Excuse me while I temporarily abandon my usually mild-mannered demeanor and civil discourse.
So, the bail-out was voted down. All looked good when mysteriously, 20 yea's became nay's and the bill collapsed. The result? The market went into a free fall, with the Dow closing down around 770 points.
And what does the Congressional leadership have to say about this? Just that it is the Republicans' fault. Really? Seeing as how they are the minority of Congress, it doesn't seem like you really need them to pass it Pelosi. Seems more like it's YOUR fault that this didn't get passed, especially because of your wonderful pre-vote speech. And she ranted against those Republicans who didn't show up to talks, but told McCain he wasn't needed.
And you, the current majority of Americans, want to continue this free-for-all by electing the leader of this party? A party that failed to accomplish any of its "100 hour" plans for their entrance into Congress? A party that cannot put its partisan bickering aside to help you, the regular American?
And a man who is so egotistical, that he wouldn't even stop campaigning to help the country out of this crisis.
Is that a man who is looking out for you? Why should you look out for him, when he won't even do the job he is currently paid to do?
I really hope Americans wise up, because I don't want to have to move to Canada. it's cold, and I don't speak french.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Bail Out?
I seem to be in a minority here...I am one of the few who support a "bail out", as it is called.
That doesn't mean that I support the bill in it's current form. I won't lie, I have no idea what is going on in it. Legislative language is pretty confusing, and even I have trouble walking through it. I don't know who is getting what, when, or how.
I do know, though, that something has to be done. We cannot just watch as our economy crumbles around us, sending a butterfly effect across the globe. Just tonight it was announced that a major mortgage lender in the UK is being nationalized and sold. Did that just happen coincidentally? I think not.
I think that John McCain made the right decision on Thursday by suspending his campaign. He is still a US Senator, no matter what other office he is running for. if Senator Obama wanted to shirk his duties while running for higher office, he should have appointed someone to take his post in the Senate and do the work he was elected to do. His argument that the President needs to "multitask" was completely futile. How was Obama multitasking? He was out doing what he has been doing for months. He had just enough time to show up at the White House for a photo op, then jet back out onto the campaign trail.
So, who really wants to fix our nation? The man who potentially sacrifices his presidential campaign to go back to DC to do the job he was elected to do and to get the job done, or the guy who stays on the trail, mocking the decision of his opponent, and offering no viable solutions for the problem at hand?
That doesn't mean that I support the bill in it's current form. I won't lie, I have no idea what is going on in it. Legislative language is pretty confusing, and even I have trouble walking through it. I don't know who is getting what, when, or how.
I do know, though, that something has to be done. We cannot just watch as our economy crumbles around us, sending a butterfly effect across the globe. Just tonight it was announced that a major mortgage lender in the UK is being nationalized and sold. Did that just happen coincidentally? I think not.
I think that John McCain made the right decision on Thursday by suspending his campaign. He is still a US Senator, no matter what other office he is running for. if Senator Obama wanted to shirk his duties while running for higher office, he should have appointed someone to take his post in the Senate and do the work he was elected to do. His argument that the President needs to "multitask" was completely futile. How was Obama multitasking? He was out doing what he has been doing for months. He had just enough time to show up at the White House for a photo op, then jet back out onto the campaign trail.
So, who really wants to fix our nation? The man who potentially sacrifices his presidential campaign to go back to DC to do the job he was elected to do and to get the job done, or the guy who stays on the trail, mocking the decision of his opponent, and offering no viable solutions for the problem at hand?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
An Annual Necessity
Tomorrow is September 11.
It has been seven years since America was attacked by members of al Queda and over 3,000 Americans innocently lost their lives.
It has been seven years since America had its false blanket of security ripped off of it, and the nation became exposed to the threats it faced all over the world.
And yet, as happens every year, it seems more and more people feel less and less on this day. People go about their lives and only realize what day it is if they are told so by someone.
This is exactly what needs not to happen. It is the reason most people are against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have done something we vowed never to do.
We have forgotten.
We have forgotten the horror we felt after learning of the attacks. We have forgotten the resolve we felt about letting the terrorists know our anger. We have forgotten the unity we felt because we all shared the same pain.
Most of all, we have forgotten that we are ALL americans. No matter what political affiliation, no matter what skin color, no matter what economic class.
All of us are Americans.
