This is a better video about Hillary:
So I certainly would not want Hillary as President, but she still is preferable to all the Republicans except maybe for Ron Paul. My favorite right now is Barack Obama, with John Edwards a close second. But I am also keeping my eye on Michael Bloomberg. Is he this era's Redeemer President?
I looked at the video. It shows Hillary Clinton coming into a plain looking restaurant. She sits down and peruses the songs in the juke box. These include "Superstar" by the Carpenters, "You and I" by Celine Dion, and "I'm a Believer" by Smash Mouth. While she is perusing these, her husband Bill comes in and sits down opposite her. She continues to peruse videos, while at the same time she orders carrot sticks for her husband. Then the video vanishes, and the viewer is invited to find out what the winning song is. This is to be Hillary's campaign song.
To me this video is about as funny and as interesting as this limerick by W. S. Gilbert:
There was an old man of St Bees,
Who was stung in the arm by a wasp.
When asked, "Does it hurt?"
He replied, "No, it doesn't -
I'm so glad it wasn't a hornet.
What's so special about eating at a restaurant and selecting songs out of a juke box? But what really got me about this video is that she put in some kind of contest or guessing game at the end. "What's my campaign song?" This reminds me of a raffle or a quiz game. I hear about these things in the pop culture a lot, but they don't belong with anyone with Presidential aspirations. Further, she intended this to be a spoof on "Sopranos". I don't know if it is or not, since I never watched that diva show, but to me this further disqualifies her as a possible US President. The Presidency is about soldiers dying in Iraq, immigration problems, the teaching of false information in the schools, abortion rights, the welfare of this country's economy, and most of all, the world's dwindling oil supplies. It is not about some silly TV program that some diviots conjure up in Hollywood. Hillary sets herself up as being someone trivial by doing stuff like this. Further, the show she selects is especially hideous. It's about violence, especially the sneaky, mobby, garroting type of violence prevalent in these crime families. She is hypocritical if she imitates this show while clamoring to get our troops home now. She is merely pandering to the masses, and this video to me, although it looks like a silly triviality, is really a form of propaganda.
This is a better video about Hillary:
So I certainly would not want Hillary as President, but she still is preferable to all the Republicans except maybe for Ron Paul. My favorite right now is Barack Obama, with John Edwards a close second. But I am also keeping my eye on Michael Bloomberg. Is he this era's Redeemer President?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Bloomberg Leaves the GOP
Today I heard that Mike Bloomberg has quit the Republican party. This is an interesting development, considering that he may run in 2008. In an earlier blog, I said that Bloomberg was going to enter as an independent, causing Lichtman Key 4, Third Party candidates, to fall and ensuring that the Democrat will be elected. This looks like a first step towards such a candidacy.
He did not fit the Republican image anyway. He runs in whatever party will cause him to win. He was a Democrat for a number of years, but then he switched to Republican in 2001 because he found the cast of candidates to be nearly empty then. Is that so unusual? Suppose no Republican candidates had come up for the 2008 Presidential election. I think some of the Democrats would think of switching to Republican to win. In fact there may be a big rush to the Republican side by the Democrats.
This means that his current run may be associated with winning as well. He certainly has the money for it, what with his Bloomberg report and all. He said he would devote $500 million to his campaign, a pittance compared to the Billions that he possesses. I heard at the end of the NBC broadcast tonight that Bloomberg was going to enter only if he could win. He did not want to be a spoiler for the other candidates like Perot was in 1992. And in fact, he is going to wait until early next year when the contenders have decided before deciding whether to run. He says the Republicans are going righter and righter and the Democrats are going lefter and lefter. Now that is interesting. It reminds me of one of my high school or college political science teachers who diagrammed a pair of candidates, one way off on the right and one way off on the left, and he said in that case he will run and win.
That means that my prediction from the other blog may not work. If Bloomberg does not run as an independent, then Key 4 probably will stand. If the election is between Kucinich and Brownback, I suppose that's when Mike Bloomberg would enter the race. But what if its Clinton vs Giuliani? Maybe he wouldn't enter in that case, with Giuliani's pro-choice stand and Clinton's appeal to women, whatever their party affiliation. But people can deceive themselves, and events can change. Perot led both Clinton and George HW Bush in the polls for a while in early 1992 before Clinton surged into the lead. If Bloomberg leads then, he may be tempted to win in a race that he can't win. IN that case, he certainly will get 5% of the vote, and Key 4 will fall. But if he does not enter, Key 4 will stand. And what if Bloomberg does run against a polarized pair of major candidates? Well maybe the entire Lichtman Key system will go out the window. Perhaps in that case, with a huge opening in the middle, Bloomberg may sail right in and win the election, the first ever for a third party candidate.
