Right on the Mark

On The Trail

Have you been keeping up with the campaigns? Between endorsements & the recent departures the race for the White House is really shaping up. We've got three candidates left on the democrat side & five left for the republicans. Well, sort of.

I know, you're probably wondering who in the heck the other democratic candidate might be? Mike Gravel. Yeah, he's still officially in according to wikipedia (democratic candidates). But of course it's Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama on our minds. Do you support either of these candidates? Apparently the Kennedy's are split in their support. Teddy & Caroline have thrown their support behind Barack Obama while Kathleen (Townsend) supports Hillary Clinton. Edwards announced his departure from race today but offered no endorsement as of yet. You can keep track of the delegate count for the democrats HERE.

Believe it or not the republicans are finally focusing in on two major candidates. Though, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee & Alan Keyes are still in the race it's Mitt Romney & John McCain leading the way. We've seen Paul & Huckabee on the trail & participating in debates but Keyes has been absent from any coverage. Wikipedia (republican candidates) has him still listed in the race but as "other" & not as a national candidate. The latest departure for the republicans is Rudy Giuliani & he's thrown his support behind John McCain. Do you support of one of the republicans? You can keep track of their delegate count HERE.

Though my candidate of choice has bowed out of the race the campaign is still full of excitement. As I said yesterday, come this time next year we will have a new president. That president could be a black man or a woman & if either of those are the case it will also mean a different party in the White House. Will the nation go for the new & the unknown? Or, will we go for the tried & true in a John McCain? I say McCain because I believe he'll get the republican nomination. I'm pretty sure that Clinton will get the democratic nomination but I don't think it's a lock. Even McCain isn't a lock & the possibility of our first Mormon president could mean breaking another religious barrier just as JFK did in 1960. Sorry, but the rest of the bunch are...well...long-shot would be an understatement.

About a month after Super Tuesday we'll get to cast our vote here in Ohio. Super Tuesday is February 5th & our primary is March 4th. How do you think your candidate will do on Super Tuesday? Will they make it to Ohio? Originally I didn't think we'd know anything about the republicans until the convention, but it looks like we'll have a pretty good idea after Super Tuesday. On the democrat side, like a lot of folks, I just figured Hillary was the inevitable candidate & didn't give anyone else a chance. I believe Super Tuesday will still give us the answer but it'll likely be closer than any of us originally thought. 

The People's Business

Indeed the President & all the members of Congress were sent to Washington to do "the people's business." This State of the Union speech was similar to pretty much any other we've heard. Filled with a positive outlook for the future despite the present looking bleak. One difference is that it will be the last one given by this President. For many that's cause for celebration. The idea that, regardless of your political affiliation, there will be change come this time next year. Let us not forget though, that government doesn't just sit idly by until we're ready for that change. There's work to be done & the President did lay out some plans & charged Congress with acting responsibly.

Starting with the Iraq War (as it received the most votes in our last poll for being the most important issue): The President finally had some positive things to say about the progress of the war without having to reach. Not only has the surge been working militarily it has also brought forth some political reconciliation. This trend of success is resulting in troop reductions. I know at first that only means bringing troop levels back down to pre-surge levels. However, I am hopeful that continued success will mean even more troop withdrawals.

The President went on about the economy (specifically addressing the stimulus package agreed upon by leaders from both parties in the House); he tackled spending, specifically earmarks & the need to cut them in half (I personally think they should be eliminated: outlawed even); health care; energy; trade; illegal immigration; & he lauded No Child Left Behind as a success. While he had some numbers showing positive trends I think most of us see NCLB as a failed policy. Certainly a valiant effort but a prime example why the federal government should stay out of our public education.

The President continued on about various other issues. Most of which won't likely get the attention they deserve as the campaign season gets into full swing. One issue I hope does get some attention is the issue of the temporary tax cuts we all got a few years ago. That's right; they're temporary unless Congress acts to make them permanent. If Congress doesn't make them permanent we'll all get a tax hike come January 2011.