This year, please remember. Remember everything you felt on that day. Remember that we are all Americans. And most of all, remember your promise to never forget.
It has been seven years since America was attacked by members of al Queda and over 3,000 Americans innocently lost their lives.
It has been seven years since America had its false blanket of security ripped off of it, and the nation became exposed to the threats it faced all over the world.
And yet, as happens every year, it seems more and more people feel less and less on this day. People go about their lives and only realize what day it is if they are told so by someone.
This is exactly what needs not to happen. It is the reason most people are against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have done something we vowed never to do.
We have forgotten.
We have forgotten the horror we felt after learning of the attacks. We have forgotten the resolve we felt about letting the terrorists know our anger. We have forgotten the unity we felt because we all shared the same pain.
Most of all, we have forgotten that we are ALL americans. No matter what political affiliation, no matter what skin color, no matter what economic class.
All of us are Americans.
This year, please remember. Remember everything you felt on that day. Remember that we are all Americans. And most of all, remember your promise to never forget.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Tale of the Stolen News Cycle
Last night, Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination. It was a historic moment, as he is the first person of color to be nominated for the presidency. His speech took place in the middle of Mile High Stadium, to a crowd of 85,000. The move, said to have been made to allow people to see Obama, came across as arrogant and lofty. I have said many times that people are blinded by the "rock star appeal" of Obama, and last night showed that. People in the crowd were crying, and I'm sure someone fainted. People are so blinded when it comes to Obama. His speech last night outlines his plans, but gave no "how", only "whats." Obama seems to fail to realize that he cannot just snap his fingers and achieve his policies. He, and his followers, fail to realize that his plans must go through a Congress that has the potential to look different from the one we currently have. What will the faithful think when none of the ideals and "change" Obama hopes to achieve come through?
His speech also came across as angry. In print, it is a good speech, seemingly like a State of the Union. Delivered, however, he seemed angry. At times even yelling, it seemed. Thankfully, he avoided the obvious pratfall of milking the anniversary of the "I Have A Dream" speech.
However, Obama's glory was short lived. Nearly the moment after his speech ended, attention turned towards McCain and who he would pick as his VP. Somehow, the McCain camp managed to keep his pick a secret up until an hour before he planned to reveal it himself.
His pick was from way left field. Sarah Palin is a first term governor from Alaska. At first I was worried. A woman I had never heard was going to be next in line for the presidency. So, I read up on her. She is a very strict conservative. While I'm not a fan of her view on gay rights, she seems solid in her convictions. She is a mom, was on PTA, then was elected to city council, mayor, and beat the incumbent Republican governor in a primary to then win the governorship.
Now, the Obama people are going to try and throw the experience argument back at McCain. However, Palin has eight years executive experience. Unlike anyone else running, she has actual experience running something. I believe that one year of governorship is more preparatory for the presidency than almost 4 years in the Senate.
She is new. She is fresh. And she is CHANGE! This choice was a big gamble, but McCain is gonna hit 21 with this one. I am more revved up for this campaign and more excited about politics than I have ever been, and I believe that is just the effect McCain is going for.
His speech also came across as angry. In print, it is a good speech, seemingly like a State of the Union. Delivered, however, he seemed angry. At times even yelling, it seemed. Thankfully, he avoided the obvious pratfall of milking the anniversary of the "I Have A Dream" speech.
However, Obama's glory was short lived. Nearly the moment after his speech ended, attention turned towards McCain and who he would pick as his VP. Somehow, the McCain camp managed to keep his pick a secret up until an hour before he planned to reveal it himself.
His pick was from way left field. Sarah Palin is a first term governor from Alaska. At first I was worried. A woman I had never heard was going to be next in line for the presidency. So, I read up on her. She is a very strict conservative. While I'm not a fan of her view on gay rights, she seems solid in her convictions. She is a mom, was on PTA, then was elected to city council, mayor, and beat the incumbent Republican governor in a primary to then win the governorship.
Now, the Obama people are going to try and throw the experience argument back at McCain. However, Palin has eight years executive experience. Unlike anyone else running, she has actual experience running something. I believe that one year of governorship is more preparatory for the presidency than almost 4 years in the Senate.
She is new. She is fresh. And she is CHANGE! This choice was a big gamble, but McCain is gonna hit 21 with this one. I am more revved up for this campaign and more excited about politics than I have ever been, and I believe that is just the effect McCain is going for.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Let the Games Begin...
