Democratic Debate Analysis

Let’s look at the Pro’s and Con’s of the Democratic Primary candidates from the debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire last night.

Hillary Clinton

Things I liked: Mentioning Congressman Kucinich was probably the best thing she said the entire night (well, second at least). Other then that it was the same old rhetoric. She did, however, take a firm stance against torture when asked if it was a necessary policy to stop terrorists. The most important thing to take out of the debate for Clinton was her response to her husband’s opinion. Moderator Tim Russert read a quotation relating to foreign policy which Hillary disagreed with. After hearing Hillary’s disagreement, Russert mentioned that the statement was made by Bill Clinton in which Hillary responded in saying “Well he isn’t the one standing up here right now.” She could not have answered that question any better.

Things I didn’t like: She seems to have this arrogance whenever she is criticized. The same way President Bush would scowl whenever his policies were questioned in debates, Hillary mockingly laughs. The American people do not need another overly arrogant president. As far as her policy goes: she refused to say the troops will be out of Iraq in the foreseeable future, thinks the Democratic party is pushing “hard” to change Bush’s Iraq policy (which is total rubbish), refuses to answer certain questions, and has made a laundry list of misjudgments regarding policy in her past and refuses to take responsibility (I am referring to the 93-94 Healthcare push, the Iraq War vote, and war funds voting). I guarantee that if elected Clinton will not end the war in her first term. That’s five more years of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed. On a side note, she voted yes to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. This is just opening the door for a war with Iran.

Barack Obama

Things I liked: Did a nice job responding to the criticism that he lacks that judgment through experience to lead a nation.

Things I didn’t like: Obama is my number two candidate, but last night was awful for him. Every political analysist agrees the only way Obama will win the primary is if he engages in a debate with Clinton and challenges her stances. Another missed opportunity last night for the Obama camp. He showed no enthusiasm in answering any questions and not only seemed very whimsical in explaining his position but also seemed tired and boring. When asked about nuclear power he responded saying that nothing should be taken off the board. It’s the 21st century and there is still no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, why is this even still on the board in the first place! Obama also failed (like most of the other candidates) to actually give a viable plan for Iraq. Oh ya, and…rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Why can none of the top tire candidates ever be honest with the American people? P.S. – he joined Clinton in voting yes to Lieberman’s Senate Bill regarding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Not a very peaceful move if you ask me.

John Edwards

Things I liked: Edwards really impressed me last night. He was the only candidate that actually attempted to start a debate with Hillary. He appeared very presidential and constantly elaborated on the differences between his own policies and the policies of the other candidates. One thing of importance which he mentioned was his plan for healthcare. Edwards criticized the other candidates for making decisions regarding Healthcare in Washington with lobbyists while the American people are kept out of the loop. Whether he actually would get the American populace involved in deciding how to solve the country’s healthcare crisis remains to be seen, but it is a great way to think about solving our problems.

Things I didn’t like: He sounded very hostile toward Iran last night. Clearly we need a president that will not be bullied by Iran, but threatening sanctions seems the wrong way to go about it. Making threats will only increase tension between the United States and foreign countries. He also seemed to display somewhat of a short fuse last night when Tim Russert began questioning his $400 haircuts - responding in explaining how hard he worked to earn that money to get the haircut. It just seems disingenuous for someone to run on a platform of understanding the American people and bringing politics back to them while he spends money like a celebrity. Do not misunderstand me, it is his earned money and he could spend it as he likes, but that does not mean he can not be openly criticized for it.

Bill Richardson

Things I liked: Separated himself from the other top three candidates by promising to bring the troops home unlike Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. He also hit the nail on the head when he criticized Clinton for saying the Congress has done everything it can to change course in Iraq. A few times last night he played the ambassador card, which I find acceptable because he does have the experience in foreign relations that some of the other candidates lack. Unfortunately, this card does not work against Biden or Clinton.

Things I didn’t like: Did not rule out supporting an Israeli strike against Iran as a matter of past United States policy. Wouldn’t his job as president be to alter policy? He also supports increasing the bureaucracy to solve the immigration dilemma. Using economic growth to solve the immigration problem will not work and he needs to find a better way to address the problem. Richardson is not a bad candidate but he doesn’t seem to have a well enough developed platform to really make a push for the presidency.

Christopher Dodd

Things I liked: He was one of the candidates that made the pledge to get the troops out of Iraq by 2013. He also supported a temporary suspension of imports from China until the products are deemed safe. Those seem to be the only two issues where he separated himself from the other candidates last night.

Things I didn’t like: Like almost all the other candidates Dodd does not give any actual plan to solve the crumbling infrastructure of Iraq. I am also very skeptical about his Social Security plan. It is hard to criticize him since none of the candidates really have a realistic solution to the Social Security crisis, but using $97,000 for the cut-off mark in Social Security seems unfair to the poor class. Like Richardson, Dodd does not have enough political “umph” to really gain anywhere. I also liked that he voted against Lieberman’s bill earlier in the week.