He did not fit the Republican image anyway. He runs in whatever party will cause him to win. He was a Democrat for a number of years, but then he switched to Republican in 2001 because he found the cast of candidates to be nearly empty then. Is that so unusual? Suppose no Republican candidates had come up for the 2008 Presidential election. I think some of the Democrats would think of switching to Republican to win. In fact there may be a big rush to the Republican side by the Democrats.
This means that his current run may be associated with winning as well. He certainly has the money for it, what with his Bloomberg report and all. He said he would devote $500 million to his campaign, a pittance compared to the Billions that he possesses. I heard at the end of the NBC broadcast tonight that Bloomberg was going to enter only if he could win. He did not want to be a spoiler for the other candidates like Perot was in 1992. And in fact, he is going to wait until early next year when the contenders have decided before deciding whether to run. He says the Republicans are going righter and righter and the Democrats are going lefter and lefter. Now that is interesting. It reminds me of one of my high school or college political science teachers who diagrammed a pair of candidates, one way off on the right and one way off on the left, and he said in that case he will run and win.
That means that my prediction from the other blog may not work. If Bloomberg does not run as an independent, then Key 4 probably will stand. If the election is between Kucinich and Brownback, I suppose that's when Mike Bloomberg would enter the race. But what if its Clinton vs Giuliani? Maybe he wouldn't enter in that case, with Giuliani's pro-choice stand and Clinton's appeal to women, whatever their party affiliation. But people can deceive themselves, and events can change. Perot led both Clinton and George HW Bush in the polls for a while in early 1992 before Clinton surged into the lead. If Bloomberg leads then, he may be tempted to win in a race that he can't win. IN that case, he certainly will get 5% of the vote, and Key 4 will fall. But if he does not enter, Key 4 will stand. And what if Bloomberg does run against a polarized pair of major candidates? Well maybe the entire Lichtman Key system will go out the window. Perhaps in that case, with a huge opening in the middle, Bloomberg may sail right in and win the election, the first ever for a third party candidate.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Jack Wilson for Supervisor???
No. Vote for her opponent Dorothy Jaeckle.
In an earlier blog, I advocated voting for Jack Wilson for supervisor. This was because he communicated with his constituents (in this case, me) better than his opponent Dorothy Jaeckle. However, I got a campaign blurb from Ms. Jaeckle that puts serious question on Jack Wilson. Ms. Jaeckle, in that letter, says:
My opponent, Jack Wilson, is a development rights lawyer whose occupation by day is to represent private developers in obtaining rezoning, at times, in spite of significant citizen opposition. Although Jack is an ethical person, I believe his occupation creates too much potential for conflict of interest and compromises the level of trust by citizens in their elected officials. Jack Wilson currently serves on the planning commission as an appointee of Dickie King. Dickie King spent well over $100,000 in the last Supervisor's race, the majority of it contributed by a PAC called Growing Chesterfield. Builders, developers, and politicians are the main contributors to this PAC. These same contributors are funding Jack Wilson's campaign.
This tells me that he supports the developers. He serves as counsel for them and he gets plenty of monetary support from them. To me this sounds like a candidate that the developers bought out. The developers are a menace in Chesterfield County. They are rapidly consuming all the land, including all the trees and wildlife and nice places to be, in the county. They are establishing in its place subdivisions of huge McMansions from which it takes huge mileages of car-clogged roads to get to anywhere, surrounded by acres of Box-Marts with huge parking lots. Residents have complained a lot about these developers, and a new word has been coined from them: to chesterfield (as a verb). This is what Ms. Jaeckle says about the developers:
Development is necessary to sustain economic growth, but it must be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure. How many hours have been spent by Enon residents waiting to get through the light at Route 10 and Old Stage Road? How can the county fast track the 4,500- home Branner Station development without any substantial plans for an East/W est road to take traffic off Bradley Bridge, Happy Hill, and Harrowgate Roads? Although our 2004 School Bond Referendum was to fund a replacement for the Clover Hill High School, we might best be served by looking at the now overcrowded situation at Thomas Dale. I will work closely with our School Board representative to seek relief for Thomas Dale. Development should not be approved at the price of compromising citizen safety or quality of life. How can a candidate represent citizen's interest when their campaign is substantially funded by developers?
I and those supporting me are not anti-development. I think Chesterfield is a wonderful place to live and recognize that others want to live here. However, current residents should not have their quality of life diminished due to overburdened roads and overcrowded schools.
Dorothy Jaeckle should not say she is not anti-development. She is clearly anti-development. We need anti-development supervisors in Chesterfield County. She is also wrong when she says that growth is needed. No growth can continue forever. Eventually resource limits are reached. (But this is not anything her opponent can fix.) If she is elected, then we can expect some action taken against these developers who would force the county to build more roads and schools.