Zogby polls out today show a change in the tides for the Clinton campaign. According to the polls, Clinton looses by at least 4 points to every major Republican candidate.
This comes on the heels of Clinton's rapidly declining poll numbers in Iowa, as Obama is gaining on her heels.
We're only five weeks until the crucial caucus, and things are not looking good for Clinton.
Another Iowa surprise, Mike Huckabee is quickly catching up to Mitt Romney. Romney, who had spent large amounts of money on early campaign ads in the state, seemed to have the caucus locked up. Not so, it seems.
When everything seemed all but certain, the rug was pulled out from under the 2008 horse race. Clinton seemed to be a sure-bet for the Democratic nomination. However, since her disastrous debate performances on CNN and MSNBC, and the question-placing scandal, she has been steadily slipping in the polls, allowing Barack Obama to gain momentum. Mitt Romeny seemed virtually untouchable in Iowa, with all other candidates seemingly giving up hope of winning Iowa, and looking toward other primaries.
It seems the largest underestimation made by pundits was the voting pool of the Iowa caucus. These are not your Hollywood Liberal or your East-Coast conservatives. These are middle americans. They have traditional values. Clinton is a bit too radical for the midwest. John Edwards is the most traditional, it seems, of the democratic candidates. Recently, he has been gaining in Iowa, but he needs a bigger surge to have any hope of getting the nomination.
Romney, while a fiscal conservative, has flip-flopped on abortion. His religious views may not sit well in the heartland as well. However, Huckabee is the embodiment of traditional values. He has had consistent debate preformances, and gets better with each one. He is personable, funny, and immensely likable. It is entirely possible for Huckabee to pull off an upset in iowa, which would spell bad new for Romney, and good news for Rudy Giuliani.
We're five weeks away, and anything could happen. Let the games begin!
This comes on the heels of Clinton's rapidly declining poll numbers in Iowa, as Obama is gaining on her heels.
We're only five weeks until the crucial caucus, and things are not looking good for Clinton.
Another Iowa surprise, Mike Huckabee is quickly catching up to Mitt Romney. Romney, who had spent large amounts of money on early campaign ads in the state, seemed to have the caucus locked up. Not so, it seems.
When everything seemed all but certain, the rug was pulled out from under the 2008 horse race. Clinton seemed to be a sure-bet for the Democratic nomination. However, since her disastrous debate performances on CNN and MSNBC, and the question-placing scandal, she has been steadily slipping in the polls, allowing Barack Obama to gain momentum. Mitt Romeny seemed virtually untouchable in Iowa, with all other candidates seemingly giving up hope of winning Iowa, and looking toward other primaries.
It seems the largest underestimation made by pundits was the voting pool of the Iowa caucus. These are not your Hollywood Liberal or your East-Coast conservatives. These are middle americans. They have traditional values. Clinton is a bit too radical for the midwest. John Edwards is the most traditional, it seems, of the democratic candidates. Recently, he has been gaining in Iowa, but he needs a bigger surge to have any hope of getting the nomination.
Romney, while a fiscal conservative, has flip-flopped on abortion. His religious views may not sit well in the heartland as well. However, Huckabee is the embodiment of traditional values. He has had consistent debate preformances, and gets better with each one. He is personable, funny, and immensely likable. It is entirely possible for Huckabee to pull off an upset in iowa, which would spell bad new for Romney, and good news for Rudy Giuliani.
We're five weeks away, and anything could happen. Let the games begin!
Monday, September 17, 2007
Bob Woodward at Indiana University
An eclectic crowd filled the IU Auditorium Monday night to witness a presentation by legendary journalist Bob Woodward.
Woodward’s presentation centered on his soon-to-be, 4-book “Bush at War” series, exploring the Bush administrations military decisions form the war in Afghanistan until now.
Best known for his reporting with Carl Bernstein on the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post, Woodward spoke objectively about his two-day, three and a half hour interview sessions with President Bush, and about what he learned by using his investigative skills.
Woodward spoke candidly, revealing his shock when learning that President Bush did not consult his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, when deciding to go to war, and revealing Bush’s religious convictions, and how they impact his decision making.
“He told me, ‘I consulted a higher father,’” Woodward said, to laughter from the audience.