Joe Biden

Things I liked: Biden was one of the only candidates to support a carbon tax to try to wean Americans off their dependency on energy which is detrimental to the planet’s environment. I also really like Biden’s foreign policy experience opposed to both Obama and Clinton. It seemed like he was very relaxed last night and handled his questions very well. Also; along with Dodd he voted against Lieberman’s bill in the Senate.

Things I didn’t like: Continually votes to fund the Iraq War and explained last night that he could not promise to bring the troops home in his presidency. Biden also opposed security cities and seems to be clueless on the immigration issue (meaning he doesn’t seem to have a plan). Biden is a very smart man, but I can not get over his inability to vote against the war. It seems like he is doing what is politically right for him, not necessarily what is right for the country. It was good to see him bring forth a proposal for Iraq to be voted on, but I do not agree with it. Segregating Iraq is just asking for more inter-country violence.

Mike Gravel

Things I liked: Call him a nutjob if you like, but it seems like he is only candidate that takes the death of American soldiers personally. It’s ashame that his passion regarding bringing the end to the Iraq War is not echoed among the other candidates. He really took on Clinton last night, criticizing her war plan and also her (and Obama’s) yes vote regarding the American declaration of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Gravel also mentioned he was “ashamed to be living in an America” that is building a fence to keep people out. None of the other candidates mentioned the proposal. His comment regarding the credit card company deserving his bankruptcy claim was also pretty bold – even if political irresponsible.

Things I didn’t like: Lets face it; Gravel is not running a real campaign. His campaign video’s look like Louis Bunuel films; he already missed a debate for not turning in proper paperwork; and has no real platform other then the war. Though he has good intentions, he presents himself as a loose cannon during the debates and is running a sloppy campaign. Even so, I’m incredibly happy he is running and I fully support him in his mission. His only goal is to put pressure on congress to bring an end to the war. Like him or not, you have to respect him for what he is doing.

Dennis Kucinich:
Thing I liked: I’m going to keep this short because I am preparing a full post explaining why I am supporting Kucinich for President. In a nutshell: Unlike all the other candidates he has presented a real plan to bring an end to the Iraq War within HR1234; promises to have the troops home within three months of his presidency; opposes Joe Biden’s bill to segregate Iraq into three regions (Russ Feingold was the only Democratic Senator to vote against it); supports sanctuary cities until the immigration issue is solved; refuses to privatize Social Security; supports lowering the drinking age to 18, and the voting age to 16 (will further explain in future post); fully opposes the use of nuclear power; and was the only candidate to give an example of a time he sacrificed his political career for the good of the people. He also added his typical humor into the debate which some of the other candidates severely lacked.

Things I didn’t like: Was not one of Dennis’ better debates. Didn’t do a great job articulating his reason for not selling the Cleveland electricity system – this was an opportunity to really show how much he cares about the people he represents over his self interest but it didn’t seem like he capitalized. He also could have done a better job contrasting his plans with the (lack of) plans of the other candidates. For Dennis to become the Ron Paul of the Democratic Primary he really needs to play off his candidness as opposed to fellow Democrats secrecy.

-tg

President's (lack of) plan for Iraq

I guess the President hoped eight times a charm. Unfortunately for dear old Bush, anyone paying attention knows better. In his address tonight he spoke of the supposed advancements in Iraq and the plan forward. His main talking point: General David Petraeus. Throughout the whole address the President mentioned General Petraeus’ report regarding the steps taken to stabilize Iraq. Anyone watching Petraeus’ report to Congress’ Joint Committee knows that his hands have been tied. The President has accepted that fact that he no longer has any political credibility with the American public; so he turns to a new strategy. What is this new strategy? Putting all his eggs in General Petraeus’ basket. He mentioned his name eight times in the course of the entire address and used this as his main support for the continuation of the current troop surge. It’s unfortunate that such an honorable man such as Petraeus is having his named used for political purposes. As I watched the report earlier this week given by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, one thing was evident to me – they do not believe in the President’s plan. Their reports lacked both confidence and conviction. If Bush is really relying on Petraeus and Crocker to sell his war to the American people (which is certainly unfair to them both) then he needs to find himself better sales people. The American people are not buying it. Those who know politics can see right through the superficial, unmoving support given by two usually resolute leaders.

The second part of W’s new strategy rests on success in formally violent stricken regions such as Fallujah and Anbar. Though the President repeatedly assured the public that efforts in stabilizing Anbar have been successful, every piece of evidence shows the contrary. Just yesterday Islamic Sheikh Sattar Abu Reesha was murdered in Anbar only ten days after meeting with the President. Since when does the whole country rest on one region? The reason Bush continually spoke of the Anbar region was to divert the attention away from the many other regions which have continually gotten worse such as Sadr, Haswa, and Diyala. How can anyone possibly believe the words coming out Bush’s mouth at this point?