Further, she says this about Jack Wilson:
Our founders never meant for our representatives to be chosen by current politicians and wealthy developers. Campaigns should not be about garnering wealthy donors, erecting expensive 4x8 signs on developer property and sending out a barrage of glossy brochures. It should be about going out to the citizens and listening to how to best represent them. For this primary, I sought no political endorsements or large campaign contributions from PACs or large developers. I seek only the endorsement of the taxpayers of this district.
Indeed, he is one of the biggest sign polluters I have ever seen in this county. He says he will take the signs down after election day, but until then they mar the landscape.
So I withdraw my recommendation to vote for Jack Wilson. Does this mean I favor Dorothy Jaeckle? Perhaps not. She says she is a conservative. That is a point against her. I don't want anyone supporting anything the Bush administration does, nor anything the current Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) support. But a vote for her may very well dispose of a developiot in the county and strike a blow for a more sustainable lifestyle.
But the real action may be this November. I found out recently from asking the Democrats that Ree Hart is running as the Democrat for Bermuda supervisor. She will oppose the winner of this Republican primary. There has been absolutely no information about her candidacy or about her selection anywhere in any newspaper in this area, in any web site relating to Chesterfield County, or in any campaign literature or documents from the County that I could find. I don't know why they don't want to inform the voter. I don't know where she stands on developments. But we do know where Jack Wilson stands. She has a problem getting in touch with the constitutents, but that is minor compared to the problems that her opponent has. I say now vote for Dorothy Jaeckle on June 12. Whether she should get my vote in November depends on what Ree Hart offers.
In an earlier blog, I advocated voting for Jack Wilson for supervisor. This was because he communicated with his constituents (in this case, me) better than his opponent Dorothy Jaeckle. However, I got a campaign blurb from Ms. Jaeckle that puts serious question on Jack Wilson. Ms. Jaeckle, in that letter, says:
My opponent, Jack Wilson, is a development rights lawyer whose occupation by day is to represent private developers in obtaining rezoning, at times, in spite of significant citizen opposition. Although Jack is an ethical person, I believe his occupation creates too much potential for conflict of interest and compromises the level of trust by citizens in their elected officials. Jack Wilson currently serves on the planning commission as an appointee of Dickie King. Dickie King spent well over $100,000 in the last Supervisor's race, the majority of it contributed by a PAC called Growing Chesterfield. Builders, developers, and politicians are the main contributors to this PAC. These same contributors are funding Jack Wilson's campaign.
This tells me that he supports the developers. He serves as counsel for them and he gets plenty of monetary support from them. To me this sounds like a candidate that the developers bought out. The developers are a menace in Chesterfield County. They are rapidly consuming all the land, including all the trees and wildlife and nice places to be, in the county. They are establishing in its place subdivisions of huge McMansions from which it takes huge mileages of car-clogged roads to get to anywhere, surrounded by acres of Box-Marts with huge parking lots. Residents have complained a lot about these developers, and a new word has been coined from them: to chesterfield (as a verb). This is what Ms. Jaeckle says about the developers:
Development is necessary to sustain economic growth, but it must be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure. How many hours have been spent by Enon residents waiting to get through the light at Route 10 and Old Stage Road? How can the county fast track the 4,500- home Branner Station development without any substantial plans for an East/W est road to take traffic off Bradley Bridge, Happy Hill, and Harrowgate Roads? Although our 2004 School Bond Referendum was to fund a replacement for the Clover Hill High School, we might best be served by looking at the now overcrowded situation at Thomas Dale. I will work closely with our School Board representative to seek relief for Thomas Dale. Development should not be approved at the price of compromising citizen safety or quality of life. How can a candidate represent citizen's interest when their campaign is substantially funded by developers?
I and those supporting me are not anti-development. I think Chesterfield is a wonderful place to live and recognize that others want to live here. However, current residents should not have their quality of life diminished due to overburdened roads and overcrowded schools.
Dorothy Jaeckle should not say she is not anti-development. She is clearly anti-development. We need anti-development supervisors in Chesterfield County. She is also wrong when she says that growth is needed. No growth can continue forever. Eventually resource limits are reached. (But this is not anything her opponent can fix.) If she is elected, then we can expect some action taken against these developers who would force the county to build more roads and schools.
Further, she says this about Jack Wilson:
Our founders never meant for our representatives to be chosen by current politicians and wealthy developers. Campaigns should not be about garnering wealthy donors, erecting expensive 4x8 signs on developer property and sending out a barrage of glossy brochures. It should be about going out to the citizens and listening to how to best represent them. For this primary, I sought no political endorsements or large campaign contributions from PACs or large developers. I seek only the endorsement of the taxpayers of this district.
Indeed, he is one of the biggest sign polluters I have ever seen in this county. He says he will take the signs down after election day, but until then they mar the landscape.
