Even though there have been minor scandals (they really weren't scandals but were treated that way), not much has changed in the election scene. Clinton and Obama continue to fight while McCain continues to truck along, keeping a fairly low profile. He made a trip recently to Iraq but he mostly just holds fundraising meetings and rallies to continue to build support leading up to the final showdown once the two conventions are held. McCain's in a fabulous position right now. This is one of the main reasons Romney dropped out early - the Republicans can build unity while the Democrats bicker. An interesting development is that a significant number of Democrats said - in a recent poll - that they will likely defect and vote for McCain. Quite a few Democrats who despise Clinton will vote McCain should Clinton win the nomination and quite a few Democrats who despise Obama will vote for McCain should Obama win.
Another good sign for John McCain is the general dislike of Congress, which currently is controlled by the Democratic Party. Even though most Americans do not approve of Pres. Bush even more Americans do not approve of the job the Congress has been doing. There is a significant disapproval of both parties' politicians but right now it seems to go against the Democrats more than the Republicans, overall.
Overall, as I already stated, there hasn't been that much to write about. I'll update this website every once in a while and then pick it up as the election draws nearer.
Right now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are virtually tied for the Democratic nomination. However, Obama has the lead and likely will keep it but neither candidate will likely receive all the delegates she or he will need to secure the nomination (due to unseated delegates from early primaries). Superdelegates will thus play a large role in determining the nominee. Clinton, being part of the old Establishment, should be able to gain a lot of support from superdelegates - and she has already. She has showed herself to be one of the most corrupt and dishonest politicians. She's been a part of scandals ever since the 1970s. Clinton also is not afraid to dig up dirt on candidates and disseminate the infomation if the person does not play her game. What's surprising is that so little negative about Obama has come out - that alone shows that he's an honest person. True, he holds his cards close to his chest but even Hillary hasn't discovered anything from his past that could seriously injure his campaign. Sen. Clinton puts on a good show. She's very adept at appearing honest and straightforward. She is anything but that. She has many admirable qualities but honesty is not one of them. Besides, we don't need another Clinton in the White House (which would mean also having Bill Clinton back in there as a behind-the-scenes president - 2 for the price of 1!).
Obama faces much harsher prejudice than Hillary does (well, prejudice not based on political and personal record). There is still significant anti-African-American racism in the country; much of it from within the Democratic party, whose pandering policies, which are presented under the auspices of helping the "poor little minorities," more often than notdo in fact hurt minorities in the long run. Obama has great support in the country but his staunchest supporters are young people and African-Americans. Both groups have historically low voter turnout. This is why the Democratic Party leaders are likely pulling more for Hillary than for Obama. She's also more moderate than he is. She's also sleazy. Democrats don't have a problem with sleaze (many Republicans don't either, for that matter) - look at the Clintons and the Kennedys. Democrats tend to be more liberal. Liberals tend to be more permissive. Permissiveness leads to acceptance of everything, including sleaze. OK, so I slid down a bit of a slippery slope but that's how the terrain goes. Clinton is more than willing to play the old Establishment game, after all, she helped run it in the 1990s.
While I don't believe that either Democrat can beat McCain in the general election, it certainly will be more interesting to have Obama in the race (and not just as a Vice President - if I were him I'd keep my distance from Hillary). Hillary needs to leave politics and go do something else like win a Nobel Peace prize.
CNN recently posted a story stating that 53 Iraqis were killed in a pair of bomb blasts. One bomb went off. As a group of people gathered to help the wounded, a suicide bomber wearing a bomb set the bomb off, killing many people. I'm one who always tries to see the positive in people and give people credit where credit is due but these acts are despicable. I have great respect for Muslim beliefs and the Islam religion. These radical Jihadists though are at odds with everything good about Islam. They seek to kill any who do not share their beliefs. Just think about the tactics they used. They set off one bomb, injuring many and killing a few. Then they wait for a crowd to gather to help - to show basic human decency and empathy. At this point a suicide bomber blows himself (assuming the person was male) up, injuring far more and killing many more than the first blast did. What these terrorists do makes any of the harshest interrogation techniques U.S. personnel may use look like massages. Radical Islam is completely incompatible with democracy.