The most poignant point of the address in my opinion was when President Bush thanked Congress for giving him the funding to continue the war. This was probably the most truthful thing the President said all night. It really is ashame that so many Democrats lack the courage to do what is right for the women and men in the US military. The way to end the war is to cut funding - plain and simple. If the Democrats, collectively, had any backbone troops would already be on their way home. They have control of both houses and do have the votes to bring the war to an end. Most Democrats won’t vote against funding the war for one reason: self interest. By voting against war funding, Democrats give Republican challengers the opportunity to use the vote against them in the upcoming election (by saying voting against funding the war means voting against the troops). Clearly being re-elected is more important then the lives of American people to most elected officials.

On a final note…Bush mentioned Al- Qaeda. It’s been 6 years since 9/11/2001. Where is Osama Bin Laden Mr. President?

Regarding the response from the Democratic Party given by Rep. Jack Reed from Rhode Island - I do not have much to say. He mentioned that the Democrats wanted to change course. The Democrats were not elected last November to change course. They were elected to bring an end to the war. This is a sad time for the American populace.

Overall it was the same rhetoric we’ve heard from the President the past seven speeches. There is a new catch to the President’s plan this time around though. Civil War in Iraq at this point is inevitable. There are two political scenarios that can take place: One, Republican’s continue the war effort indefinitely costing the lives of thousands more of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, or Two, Democrats bring an end to the war and Iraq falls into a all-out Civil War, at which point the Republicans pull the “I told you so” line even though remaining in Iraq only holds off the unavoidable chaos. It’s a political game where the lives of innocent civilians and American sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers are the pawns.

Its time to stop playing politics and save lives, this goes for not only Mr. Bush but all 535 elected officials.

-tg

GOP Candidates Pro's and Con's From Debate

Let’s look at the Pro’s and Con’s of the candidates from the debate at Durham University in New Hampshire last night:

Mitt Romney

Things I liked: Took a more practical approach to the illegal immigration debate by not supporting the multi-billion dollar waste for a fence between Texas and Mexico.

Things I didn’t like: Wants to reduce federal funding for cities that are not tough on illegal immigration. Shouldn’t more money be given to those cities’s that need more help with solving the immigration problem? Maybe these cities cannot be tough on immigration because they don’t have the human-power or the money to be tough. Taking federal funding away from those cities certainly doesn’t help. Also wants to overturn R v. W and eventually make abortions illegal in all the United States. Not enough space here to explain why I disagree with that.

Mike Huckabee

Things I liked: Said he was unhappy with the many conservatives whose anger against illegal aliens is rooted in racism. I completely agree with this statement. If illegal immigrants where from the United Kingdom, I think many would have a completely different opinion (even if the crime rate among illegal’s was exactly the same). I also like that Gov. Huckabee referenced the “honor” that should be attributed to Sen. McCain.

Things I didn’t like: Completely disagree with his proposed “Human Life Amendment.” He also supports continuing the troop surge to Iraq despite National Intelligence Estimates that show it would be a negative for the efforts in the Middle East…Ya, there’s a good leader – ignore the national intelligence statistics and get more Americans killed.

John McCain

Things I liked: One, he is looking at some sort of “Temporary Workers Program;” he even went to the extreme of saying he was “proud” of illegal immigrants that serve in the military despite the status of their citizenship. Two, I’ve always agreed with McCain’s position on torture. The only people supporting torture as a method of gaining information are those who have no experience in the situation. Someone like McCain and Colin Powell have first hand experience with torture. There again really isn’t enough space for me to fully explain my position, but personally I am morally opposed to torture.

Things I didn’t like: He didn’t really explain how he was going to secure the boarders. The main point, however, that I totally disagreed with was his stance on the Iraq War. According to McCain, Bush’s troop surge in Iraq is working and it is a good strategy. This is in complete conflict with the Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.) who, as of September 5th, ranked 10 benchmarks for Iraq as being “not met,” 4 benchmarks as “partially met,” and 3 benchmarks as “met.” How is a troop surge working when the G.A.O. and internal military affair organizations continue to publish statistics showing otherwise? It is clear McCain is trying to backtrack and rebuild his severed relationship with the base of the party, but even party faithful are jumping ship on the war issue.

Sam Brownback

Things I liked: Nothing, elect him and the United States of America will become the United Stated of Kansas. Nothing against Kansas (I’ve never been there) but God help us all if their laws are applied to the whole nation.