So I withdraw my recommendation to vote for Jack Wilson. Does this mean I favor Dorothy Jaeckle? Perhaps not. She says she is a conservative. That is a point against her. I don't want anyone supporting anything the Bush administration does, nor anything the current Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) support. But a vote for her may very well dispose of a developiot in the county and strike a blow for a more sustainable lifestyle.
But the real action may be this November. I found out recently from asking the Democrats that Ree Hart is running as the Democrat for Bermuda supervisor. She will oppose the winner of this Republican primary. There has been absolutely no information about her candidacy or about her selection anywhere in any newspaper in this area, in any web site relating to Chesterfield County, or in any campaign literature or documents from the County that I could find. I don't know why they don't want to inform the voter. I don't know where she stands on developments. But we do know where Jack Wilson stands. She has a problem getting in touch with the constitutents, but that is minor compared to the problems that her opponent has. I say now vote for Dorothy Jaeckle on June 12. Whether she should get my vote in November depends on what Ree Hart offers.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Republicans: Paul is OK; Forget the Rest
I saw the Republican debates both back in early May and on 2007 June 5. The first debate seemed to focus a pro-life attack on Giuliani; he did sort of OK, while Ron Paul won the debate easily. Gilmore finished last; he should go back and finish up the job of ending the car tax in Virginia. Tonight (June 5), all the Republicans except Paul showed in various ways why they should NOT be President. The debate featured so many references to God that I decided to account for them separately. God does not belong in a political campaign; it violates separation of church and state. Their treatment of gays was abysmal. The conclusions I come to are:
1. Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate for President, and
2. The more the candidates talk, the worse they get.
The evidence for 2 is that the candidates who finished 2nd to 4th are the minor rinky-dink candidates who don't get questioned as often. Certainly Brownback is no saint. Tonight the three big ones, along with Huckabee, finished last, all of them. In any case, here is the score:
Candidate, June score, May score, Total, deducted due to saying God
Paul, +11, +6, +17, -1
Thompson, -2, -3, -5, 0
Tancredo, -3, -2, -5, 0
Hunter, -4, -3, -7, -1
Brownback, -5, -7, -12, -3
Gilmore, -6, -10, -16, 0
McCain, -7, -9, -16, -3
Romney, -8, -7, -15, -3
Huckabee, -9, 0, -9, -3
Giuliani, -11, -1, -12, -2
An interesting curiosity is that the 2nd through 9th candidates have their negative scores in numerical order: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here are the summaries of the candidates:
1. Paul His statements reflect his libertarian views. He is the only Republican coming out in favor of bringing the troops soon. He trusts the Internet more than the media, and says that national IDs threaten civil liberties. He was the only Republican candidate to correctly identify the moral issue of this era: the War in Iraq. The rest mentioned taxes, spending, and family values, all of which are trivial compared to the War. He said that the War's objective was oil; among the other candidates, only Kucinich has said this. On the religion issue, he said that the First Amendment comes first. All this makes Paul the only Republican worth voting for. He is way ahead of the rest.
2. Tommy Thompson. I have to spell out his name because of Fred Thompson, who has not entered the race yet. He was not asked very often but he seemsed not to be as God-happy and terroristphobic as the other candidates. He did threaten vetoes all over the place, as though he was trying to best Clinton as being the veto monster. He would not send Bush to the UN.
3. Tancredo Several things wrong. He thinks English is a glue for this country. If so, it is an imported glue. English is not the native language of this country; it is the language of a country across the ocean, one that we fought a war of revolution against. He said that Bush governed as a liberal. No. Bush is no liberal.
4. Hunter He did not answer a question properly. His remarks to the lady whose brother died in Iraq were abusive. He said that the war was worth it. Really? Her brother is no longer with us. He said why we needed to go in there; he did not answer why he had to die. He also would consider nukes against Iran. OK, Hunter, if you want to pay $40 a gallon for gasoline.
5. Brownback Once again we consider a rinky-dink candidate. This time it’s a real gung-ho Biblebanger. He believes in creation, which to me is just plain false. His Iraq solution was interesting. A federation with three sort of independent countries. Too complicated. Better simply to make them independent states altogether. The problem here is that Mesopotamia would not have oil and would possibly cause trouble for Shia, Kurdistan, and maybe even Kuwait.
6. Gilmore As I said before, go back to Virginia and finish the car tax job. I still have to pay it. Mr. Gilmore said that he worked hard to make Virginia beautiful. Huh? He didn't stop the developers which are ruining the state. He said Iran is the reason we are in Iraq. I think that is an excuse to invade both countries. He talked about principles when asked what the moral issue was. He created an interesting candidate. Rudy McRomneyson. Well I've got one for him. How about Tanter Gilmibeeani McRomneysonson? That's right, all the Republicans except Paul.