There really weren't any surprises by the President. It was a relatively short speech. There were applause's & if you watched on C-SPAN you saw many democrats sit on their hands. Although, they did respond positively on a few occasions with applause. As the citizenry of this nation is pointing towards change I would hope that Congress could stop with the partisan snubs & actually work together as they are clearly capable of doing. That is "the people's business." Compromises & handshakes. But then again; sometimes no action can be better than the seemingly inauspicious compromises & handshakes that tend to be the norm in Washington.

By the end of the speech I most wondered what Congress will do about those tax cuts. Will I be seeing a tax hike in 2011? I also wondered if illegal immigration will ever be dealt with seriously. No action means they won't screw it up. However, it also means the problem keeps compounding & possibly making future compromises even tougher.

With this being the President's last State of the Union Address some pundits are already discussing the Bush Legacy. I think it's premature to even look at something that won't be determined for years. I also don't think it's helpful in doing "the people's business." I believe it only breeds partisanship. Instead, my hope is that Congress can put aside their partisanship that seems to have dominated the past seven years & get down to actually doing "the people's business."   

What's In A Rebate?

Let's start by saying I seriously dislike rebates. They irritate me & are an insult to all of us. Whether they be so called tax rebates or consumer rebates from stores or manufacturers. If the government can afford the tax rebate or the store or manufacturer can afford their rebate then why doesn't the government just lower our taxes & stores & manufacturers just lower the price of their goods? It's feel good economics. People love the idea of saving money. That's why we look for bargains & sales when shopping.

This latest stimulus package agreed upon by the President & the House is a short term, feel good, vote pandering project that will likely have little affect on the economy as a whole. The rebate we got the last time also came with tax relief in the form of lower tax rates for everyone. The problem is that those tax cuts will expire on January 1, 2011. We need permanent tax reduction; not a check in which the government is going to turn around & tax us for at the end of the year. This time, no tax reduction. Although, the tax incentive for businesses to invest in capital improvements/equipment/expansion is a great idea.

This so called rebate will go to some folks who didn't even pay federal income taxes. How exactly is that a rebate? Of course those at the top won't be getting a rebate at all. They're really sticking it to the rich this time. Not really. The rebates are going to folks in which the government is hoping will be irresponsible with the sudden cash flow. They don't want you to save it, or pay bills with it. They want to you to go out & buy some crap you don't need. A plasma TV, a new laptop, a digital camera, etc. The top wage earners are your primary investors. They'll get their money as the market goes up when we frivolously spend our cash.

The House will vote on the bill next week. Then it goes to the Senate where Senator Kennedy said he wants to load it up with more spending. That's exactly what we don't need. Extending unemployment benefits doesn't encourage anyone to get a job. There were 39 jobs listed in The Courier on Wednesday. Some of those listings were for multiple positions. With deficit spending being as high as it is, how can anyone even suggest our government spend even more? The bad thing is that if the bill is loaded with spending by the Senate, President Bush will likely sign it. One, like I said before, it's feel good, vote pandering economics; emphasis on the vote pandering. Two, the President doesn't seem to like using his veto pen; especially when it would appear that he doesn't want to give poor folk some financial relief.

The bottom line is that we all pay way too much in taxes; at the federal, state & local levels. We don't need a check with the purpose of wasteful spending that the government will just tax us for later. We need across the board, permanent tax reduction.

I'm a man; I'm Forty!

Today, I feel a little bit like the head football coach at Oklahoma State Mike Gundy.

I share my birthday with Princess Caroline of Monaco & John Hancock. Other notable January birthdays are: Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, William McKinley, Dick Cheney, FDR, J. Edgar Hoover, Betsy Ross, Paul Revere, Millard Fillmore, Daniel Webster, Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur, & of course Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

A Hummer, Illegal Drug Smugglers, And A Dead Border Agent

Oh where, oh where is Johnny Sutton? The attorney who couldn't wait to prosecute & go to great length to deceive & convict Ramos & Compean. I've written about the Ramos & Compean case before. This posting isn't really about them but rather it's about the recent border agent who was killed by illegal alien drug smugglers. Although, I believe we must look at the Ramos & Compean case to understand the entire situation at our southern border & how this recent tragedy was made possible.

