This article reviewed possibilities for presidential candidates to swoop up support for freshly abandoned presidential candidates (Edwards and Giuliani). It was said that Obama and Clinton scrambled for the funds and all that I could imagine were little piranhas with Obama and Clinton heads swimming towards the disposed of corpse that is fundraising for the resigned candidates.
After reading the King article, campaigning for funds and who is giving money to what and why, made me worry about our current campaigning system. Is it possible to limit the amount of funds that each candidate spends on campaigning?
If limits were set, maybe some of the time spent campaigning could be devoted to drafting pieces of legislation that would better the welfare of the citizens.
Illlegal Immigrants Receiving $600
This is my first time blogging, so please bear with me. I was watching CNN last night and heard that illegal immigrants will also be receiving the $600 that we would be receiving. I'm not sure if I like that idea. After that segment was over, I also watched the segment on how the FDA is underfunded. Hmm....that really draws an interesting conclusion in my head. How is it that we are able to give free money to illegal immigrants, but can't even afford to fund the FDA which makes sure our products are safe???
Endorsements...
McCain has recently got endorsements from Governor Schwarzenegger and Guiliani, who recently dropped out of the 2008 Presidential race. Both of these endorsements could be huge for him. Gov. Schwarzenegger's support could help McCain with the California primary coming up next Tuesday. Also, New York Republicans who were rooting for Guiliani have now swayed their support to McCain. Although McCain and Romney are the two front-runners for the Republicans, McCain sure has a lot of positive support leaning his way.
Bush Calls on Congress to Extend Telecom Spying Provisions
Bush wants an extension of the Protect America Act. This act allows the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept e-mails and phone calls of suspected terrorists without having to obtain a court warrant first. Bush addressed this in his State of the Union address asking for Congress to act before it expires on Friday.
Bush said, "This means that if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted."
Our citizens will be in greater danger??? I think there are many more things Bush should be worrying about that put us in danger...
Bush said, "This means that if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted."
Our citizens will be in greater danger??? I think there are many more things Bush should be worrying about that put us in danger...
Edwards exits presidential race
I believe it is really big that Edwards decided to drop out in the democratic race. Within the article is states with the two representatives who are left for the Democratic nomination, we have history in the making. I would have to agree with that statement. The fact that a female candidate now has a 50 percent chance of winning the presidential nomination has never been heard of before now. However, with Edwards dropping out it brings up the question on whether this really will hurt Clinton on more ways than help her. I believe there are many Americans who are not ready for a female president at this time and will then resort to voting for Obama just for the aspect. It will be interesting to see how this race will turn out in the voters votes and who the final nomination will go to.
Two More G.O.P. Congressmen Won’t Run
It seems that there is a growing list of Republican congresspeople who will not be running for reelection in 2008. Is this significant news? Do you think incumbent Republicans deciding not to run has anything to do with Democrats' 2006 win in Congress or the upcoming Presidential election?
Democratic Punishment?
I find it really strange that the democratic party is punishing certain states for moving their primaries. While I can see it may be difficult for candidates find time to visit these states where they werent planning to campaign so early, it seems non-democratic to not acknowledge the voters of certain states and still consider the outcome candidate legitimate. These states in particular tend to decide elections, and I would think that the democratic party come election time wouldn't want the voters of these states to resent the party for not considering their votes. This could really be the downfall of the democratic nominee. It seems as though the party is more concerned with controling what is going on than reaching a desired outcome. The article we just read about the vulnerability of representatives talked a lot about how our parties are losing power in a way, and our candidates are being viewed as individuals rather than as representatives of a party. This may be the party's way of saying "hey look, we're still here and we have some control over what's going on."
I'm Gonna Get $600
There are some interesting differences between the passed House plan and what the Senate apparently wants - caps on tax rebates, changes in business loss deductions, payments to Social Security recipients, etc. Mostly a debate over how much to spend - roughly $196B Senate version vs. $161 for the House. If they're really convinced that this will stimulate the economy that may or may not be in a recession (depending on who you ask and when you ask them), what's another $30 billion?