7. McCain He says the hand of God is in the developmenjt of animals, so he really is partly in the creation camp. He offended gay people by saying that he does not want to reconsider "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT). Gays need to be admitted and considered as equals with other soldiers. He says that immigrants are God's children too. That scored him a positive point for saying that we are all part of one human family but a negative point for bringing God into it. McCain is tied for the worst republican right now (with Gilmore).
8. Romney. Romney wants to invest in refineries. Is that a good investment? Soon, oil production will be declining. Will the refineries be needed? Sounds to me like a politician shooting from the hip without checking the facts. He also says now is not the time to change "Don't Ask Don't Tell". He doesn't want the gay vote either. He mentioned God only once, but he also mentioned Christ, bringing in a particular religion into politics. Twice he did not answer the question. He says what we need to be is strong in military, economy, and family values, when there are much better things to be strong in. And one last thing. He says English should be our national language, but he does have a campaign web site in Spanish. Go figure.
9. Huckabee. This character goes out of his way to be the worst Presidential contender. Sorry, he didn't make it. He came out for creationism, as did several other candidates. To me, a candidate for President, to be acceptable, must believe in evolution. He insisted that the UCMJ be followed with respect to gays in the military. No, Huckabee. The idea is to change the UCMJ. As it stands now, it is discriminatory. But what really took the cake was to say that all human lives are valuable, which is Unitarian Universalism's First Principle, then connecting that to a pro-"life" stand on abortion. That is about the most misleading thing that any of these Republicans have said.
10. Giuliani. OK, what is this so-called liberal or moderate Republican doing in last place in this debate? It is his insistence that the effort to catch terrorists is a war. As I said before, it is not a war, and efforts to make it one will lead to real wars. He says if we fail in Iraq, it will become a base for Al Qaeda. Hey, it is already one. He agrees with Huckabee on evolution and wants other viewpoints to be considered. Giuliani, there should not be alternative viewpoints on established scientific fact. It's like having a free and open discussion on the flat Earth. He insists that nuclear power is safe. It is one option, but there are several problems with nuclear power, one of which is the danger of someone getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Lightning did interrupt his talk once; maybe it's the elements telling us that the God these people talk about doesn't exist. I thgouht that maybe (with a pro-choice stand) this candidate stood above the others, but after tonight, I don't think so.
To summarize, Ron Paul seems like a decent candidate, but letting everyone do what they want (especially with resources like oil) may not be the best in our era. Forget all the other candidates. They are not worthy to be President. The Republicans need to nominate Paul for President. If the candidate is Paul, then if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton (their worst contender), I would be undecided as to who I would go for. I would pick any other Democratic contender over Paul, and any of them, even Clinton, over any of the other Republicans.
1. Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate for President, and
2. The more the candidates talk, the worse they get.
The evidence for 2 is that the candidates who finished 2nd to 4th are the minor rinky-dink candidates who don't get questioned as often. Certainly Brownback is no saint. Tonight the three big ones, along with Huckabee, finished last, all of them. In any case, here is the score:
Candidate, June score, May score, Total, deducted due to saying God
Paul, +11, +6, +17, -1
Thompson, -2, -3, -5, 0
Tancredo, -3, -2, -5, 0
Hunter, -4, -3, -7, -1
Brownback, -5, -7, -12, -3
Gilmore, -6, -10, -16, 0
McCain, -7, -9, -16, -3
Romney, -8, -7, -15, -3
Huckabee, -9, 0, -9, -3
Giuliani, -11, -1, -12, -2
An interesting curiosity is that the 2nd through 9th candidates have their negative scores in numerical order: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here are the summaries of the candidates:
1. Paul His statements reflect his libertarian views. He is the only Republican coming out in favor of bringing the troops soon. He trusts the Internet more than the media, and says that national IDs threaten civil liberties. He was the only Republican candidate to correctly identify the moral issue of this era: the War in Iraq. The rest mentioned taxes, spending, and family values, all of which are trivial compared to the War. He said that the War's objective was oil; among the other candidates, only Kucinich has said this. On the religion issue, he said that the First Amendment comes first. All this makes Paul the only Republican worth voting for. He is way ahead of the rest.
2. Tommy Thompson. I have to spell out his name because of Fred Thompson, who has not entered the race yet. He was not asked very often but he seemsed not to be as God-happy and terroristphobic as the other candidates. He did threaten vetoes all over the place, as though he was trying to best Clinton as being the veto monster. He would not send Bush to the UN.
3. Tancredo Several things wrong. He thinks English is a glue for this country. If so, it is an imported glue. English is not the native language of this country; it is the language of a country across the ocean, one that we fought a war of revolution against. He said that Bush governed as a liberal. No. Bush is no liberal.
4. Hunter He did not answer a question properly. His remarks to the lady whose brother died in Iraq were abusive. He said that the war was worth it. Really? Her brother is no longer with us. He said why we needed to go in there; he did not answer why he had to die. He also would consider nukes against Iran. OK, Hunter, if you want to pay $40 a gallon for gasoline.