There's much controversy over the Ramos & Compean case. Congressmen Ted Poe & John Culberson believe the prosecution was dishonest in their claim that the two agents had conspired to shoot Mexicans. Questions have surfaced over whether or not the Mexican government's insistence is what triggered the prosecution against Ramos & Compean. Enter: Johnny Sutton.

An illegal alien with 800 pounds of marijuana gets no punishment (he actually gets permission to cross our border in exchange for testimony against U.S. border agents) but the U.S. border agents trying to do their jobs end up with excessive jail terms. No one was killed. The illegal drug smuggler got shot in the heinie. This happened on February 17, 2005 & the agents were sentenced two years later. In that time, the illegal drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila continued to illegally bring drugs across our border. Thanks, Mr. Sutton.

Fast forward to this past weekend. Luis Alguilar was run over & killed by illegal drug smugglers driving a Hummer. That's right; a Hummer. So much for poor folks who just want to come across our border to do jobs Americans won't do. Alguilar was simply doing his job. He was laying down spikes to try to stop them without the use of lethal force. Instead of apprehending the illegal drug smugglers, Luis Alguilar is dead.  

Where's Johnny Sutton? [*sound of crickets*]

An American Dream

The thing we all know about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is the "I have a dream" speech. No, we may not know the actual speech; at least not in its entirety; but the words "I have a dream" are imprinted in our brains as if we heard him speak those words ourselves. The claims of marching with Dr. King has reached mythical proportions. Almost as much as those who claimed to have seen Hendrix at Woodstock.

Yes indeed, Dr. King had a dream. It was the same dream I have. It's the same dream you have. It was the dream of our Founding Fathers. It's the American dream. It transcends time, age, gender & race.

I believe a common mistake is made by applying race to Dr. King's dream because this national holiday is so close to & carries us into Black History month. It seems hard to separate the two. However, if Dr. King's dream were only about race it wouldn't be the American dream I believe it is.

The words "I have a dream" have given us comfort & hope. They've inspired us to do better for our country, our families & ourselves. Not just for those who heard those words when they were spoken, but for those who dared to have a dream of their own. I cannot think of any other phrase that has retained its meaning & influence as those four words. Even JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" seem like ancient words without modern application.

There certainly have been inspirational moments & words that have stuck with us over time: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" or "Do you believe in miracles" quickly come to mind. Even "One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind" as inspiring as that may have been doesn't hold the same universal meaning & driving inspiration as Dr. King's "I have a dream."

I suppose the reason other words don't hold the same meaning to society over time is because we're not all going to become president & give speeches in foreign lands; or win an Olympic medal; or land on the moon. But, we all will have a dream.  

The Public Restroom Privacy Act

Do you remember Larry Craig, the Senator with the "wide stance" in public restrooms? I have thought from the beginning that this man should resign as he originally said he would & I still believe he should.

Craig has been asking the court to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct. What lawyer do you think would take this case? That's right, the ACLU. Surprised? Me either.

• Sex in Restroom Stalls is Private, ACLU says
• In a legal effort to help a U.S. senator, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

An expectation of privacy? For sex? To solicit sex? Are they kidding me? How about my privacy not to have someone else's foot & hand come into my stall while I'm trying to do my business? The privacy one would expect when using the facilities for their intended purpose.

I know some folks like to bring up the fact that Senator Craig is a republican, he's gay & had been living a double life. I don't care what political party he's in. Nor do I care about his sexual preference, or the double life he's been leading. I do, however, care about whether or not my kid might be subjected to the likes of the Senator in a public restroom.

I agree with the ACLU. The general public has an expectation of privacy in a public restroom. Sorry, but it's not for the purpose of soliciting sex or anything related to that. It's for dropping a deuce.

This I can promise you. If ever a foot or hand comes into my stall, & I haven't asked for toilet paper, that foot or hand will get smacked, stomped or in some way have pain inflicted upon it.   

The Great American Race

No, I'm not talking about the Daytona 500.

When "race" enters a political race things get real interesting. Political correctness guides our every word. One wrong word & you could be labeled the love child of David Duke or Robert Byrd.