The new "Contract With America"; Gingrich's "Platform of the American People"
Last Thursday I had the pleasure of hearing Newt Gingrich speak at a Republican Party of Wisconsin fundraiser here in Milwaukee. While the former speaker spent an ample amount of time recounting his time as speaker, he spoke at length about his 'think-tank of sorts,' American Solutions.
As one of it's glaring accomplishments is the completion of "The Platform of the American People." So basically stated:
As one of it's glaring accomplishments is the completion of "The Platform of the American People." So basically stated:
[The Platform of the American People is...] A Red, White, and Blue platform to
replace the Red versus Blue partisan Split.
This Platform details the results of six national polls along a variety of issue areas. The poll was administered to self-identified Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Taking the majority answers together on all sides of the spectrum and averaging them to find the mean, Gingrinch and American Solutions were presented with a product of bipartisan support.
The relation of The Platform to our coverage of spatial models is important. Support on the issue-specific areas within The Platform's support is listed as one number [both support for, and against], it is an average, or mean of the likened responses of the both Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
While the numbers themselves do not necessarily correspond with different issue stances, because issues were measured in support for, or against, we are not presented with a middle, or mean of issue stances. In essence, The Platform contains issue items that are the middle, and generate positive response from all respondents regardless of party affiliation.
Gingrich hopes The Platform is adopted by local, state, and with hope national parties as a means to unify the American people. Gingrich does not rule out the divisive issues that will forever pit Republicans against Democrats- simply, he wishes to provide for the parties, issues that can unify and not divide.
While I realize the uptopian nature of such a platform, it presents possibilities for unifying issues between Republicans and Democrats. While the feasibility may be challenged on a national level, state and local politics could be greatly affected by adopting such a platform.
Ted, Patrick, Caroline Kennedy Endorse Obama
Senator Kennedy joins fellow Massachusetts Senator Kerry in endorsing Obama for President. The article explains why the Senator decided to do this, and goes further into detail on who other members of the Kennedy family will endorse. This may be good for getting the Far Left to endorse Obama, but I am not sure that this will do anything to get Conservative Democrats or Liberal Republicans to vote for him. Elections are not won by winning the extremist vote, but the moderate to independent. Furthermore I doubt that adding a Flip-flopper in Kerry, and alcoholic murderer in Kennedy will make anyone change their mind in who to support. In fact I think that it might even turn some people off. I even remember seeing a bumper sticker that once said: "My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car", a fact that has sunk his every Presidential Bid, and which may be an obstacle for Senator Obama. In the end all this may be for nothing as many see Obama as unqualified for the job, which I agree, making Senator Clinton the nominee, who is equally as unelectable paving the way for another Republican Victory in November.
What?!?!?
When I started to read this article I thought it was going to be about a federal power showdown between the democrats in congress and the president. The more I read the more absurd it sounded. The article is about the president calling for congress to cut earmarks in halve and that he would veto any spending bill that was sent to him if the earmarks were out of controll. President Bush fighing earmarks seemed crazy to me for several reasons. First, you never heard any talk from the White House or congressional republicians about stopping out of controll earmark spending when they were in control of the purse; it seems to me that now that the republicians dont control the spending they now have a problem with out of control spending when they have failed to have a balanced budget for years. Second, what new spending bills does the president congress is going to be sending him any time soon. All the spending bills for the remainder of his term have already been past. So I hope you find this article as amusing as I did.
Protect America Act...helpful or dangerous for Americans?
Saturday came with a threat by the White House that the President will veto a proposal to expand the cleverly named Protect America Act by 30 days instead of making it permanent. The act is due to expire on Thursday evening. The article at hand outlines arguments on both sides of the debate. Many Democrats, not wanting to look soft on the threat of terrorism but trying to protect civil liberties, oppose the idea of permanence as well as immunity for telecommunications companies facing multiple lawsuits for warrantless wiretapping following the attacks in September of 2001. The 30 day expansion is, in large part, meant to give time for coming up with a new surveillance legislation. The threat of a veto seems incredibly premature and impatient. With an issue as important as this, and one that has the extreme potential to disrupt civil liberties, it is essential that legislation is carefully thought out and finally written. Could this push have something to do with a particularly important speech the President is to give on...ohhh say...Monday night?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)