5. Brownback Once again we consider a rinky-dink candidate. This time it’s a real gung-ho Biblebanger. He believes in creation, which to me is just plain false. His Iraq solution was interesting. A federation with three sort of independent countries. Too complicated. Better simply to make them independent states altogether. The problem here is that Mesopotamia would not have oil and would possibly cause trouble for Shia, Kurdistan, and maybe even Kuwait.
6. Gilmore As I said before, go back to Virginia and finish the car tax job. I still have to pay it. Mr. Gilmore said that he worked hard to make Virginia beautiful. Huh? He didn't stop the developers which are ruining the state. He said Iran is the reason we are in Iraq. I think that is an excuse to invade both countries. He talked about principles when asked what the moral issue was. He created an interesting candidate. Rudy McRomneyson. Well I've got one for him. How about Tanter Gilmibeeani McRomneysonson? That's right, all the Republicans except Paul.
7. McCain He says the hand of God is in the developmenjt of animals, so he really is partly in the creation camp. He offended gay people by saying that he does not want to reconsider "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT). Gays need to be admitted and considered as equals with other soldiers. He says that immigrants are God's children too. That scored him a positive point for saying that we are all part of one human family but a negative point for bringing God into it. McCain is tied for the worst republican right now (with Gilmore).
8. Romney. Romney wants to invest in refineries. Is that a good investment? Soon, oil production will be declining. Will the refineries be needed? Sounds to me like a politician shooting from the hip without checking the facts. He also says now is not the time to change "Don't Ask Don't Tell". He doesn't want the gay vote either. He mentioned God only once, but he also mentioned Christ, bringing in a particular religion into politics. Twice he did not answer the question. He says what we need to be is strong in military, economy, and family values, when there are much better things to be strong in. And one last thing. He says English should be our national language, but he does have a campaign web site in Spanish. Go figure.
9. Huckabee. This character goes out of his way to be the worst Presidential contender. Sorry, he didn't make it. He came out for creationism, as did several other candidates. To me, a candidate for President, to be acceptable, must believe in evolution. He insisted that the UCMJ be followed with respect to gays in the military. No, Huckabee. The idea is to change the UCMJ. As it stands now, it is discriminatory. But what really took the cake was to say that all human lives are valuable, which is Unitarian Universalism's First Principle, then connecting that to a pro-"life" stand on abortion. That is about the most misleading thing that any of these Republicans have said.
10. Giuliani. OK, what is this so-called liberal or moderate Republican doing in last place in this debate? It is his insistence that the effort to catch terrorists is a war. As I said before, it is not a war, and efforts to make it one will lead to real wars. He says if we fail in Iraq, it will become a base for Al Qaeda. Hey, it is already one. He agrees with Huckabee on evolution and wants other viewpoints to be considered. Giuliani, there should not be alternative viewpoints on established scientific fact. It's like having a free and open discussion on the flat Earth. He insists that nuclear power is safe. It is one option, but there are several problems with nuclear power, one of which is the danger of someone getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Lightning did interrupt his talk once; maybe it's the elements telling us that the God these people talk about doesn't exist. I thgouht that maybe (with a pro-choice stand) this candidate stood above the others, but after tonight, I don't think so.
To summarize, Ron Paul seems like a decent candidate, but letting everyone do what they want (especially with resources like oil) may not be the best in our era. Forget all the other candidates. They are not worthy to be President. The Republicans need to nominate Paul for President. If the candidate is Paul, then if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton (their worst contender), I would be undecided as to who I would go for. I would pick any other Democratic contender over Paul, and any of them, even Clinton, over any of the other Republicans.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Wilson for Supervisor
I hhave been deluged with ads for Republican supervisor for Chesterfield County, Virginia. This county badly needs new supervisors. The present ones think that Chesterfield can expand forever and we can continue to dig up and dig up land to put assembly-line mansions all over the place. The two candidates are Dorothy Jaeckle and Jack Wilson. Which one to vote for?
First of all, I normally vote Democratic, but I have voted for Republicans and independents in the past. I am allowed to vote in the Republican primary; I don't have to be a member of their party. So if I did vote, which one would I vote for? Jack Wilson, that's who. This even though he is one of the worst election sign polluters we have had in this county. This is because he is much more likely to be responsive to the voters. I emailed Dorothy once about the idea of taxing indexes instead of absolute house values to avoid the problem of a boom in housing causing huge tax increases. She never returned my email. Jack Wilson did, and told me that is not possible. Further, he stopped at my door and I discussed the problem some more. To me that indicates that Wilson is more likely to take individual concerns into account if he is elected than is Jaeckle. I therefore urge Republican primary voters next week (June 12) to vote for Wilson.