The democratic party is supposed to be the last place we'd expect to witness racial tension. They have a black man running for the presidency for crying out loud. Heck, they have a woman & even a Hispanic (although, Governor Richardson has recently dropped out of the race) running as well. They're supposed to be the land of diversity & tolerance.

Just so you know; as if you probably didn't already know; I'm not a huge Hillary Clinton fan. But, her recent comments about MLK & LBJ & their roles in bringing about racial equality seemed to have less to do about race than it did to do about the power of the presidency.

• SIDE NOTE: It seems funny that a former supporter of Richard Nixon & Barry Goldwater would use LBJ as a shining example of anything political.

I believe Hillary's point was that social leaders are great at starting the public conversation about change, but it takes a seasoned political leader to actually enact that change.

Was Barack Obama's campaign being too sensitive? Were they just looking for something to stop the "Clinton Machine" & the momentum she gained coming out of New Hampshire? I'm thinking it may be a little of both.

Do you recall Obama putting New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, "on notice" for her October 21, 2006 column? Apparently he was teased relentlessly as a kid for his big ears & Dowd's "His ears stick out..." comment must have resurrected his sensitivity on the matter. Did Dowd's attempt at toughening him up work or fail?

Where do you think we stand as a society? Are we all too sensitive? From Christians to Muslims to any minority are we all too eager to find something offensive & oppressive towards our little clique? Were the polls that were so wrong in New Hampshire just a microcosm of the entire country? While it may be politically in vogue to support Barack Obama either for or despite his race, political correctness likely doesn't fit behind the curtain of the voting booth.

I'm not saying it's right, wrong or indifferent; it just is. Although, I believe if the general election came down to Mitt Romney & Barack Obama that Obama would win. Why? Because it's perfectly acceptable to hate someone for their religion but not their race in this country. Don't believe me? Go to work tomorrow & tell a religious joke, then tell a racial joke the next day & see which one will get you fired.

The bottom line is that people still hate for many reasons. Legislation doesn't change the hearts of men (women too...men is meant as mankind/womankind/etc...I hate political correctness). I do believe we are too sensitive. You can pick from a myriad of stories just from the past year to prove that point. It sure will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved when the democratic leadership asks Barack Obama to concede victory to Hillary Clinton & then asks him to come on board as her running mate.    

There's Something Happening

Much of the nation's focus has been on the campaign trail lately. The primaries are in full swing now. Candidates are crisscrossing the country making last minutes pleas to would be voters. It's an exciting time as we will be electing a new president this year. With all of this excitement & distractions our government still has to operate. I want to point out some things you may have missed.

Bush Signs SCHIP Extension. One of the biggest battles fought this past year came to a compromise in late December; at least temporarily. While the fight was to expand the program they settled on an extension through March 2009 to assist states & ensure those most in need are covered.

Bush Signs Gun Measure. Gun control has been a longtime battle between the parties. The balance of regulation & not infringing on our right to keep & bear arms has always been a delicate issue. I'm sure folks on both sides, most likely the extreme sides, of the issue will be upset. Does the legislation go too far; or not far enough?

No matter where you stand on either of these issues there's certainly something positive about our elected officials working together. The art of compromise on Capitol Hill, once thought to be dead & buried, is alive & well. This seemingly new willingness to work together just may have rubbed off on the Iraqi government.

Bush Lauds Iraqi Reconciliation. One of the criticisms in the execution of the war was the firing of all Ba'athist officials after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Finally, the Iraqi government has taken the first steps towards reconciliation by unanimously voting to allow former Ba'athists to re-enter government posts.

Much of the recent criticism over the war has been our military footprint, including opposition to the surge. The charge was that there wasn't a military solution; only a political one. It looks like we're beginning to see that political solution take root. Hopefully, as these political solutions do begin to take root we'll start to see a reduction in our military footprint & our troops can come home to a heroes welcome.   

Too Close For Comfort

By now I'm sure you've all heard about or seen the video images of Iranian small boats near U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. There seems to be some dispute over the authenticity of the video & audio. Iran has even released their own showing no "provocative" acts on their part. So begs the question: Why?