Woodward’s humor carried through the night, starting with a joke about President Bush’s literacy, to President Bill Clinton’s loquaciousness.
For the most part, however, Woodward was serious. He talked at length about the war in Iraq. He revealed that he had learned that the war was not planned well, and that estimations about its difficulty were vastly underestimated.
He was most engaging when speaking about the personality of President Bush. During his interview with the president, he was taken aback by Bush’s statement that we (the United States), “have a duty to free and liberate people” and a “zeal to free.” Woodward said such expressions show the most about the belief system of a leader, and warned to be on the look out for such phrases this election cycle.
He also spoke about the president’s determination, joking about the president’s self-coined title, “the decider.” Woodward spoke about how the president’s self-confidence keeps him in a “state of denial,” the title of Woodward’s newest book. Woodward said that when a very damaging intelligence report about a rise in terrorist attack came out, the president kept it silent, and made a speech the same day speaking about the new turn the US had made in Iraq.
The evening ended with a question and answer session. When asked what questions journalists are not asking, Woodward responded that they were all being asked, just not answered well. He expressed his support for unnamed sources (something he made famous) by saying that you sometimes can only get the truth by enforcing the security of those who have it, and believes unnamed sources are being underused in journalism today.
He was also asked about what lessons he has learned from his work on the Watergate scandal. He felt his most important lesson was to, “work at night.” Saying, “the truth comes out” when sources are made comfortable, usually over dinner or at one’s house. He also said he learned to go slowly, confirming everything, and making sure one has their facts straight.
He expressed his dislike for the “tell is now” journalism of the internet and cable news, saying it allowed for more mistakes, but said he likes blogs. He said that bloggers held people accountable in a way journalists did not.
He ended his answers by talking about the “demon of pomposity.” Woodward said that journalists should not feel they know everything, that they should become less egotistical, and that journalists need to keep asking questions (and that they should work at night).
Woodward’s presentation centered on his soon-to-be, 4-book “Bush at War” series, exploring the Bush administrations military decisions form the war in Afghanistan until now.
Best known for his reporting with Carl Bernstein on the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post, Woodward spoke objectively about his two-day, three and a half hour interview sessions with President Bush, and about what he learned by using his investigative skills.
Woodward spoke candidly, revealing his shock when learning that President Bush did not consult his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, when deciding to go to war, and revealing Bush’s religious convictions, and how they impact his decision making.
“He told me, ‘I consulted a higher father,’” Woodward said, to laughter from the audience.
Woodward’s humor carried through the night, starting with a joke about President Bush’s literacy, to President Bill Clinton’s loquaciousness.
For the most part, however, Woodward was serious. He talked at length about the war in Iraq. He revealed that he had learned that the war was not planned well, and that estimations about its difficulty were vastly underestimated.
He was most engaging when speaking about the personality of President Bush. During his interview with the president, he was taken aback by Bush’s statement that we (the United States), “have a duty to free and liberate people” and a “zeal to free.” Woodward said such expressions show the most about the belief system of a leader, and warned to be on the look out for such phrases this election cycle.
He also spoke about the president’s determination, joking about the president’s self-coined title, “the decider.” Woodward spoke about how the president’s self-confidence keeps him in a “state of denial,” the title of Woodward’s newest book. Woodward said that when a very damaging intelligence report about a rise in terrorist attack came out, the president kept it silent, and made a speech the same day speaking about the new turn the US had made in Iraq.
The evening ended with a question and answer session. When asked what questions journalists are not asking, Woodward responded that they were all being asked, just not answered well. He expressed his support for unnamed sources (something he made famous) by saying that you sometimes can only get the truth by enforcing the security of those who have it, and believes unnamed sources are being underused in journalism today.
He was also asked about what lessons he has learned from his work on the Watergate scandal. He felt his most important lesson was to, “work at night.” Saying, “the truth comes out” when sources are made comfortable, usually over dinner or at one’s house. He also said he learned to go slowly, confirming everything, and making sure one has their facts straight.
He expressed his dislike for the “tell is now” journalism of the internet and cable news, saying it allowed for more mistakes, but said he likes blogs. He said that bloggers held people accountable in a way journalists did not.
He ended his answers by talking about the “demon of pomposity.” Woodward said that journalists should not feel they know everything, that they should become less egotistical, and that journalists need to keep asking questions (and that they should work at night).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)