First of all, I normally vote Democratic, but I have voted for Republicans and independents in the past. I am allowed to vote in the Republican primary; I don't have to be a member of their party. So if I did vote, which one would I vote for? Jack Wilson, that's who. This even though he is one of the worst election sign polluters we have had in this county. This is because he is much more likely to be responsive to the voters. I emailed Dorothy once about the idea of taxing indexes instead of absolute house values to avoid the problem of a boom in housing causing huge tax increases. She never returned my email. Jack Wilson did, and told me that is not possible. Further, he stopped at my door and I discussed the problem some more. To me that indicates that Wilson is more likely to take individual concerns into account if he is elected than is Jaeckle. I therefore urge Republican primary voters next week (June 12) to vote for Wilson.
Democratic New Hampshire Debate: Kucinich Sí, Clinton No
On 2007 June 3, the second Democratic debate was held in this great Presidential Contest, the biggest and most important election in American history. The same eight Democrats participated. Just as with last time, Kucinich was way ahead of the pack, and Clinton way, way behind. Otherwise, the candidates who performed well last time performed poorly this time and vice versa, so the remainder fo the pack form a muddled middle, in which one can't tell which is the best. Of course, this is with respect to just debates. It may be possible to pick a favorite on other grounds.
But let's stick to the debate for now. Here is how I think the candidates fared:
1. Clinton. Once again, she displayed insincerity, and further, she seems to have a penchant for quashing debate, as well. Several times, when Wolf or someone else asked her what if something should occur, she said she would not comment on anything hypothetical. Ms. Clinton, you are campaigning for President of the United States at the beginning of a crisis for our country, and you need to tell us under such "hypothetical conditions what you would do as President. And this I say to all the candidates: soon after you take office, the hypothetical will happen. Unusual events or contingencies do happen, and they are likely to happen in our age.
Ms. Clinton also claimed credit for surpluses at the beginning of Bush's term. The Clintons had nothing to do with that. The development of the Internet and the dot-com boom is what caused that. She tried to argue that "don't ask don't tell" was the best her husband could do for gays in the military. She did make an interesting quote from Goldwater, but I feel she is characterized by her statements that she should have known about Iraq. As far as I am concerned, if there were WMDs in Iraq, I still don't think the US should have invaded. If nominated, I probably will vote for her, unless Bloomberg runs. But to me she is the worst of the Democratic candidates.
2. Obama did better than last time. Among his positive points: the English language as an issue is a distraction, and his health plan is better than Edwards'. His biggest negative was defending contractors in the choice of Veteran's hospitals. In my opinion, finding a contractor to provide veterans with health care deprives the veteran of the right to choose. But I still think Obama's freshness is what we need in this country now.
3. Edwards. He did well last time, but this time he stumbled. His phrase "It's Obvious" is a putdown. Avoid using that phrase! He wanted states to determine what to do with gay marriage. This puts Edwards in the segregationist states' rights position. Many states will forbid it, and Edwards knows it. Perhaps his biggest asset tonight was saying that the US has lost its moral authority.
4. Richardson. This guy really surprised me late in the debates. He said that if China did not cooperate in ending the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, then perhaps we shouldn't go to the Beijing Olympics. This has happened twice before. The US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (And now the US has done it. Go figure.) I thought for sure this would ruin his candidacy, but I Googled and found that there already is a movement on to boycott the Beijing Olympics because of China's atrocious human rights record. So this is really nothing new. Still only Kucinich and Richardson would support such a boycott. Richardson had a tendency to talk on and on, leading the moderators to try to cut him off. He did say that a veteran ("hero") should have a health card good anywhere, contractors or no. His biggest negative was saying that he was a "pro-growth" Democrat. No, Richardson. There cannot be indefinite growth. This sort of infinite-growth mentality has led our world to its present plight with peak oil, global warming, and shortages of food, lithium and other commodities.
5. Biden Also big improvement since last debate. He really came out fighting in the last few moments. He emphatically said something should be done about Darfur, including troops to take out the Jenjaweed. He told us that the Iran crisis may be a Bush-media concocted hype, for he told us that they are 10 years away from a weapon, and that its government is weak and unpopular and that it is importing oil.
6. Kucinich Just as good as last time. He maintained a huge lead on the others. He says "no money, no bill" on Iraq, and refuses to use assassination (of Osama) as a foreign policy tool. He quoted Kennedy at one time, in dealing with the energy crisis and with health care. He was the only candidate to say the Iraq war's reason was oil. At times, though, he was too long-winded.
7. Gravel Mainly there to provoke the others. He did not do too badly. He advocated a carbon tax. We need that now, badly. He does not want mandatory programs, such as mandatory country service (some read that as "draft"). He does not want the Social Security fund raided. Correct. That is to be left alone for Social Security purposes only.
8. Dodd Too long-winded. He also supports a carbon tax, and rebates for poor people. He would veto any bill that contains earmarks, including those for Connecticut, his home state. However, he is pro-growth. He's not going to get nominated, anyway.