The first question is why would the Iranians do this if our footage is indeed authentic? The popular belief is that Iran is trying to provoke an attack from us but not an all out war. A simple strike at a few small boats from our warships would certainly make us look like the big bad bully. It would also confirm a belief by some that we're looking for any reason to start a war with Iran. Our image around the world is already tainted & certainly Iran would get the world's sympathy making our current conflict even tougher & probably cause a loss of support for it. Another belief is that this may have been a dry run to see what our response would be. The next time could be tragic. But, questions of the video & audio authenticity will make it difficult for our ships to protect themselves prior to an actual attack on them. Their response will have to be reactive & not proactive & that could prove to be deadly for our military.

Since the Iranian video the question has turned to why would the United States government make this up? One could make the argument that this helps make the case for war against Iran. But, without an actual attack from Iran I don't believe the general American population would support military action against those small boats or strategic targets inside Iran. So video footage of Iranian small boats near our war ships I don't believe will alarm us until one of those small boats runs into the side of one of our ships & explodes it killing U.S. service men & women. At which point the questions will quickly turn to "Why oh why didn't we do anything to stop them?"

With this incident & other accusations of sending weapons & Iranian troops across the Iraqi border you might think we're ramping up for war with Iran. However, our restraint in this latest situation & our inaction concerning previous situations show we're probably unlikely to start a war with Iran anytime soon. I believe this makes future attacks on American ships, whether it be from Iran or a terrorist organization, more likely.      

These are the times that...

I started my last post with a quote from Thomas Paine. It was really just to reference the change that Paine was speaking of & compare it to what possible change could occur with the current field of presidential candidates. Obviously I'm pessimistic about any real fundamental change taking place with the results of this election.

Let's look at the results so far. Obama won Iowa & Clinton won New Hampshire on the democrat side. Huckabee won Iowa & McCain won New Hampshire for the republican side. I didn't figure these two early states would settle anything. Much of the news coverage was so focused on Iowa & New Hampshire that they seemed to ignore the fact that Romney won big in the Wyoming Caucus with Thompson & Hunter registering better than the rest of the field.

Clinton is now being called the "comeback kid" just as her husband had been called in 1992. Does this propel her to the top? I'm not so sure. Obama won by a wider margin in Iowa than she did in New Hampshire. Plus, Obama is currently leading in the polls in South Carolina; as if the polls mean anything. McCain won New Hampshire in 2000 but was crushed in South Carolina. Huckabee currently leads in South Carolina. Can he hang on, or will McCain get a bounce from his victory in New Hampshire?

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times asks "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back To The White House?" Victor Davis Hanson of National Review Online calls Hillary's human moment "The Crying Game." What do you think? Were her tears real? Does this help her campaign?

It looks like the only change we see on a regular basis are the blowing winds of hot air coming from the media as they jump from bandwagon to bandwagon. We actually have some real choices in this election. I think Clinton represents the same ol' same ol' for the democrats. Obama clearly represents youth & that brings a certain amount of excitement. Edwards represents...? I don't really know. He's not a woman or a minority. He must be the token rich white guy in the race. He's probably more likely to be a bridesmaid again.

On the republican side there's an Uber-Libertarian in Ron Paul. He probably represents the most fundamental change than anyone in the race except maybe Dennis Kucinich. Although, neither one is going to win their party's nomination. Apparently America doesn't really want change. Of course there's Romney, the republican's token rich white guy. McCain, possibly the nation's grandpa. Thompson also represents a calming grandfatherly figure. There's the bass playing pastor Huckabee & America's mayor in Giuliani. These last two are more likely to be VP than president.

America rejected change in 1992. We had a real opportunity to break the stranglehold of the two party system so many seem disenchanted with. Instead, we went with youthful optimism. Will that win again? 

Change

"These are the times that try men's souls." These words from Thomas Paine are as true today as they were during the American Revolution. A new nation was about to be born & change was on the horizon. A change that would revolutionize government. How that new government would be viewed by the people & how the people would relate to that government. As Bob Dylan might have said: The times they were a changin'.