We have to choose a president who will appropriately respond to this movement. We need someone who realizes that the only threats to America do not just come from within (many do, but not all). We also have a responsibility to fight radical Islam, which threatens the sovereignty and democracy of other nations. It's easy to be opposed to the initial invasion of Iraq but to pull out prematurely would be immoral. The Iraqis need to (and are) take responsibility for their own country but they need help. Russia is still struggling to become a working democracy and the USSR ended a number of years ago. Change takes time. Violent change can take longer because change is forced instead of chosen. I have to laugh every time I hear Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama talking about starting to pull out of Iraq as soon as they are elected. It's a naive promise. I'd love to see it happen if Iraqi (and American) lives weren't at stake (plus all the trouble it would cause down the line). Radical Islamists only understand the language of violence. It's not a language we like to speak but it's, unfortunately, the only way to deal with these terrorists. I'm nearly as pacifistic as people come but there comes a time to fight. Now is the time to fight. We must continue to fight if we want to preserve freedom and democracy in the world and in our own country. John McCain will handle the threat of Radical Islamist movements better than either Clinton or Obama would.
I decided to redo the site due to administration difficulties of the old site. This site should be more accessible. I am slowly re-posting all the old posts. Thanks for your patience.
The following post started as a response to an article arguing in favor of abortion (the link is not provided here). So what does abortion have to do with the 2008 elections? There are a few core issues that I feel are the most important political issues. Abortion is one of them. I find it very difficult to vote for someone who supports abortions. It would take a lot of issue agreement in other areas between that candidate and myself for me to vote for her or him. I won't go as far as saying that I will never vote for candidates who support abortion but I am disinclined to favorably cast my vote for them. This is why that for all the admirable qualities that the various Democratic candidates have, I have not been able to get behind any of them and offer true support. I admire and respect their good politics and policies (and conversely don't admire their bad politics and policies) but the social issues are like a gorilla in a family of chimpanzees; they outweigh the rest. Therefore, the candidates that I can really support are, at their core, socially conservative.
By Jared Tanner & Daniel Kay
Advocates of "abortion rights" have labeled their movement pro-choice, as if without abortion there is no choice. It's an insidious term because it leads to the implication that if you oppose abortion you are againstfreedom, liberty, and personal choice (e.g., "Don't tell me what to do with my body!"). The issue about abortion has never been about choice though, it's about morality and responsibility. The evidence for this is argued as follows: We are pro-choice when it comes to abortion - a woman can choose not to get pregnant in the first place. [We are not insinuating that women are solely responsible for pregnancies or for abortions, they clearly are not; however, we chose to limit our focus to women for conciseness]. A choice was made at some point to take some action (even if it was choosing to do nothing) that directly led to pregnancy. This leads into one of the exceptions when abortions should be allowed: in cases of rape (and incest). If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion if it's what she wants to do. This is because the woman's choice was taken away from her; in a sense, pregnancy was violently forced upon her. Again, abortion is not really about choice - choice is always there whether or not abortions are legal. Most pro-choice supporters are actually pro-abortion - in which the term pro-choice is used as a clever cover. Common tenets of this movement are: first, the idea that the world is over-populated and abortion is a means of minimizing the growth of the population; second, and most importantly, is the idea that women who are aborting their children are the kinds of people that will raise poor quality citizens and abortion will limit this. To the elitist, abortion is killing two birds with one choice (pun intended).
Many forget that abortion is about morality and life. When does human life begin - at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between? We don't know. It's actually irrelevant. A little protoplasmic bundle, a little blastocyst will turn into a person if a pregnancy is allowed to continue. There is no question about that. If there is something wrong with the embryo, oftentimes the embryo or fetus will spontaneously abort. As inane as this sounds, humans don't have penguin babies or trees or whatever else. Humans have human babies, so the fertilized egg, the blastocyst, the embryo - whether or not it constitutes human life - will in fact grow into a person. The clearest point at which the formula to a single human life is set in motion and on a self-driven course of development is at conception.