The point standings, giving this time and total of both, are
Clinton, -6, -15
Obama, 1, 0
Edwards, -1, 2
Richardson, -2,1
Kucinich, 6, 15
Gravel, 2, 1
Biden, 2,1
Dodd, 0,2
Note that all candidates now have totals of 0, 1, or 2, except Clinton and Kucinich.
I missed reviewing the Republicans. I will say here that Ron Paul was the best of them. I will review both Republican debates after tomorrow night's (2007 June 5) debates in New Hampshire.
But let's stick to the debate for now. Here is how I think the candidates fared:
1. Clinton. Once again, she displayed insincerity, and further, she seems to have a penchant for quashing debate, as well. Several times, when Wolf or someone else asked her what if something should occur, she said she would not comment on anything hypothetical. Ms. Clinton, you are campaigning for President of the United States at the beginning of a crisis for our country, and you need to tell us under such "hypothetical conditions what you would do as President. And this I say to all the candidates: soon after you take office, the hypothetical will happen. Unusual events or contingencies do happen, and they are likely to happen in our age.
Ms. Clinton also claimed credit for surpluses at the beginning of Bush's term. The Clintons had nothing to do with that. The development of the Internet and the dot-com boom is what caused that. She tried to argue that "don't ask don't tell" was the best her husband could do for gays in the military. She did make an interesting quote from Goldwater, but I feel she is characterized by her statements that she should have known about Iraq. As far as I am concerned, if there were WMDs in Iraq, I still don't think the US should have invaded. If nominated, I probably will vote for her, unless Bloomberg runs. But to me she is the worst of the Democratic candidates.
2. Obama did better than last time. Among his positive points: the English language as an issue is a distraction, and his health plan is better than Edwards'. His biggest negative was defending contractors in the choice of Veteran's hospitals. In my opinion, finding a contractor to provide veterans with health care deprives the veteran of the right to choose. But I still think Obama's freshness is what we need in this country now.
3. Edwards. He did well last time, but this time he stumbled. His phrase "It's Obvious" is a putdown. Avoid using that phrase! He wanted states to determine what to do with gay marriage. This puts Edwards in the segregationist states' rights position. Many states will forbid it, and Edwards knows it. Perhaps his biggest asset tonight was saying that the US has lost its moral authority.
4. Richardson. This guy really surprised me late in the debates. He said that if China did not cooperate in ending the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, then perhaps we shouldn't go to the Beijing Olympics. This has happened twice before. The US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (And now the US has done it. Go figure.) I thought for sure this would ruin his candidacy, but I Googled and found that there already is a movement on to boycott the Beijing Olympics because of China's atrocious human rights record. So this is really nothing new. Still only Kucinich and Richardson would support such a boycott. Richardson had a tendency to talk on and on, leading the moderators to try to cut him off. He did say that a veteran ("hero") should have a health card good anywhere, contractors or no. His biggest negative was saying that he was a "pro-growth" Democrat. No, Richardson. There cannot be indefinite growth. This sort of infinite-growth mentality has led our world to its present plight with peak oil, global warming, and shortages of food, lithium and other commodities.
5. Biden Also big improvement since last debate. He really came out fighting in the last few moments. He emphatically said something should be done about Darfur, including troops to take out the Jenjaweed. He told us that the Iran crisis may be a Bush-media concocted hype, for he told us that they are 10 years away from a weapon, and that its government is weak and unpopular and that it is importing oil.
6. Kucinich Just as good as last time. He maintained a huge lead on the others. He says "no money, no bill" on Iraq, and refuses to use assassination (of Osama) as a foreign policy tool. He quoted Kennedy at one time, in dealing with the energy crisis and with health care. He was the only candidate to say the Iraq war's reason was oil. At times, though, he was too long-winded.
7. Gravel Mainly there to provoke the others. He did not do too badly. He advocated a carbon tax. We need that now, badly. He does not want mandatory programs, such as mandatory country service (some read that as "draft"). He does not want the Social Security fund raided. Correct. That is to be left alone for Social Security purposes only.
8. Dodd Too long-winded. He also supports a carbon tax, and rebates for poor people. He would veto any bill that contains earmarks, including those for Connecticut, his home state. However, he is pro-growth. He's not going to get nominated, anyway.
The point standings, giving this time and total of both, are
Clinton, -6, -15
Obama, 1, 0
Edwards, -1, 2
Richardson, -2,1
Kucinich, 6, 15
Gravel, 2, 1
Biden, 2,1
Dodd, 0,2
Note that all candidates now have totals of 0, 1, or 2, except Clinton and Kucinich.
I missed reviewing the Republicans. I will say here that Ron Paul was the best of them. I will review both Republican debates after tomorrow night's (2007 June 5) debates in New Hampshire.