Today, on the campaign trail we keep hearing about all these candidates of change. How much change can we really expect to see from candidates who've spent a good portion of their lives in the political system they claim they want to change? And, they don't appear to have changed anything thus far.

What kinds of change are you looking for? Do any of the candidates represent the change you're seeking from your president? Do we just want to change political parties? Gender or race? The family name?

What issues are most important to you? On these issues, which candidate shares your view & does that represent change?

• Taxes (fair tax/flat tax/etc.)
• Economy (budget & trade deficit/national debt/etc.)
• War in Iraq
• Global Terrorism
• Illegal Immigration
• National Security
• Health Care
• Social Issues (abortion/gay marriage/etc.)

It seems that presidents of change do nothing but jingle-jangle in our pockets. Besides a quarter, a dime, a nickel & a penny I don't think we'll see a president of change; at least not in the current bunch we have running for the presidency. I'm going to guess that these candidates will bring about as much change as we might get from a vending machine. We'll just hope they leave more than that in our pockets.

What I Got For Christmas

By now we all know the results of the Iowa Caucus. New Hampshire is just a few days away. I'm not so sure either state will really settle anything. I think the race for both nominations are closer than some folks realize. But, I want to forget about politics for a moment & talk about what I got for Christmas (because this is a material world & I'm a material...well, you know what I mean). I would certainly encourage you to tell us about your Christmas gifts as well.

Of course I got a couple of nice shirts & some cologne. Apparently I stink & don't dress very well. But, my favorite gifts were some books I got. My mother is probably crying tears of joy now as she reads this. Her son happy to get a book. She may have actually passed out when I sent her an Email prior to Christmas titled "hint, hint" that was an advertisement for Glenn Beck's "An Inconvenient Book" which I indeed got from her for Christmas. I have already started to read that book. Very interesting & full of humor.

I also got an encyclopedia type book about American Presidents. If I had paid more attention in school maybe I wouldn't be so fond of such books today. I didn't always, but today I really enjoy history. I also got a book written by Congressman Sherrod Brown titled "Myths Of Free Trade." I'm looking forward to reading his views on the subject.

A fourth book I got might catch the interest of regular Courier readers; especially those who read the sports page. I wasn't expecting anything like it but am looking forward to reading it. Are you wondering what it could be? It's "Diamonds In The Rough" by the Courier's own David V. Hanneman. I'm looking forward to learning some local sports history presented by a local sports writer.

I hope your Christmas was as merry as mine. Now tell us what you got for Christmas.

...And They're Off

Today is the Iowa Caucus. Does this matter to you? Does it matter to the rest of the nation at all?

We got Obama, Clinton & Edwards in a rather tight three way race for the democrats. Romney & Huckabee duke it out for the republicans with McCain & Thompson trailing just a bit. Remember in 1992 (Bill) Clinton only got something like 2% of the vote in the Iowa Caucus & still won the nomination. Dean was leading the polls in 2004 until they went to Iowa & Kerry went on to win the nomination. Dole won Iowa in 1988 & 1996 but only got the nomination in 1996. Bush & Gore won Iowa in 2000 & both went on to get their party's nomination. Looks like we have mixed results from Iowa.

I have to admit that I don't care for the leaders in either party. Most of you know by now that I am a Duncan Hunter fan. But, there are folks who still have no clue who he is. Of the leaders on the republican side, assuming it'll be Romney or Huckabee, I lean towards Romney for his financial experience. When I look at the top three democrats I actually get a stomach ache thinking about voting for any of them. I suppose I should hold off on the vomiting until we actually know who the nominees are.

Of course the polls in Iowa don't match up to the national polls; at least concerning the republicans. Giuliani is not a factor in Iowa at all but leads the majority of national polls. Is Giuliani's absence in Iowa going to affect the national polls when folks don't see his name in the results? It might depend on the press & how they report it. If they ignore Giulani, I think it hurts his numbers.

On the democrat side, the polls appear to be rather consistent. Obama & Clinton have been going back & forth with Edwards just slightly behind. I think the battle between Obama & Clinton could leave room for an Edwards victory.

I think it may take a while before we know the victors in either party. I don't think Iowa is going to settle anything, but it sure is fun to watch.