Things I didn’t like: First off, he said Sen. Craig has taken responsibility. Larry Craig has in no way taking responsibility for his actions. His resignation would be forced due to public outcry from GOP leadership, not because he admitted to acting inappropriately. Brownback also supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I still do not understand how this is even a constitutional matter. How can anyone in the United States invoke the “sanctity of marriage” argument when the divorce rate of the US continues to climb? He also considers gay marriage to be a “social experiment.” This may be true, but how was integration between whites and blacks in the 50’s not a “social experiment”? If he doesn’t support same-sex marriage solely on the basis that it would be a “social experiment” then he would most likely oppose the “social experiment” of desegregation. Those people were called racists. The same way Sen. Brownback is, in essence, a “racist” against gays.

Duncan Hunter

Things I liked: Nothing

Things I didn’t like: He wants to spend millions of dollars completing a 854 mile long fence between Texas and Mexico. When high positioned Texas officials working on the fence published a report proving that the fence would be impractical and a waste of taxpayer’s money, he responded by saying “it’s the law.” Keep in mind that this fence will not continue the whole length of the United States/Mexico boarder. His strong support of prisons such as Gitmo also alarms me as someone who believes that the constitution should apply in all instances.

Tom Tancredo

Things I liked: He accused his fellow Republican candidates for “going with the wind” on important decisions.

Things I didn’t like: Well, to start he said that he would respond to a terrorist attack on US soil by bombing Mecca and Medina. This is absolutely the most absurd statement I have ever heard out of a presidential candidate. Not only is this Saudi Arabia (not Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Iran) it honestly could lead to Armageddon. I honestly don’t feel like wasting my time typing why this would be kind of a bad idea. He also does not feel that US involvement in Middle East affairs had anything to do with 9/11. This is almost as stupid as saying the US was attacked because terrorists “hate freedom.” I’ll further explain my opinion on this issue under the Ron Paul segment. Having this guy in office would be outright dangerous for the United States. I’m shocked he actually is pulling some percentage of the vote…he belongs in a loony bin.

Rudy Giuliani

Things I liked: He is very moderate on the immigration debate. He did a great job on solving New York City’s immigration issues; especially crime. I also really liked his response to Fred Thompson’s criticism regarding NYC gun control laws. After the Virginia Tech massacre, Thompson proclaimed that students at colleges should be allowed to carry guns for protection. That may work in Wyoming, but it would certainly backfire in a city like New York. When Giuliani’s family life was questioned (regarding his three wives) he responded by admitting that he’s made mistakes in his personal life and then gave a laundry list of examples showing that his personal life never interfered with his public life and ability to strengthen NYC. That was a great way to handle the question. It is clear that Giuliani did a great job as Mayor of New York regardless of his personal life - therefore, if he is the best candidate for the job among Republicans, his personal life should be irrelevant. I also don’t understand why so many people are saying he shouldn’t be “running on 9/11.” Certainly it’s an issue with the campaign – however, he is also running on lowering taxes 23 times in the city, drastically decreasing crime, passing the budget, cleaning up the subway system, and drastically improving the welfare system. These are all pros he accomplished while the executive of US’ most famous city.

Things I didn’t like: I don’t like the idea of having special “ID cards” for immigrants, before and after they become citizens. The whole concept is very 1984ish. It also relegates immigrants to a different class of citizenship. Could you imagine if all women had to carry around special ID cards that men didn’t just because they were a woman? Another thing I don’t like is his war strategy. Its time to get out…plain and simple. A Giuliani presidency would have us in Iraq for the next 4-8 years. He is also dead wrong when it comes to giving the reason for the 9/11 attack. Whenever Rep. Paul talks about how 9/11 was partially caused by the US’ involvement overseas, steam starts to bellow out of Rudy’s ears as he states “how dare you say that the United States is somehow partially responsible for September 11th,” when in actuality Ron Paul is dead right.

Ron Paul

Things I liked: His plan for the War in Iraq. He is the only Republican candidate who supports a full withdraw. I don’t necessarily agree that the United States should be strict isolationists, however, his comments regarding September 11th are true. We were not attacked on 9/11 because terrorists hate freedom; we were attacked for political purposes and jealousy. Throughout history terrorism has been used as a means of political action. This was no different on 9/11. The United States’ involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, especially Israel-Palestine, was one of the reasons for 9/11. The other reason was out of jealousy. Capitalist countries of the west have left the Arab nations behind due to their refusal to accept things that are not true Islam (according to radical Muslims). Rep. Paul is 100% correct in his statements and I am pleased that he does not back down despite the boo’s. Iraq is a lost cause – its time to get out and Ron Paul knows that.

Things I didn’t like: Ron Paul’s social policies. He is very pro-life, against gay marriage, anti-progressive taxation, and generally conservative regarding all social issues.

There’s my rundown of all the candidates that took part in last night’s debate. I plan on making another post regarding the debate later on today.

-tg