Archive for the 'Politics' Category
Ann Coulter for Hillary
Posted by on February 7th, 2008, at 7:59pm

YouTube Preview ImageAnn Coulter for Hillary: segment from Hannity and Colmes

I’m not exactly thrilled about McCain taking the Republican nomination, either. Huckabee still has a shot, but his policies don’t seem well defined if even existent and I’m not sure what he’s got going for him other than a good personality and some Baptist fire.

Obama makes good speeches. Inspiring speeches. I don’t agree with all his policies, but with all his campaign’s focus on hope he manages to generate some. I’d like to have hope. I’d like to believe Obama can bring the change America needs.

With politicians, it’s always safe to be skeptical. Then when things go wrong later, you won’t be disappointed.

Get Political Now
Posted by on January 25th, 2008, at 11:32pm

Campaigning in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Friday, the former president [Bill Clinton] brushed aside suggestions his wife [Hillary] would prove to be a divisive nominee for the Democratic Party, pointing out how she has successfully worked with Republicans in the Senate — including one of the current GOP presidential candidates.

“She and John McCain are very close,” Clinton said. “They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.”

via CNN

This pretty much says why I wouldn’t vote for either of them. Too similar.

Update: Obama’s crushing victory in South Carolina will keep things interesting. It probably adds additional fuel to Edwards’ trip towards the exit.

Give Me Change!
Posted by on January 5th, 2008, at 11:33pm

YouTube Preview ImageHillary Clinton: at the 2008 New Hampshire Debates
“I want to make change, but I’ve already made change, I will continue to make change!”

I found this moment in the debate amusing. I think it says a lot about why she’s likely to lose the debate in NH on Tuesday. Sure, things could change directions at any moment as with any race, but Hillary doesn’t have momentum and that’s difficult to gain in the first place and even harder to recover.

Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the candidates I’m most interested in watching. They have campaigns that seem to legitimately be seeking to bring about change for the country. Ron Paul especially has interesting economic principles. He’s a bit libertarian in some senses, but a more open and more powerful economy are certainly something to shoot for and would be nice to see happen. Paul’s still a longshot candidate coming in with only 10% of the votes in Iowa and not placing highly in the polls for New Hampshire, but he’s fundraised the most money of any candidate at this point and the race is far from over.

If you’re like me and becoming slightly interested in or obsessed by the 2008 Presidential Primaries, I’d recommend checking out Politico for coverage. It’s all about covering the politics and the campaigns and not so much about ripping on the candidates or saying who is right or wrong. (If you want that, there’s plenty of sites, but you can find those for yourself.)

Colbert 2008: A Legitimate Choice for America?
Posted by on October 26th, 2007, at 9:24pm

Stephen Colbert is running for president of the United States in the 2008 election.

The Facebook group 1,000,000 Strong For Stephen T Colbert has… one million members (and growing). It’s the fastest growing facebook group ever.

Many people point to his entry in the array as a turning point in American elections. No, nobody is claiming that he’ll get elected (yet), but the fact that he can garner support through the tubes faster than career politicians says something: the internet a la social networking is a powerful recruitment tool. However, it remains to be seen if voters will go to the polls.

Speaking of polls, a recent poll found Colbert “gains 13% of voters in a matchup with Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Clinton.” (Source).

In another bizarre angle on the story, Colbert is also drawing the eye of the Federal Election Commission. Colbert comes from the strange breed of politicians launched from careers in media; think Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. But he’s got his own popular television show on Comedy Central — “The Colbert Report.” His campaign raises issues regarding network and corporate sponsorship. Comedy Central is aware of the potential issues and has lawyers researching the potential issues in order to stay in line with campaign finance law.

In the end, though, will it even matter? Though he is collecting signatures to put himself on the ballot in South Carolina as both a Republican and Democratic candidate (and South Carolina is considering him, if not seriously), many are ready to dismiss him as a joke — not a surprising sentiment to express about the ubiquitous comedian.

Blogger Sonia Zjawinski (Wired) states:

While this is all very funny, I hope Colbert stops short of actually trying to take this all the way. This election is one of the most important elections we’ve had since 2000, and as we saw that year and in 2004, we really can’t fuck this up.

Deborah Netburn with the LA Times asks a potent question: “Has America lost its collective mind?

Has it?

No. With George Bush’s approval rating at at an all time low of 24% and Congress bringing in a collective 11% approval rating, what’s obvious is America’s hunger for real leadership who represents this country. While Colbert may be no answer to America’s longings, it’s no surprise many consider him as good a choice if not better than the other leading candidates.

Don’t throw away my vote?” Is it throwing away my vote to elect a man I believe in as much if not more than the party demagogues in 2008?

Red States Ignorant? Oh, and the Bible is wrong. If you believe this guy.
Posted by on November 5th, 2004, at 9:44am

_Editor’s note: I recommend that all of you read the article to which I am responding. Jane Smiley, a liberal, makes some outrageous claims attacking conservatives and Christians alike claiming ignorance to be the driving force behind all who believe such things._

According to Slate author Jane Smiley, Republicans “cultivate and exploit ignorance.” Really? I am _not_ ignorant about the issues and I don’t believe the 59 million people that voted for Bush are, either. In my own defense, I’ve read about most of the major issues in this election and I agree with most of Bush’s major agendas philosophically, not because he’s a Republican. I think it’s unfair to accuse 59 million people of ignorance because they disagree with you, and even more impossible to prove such an argument.

Her historical justification in the article doesn’t follow through, either. She broadly lumps the conservatives of the present together with conservatives of the past who, if looked at carefully, have many, many different social views. The “conservatives” of a century ago included many slave-owners and when she discusses the ignorance of conservatives he’s saying the past beliefs of “ignorance” are a precursor to the current ignorance.

Oh, and here’s another taste of what she has to say:

bq. Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you�if you don’t believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Okay, Jake, Cora, Jesse, anybody else out there reading and fired up yet? Throw your best disagreements or inflammatory statements in the comments.

First of all, the Bible is not contradictory. Yes, over the past few thousand years, a few minor translation problems arise and we’ve lost the meaning of a couple Hebrew and Greek words. Oddly, however, these are minor errors and do not alter the overall content — the meaning and message — of the Bible. As far as contradictions themselves, I would challenge Jane to find ONE of any significance. She did not offer any in her article.

Secondly, it is ludicrous to claim that critical thinking must be avoided to believe in the Bible. I know numerous amounts of people who are highly critical in their manner of thinking who know the content of the Bible and believe it. Many great apologists in the last two-thousand years, including the apostle Paul, have argued their positions and beliefs quite logically, and many modern apologists also bring in historical, archeological, and other evidence to back their faith-driven beliefs. If you want one example, I recommend reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

She goes on to make claims that conservatives desire this ignorance so they can “do anything they [want].” She also, bluntly, says Christians have designed hell as a place for those who they “envy and resent” to go. Based on statements such as these, I wonder what kind of interaction, if any, she’s had with Christians. I also highly doubt if she’s ever read the Bible herself to see what exactly it says. If she did, she’d realize it hardly mandates a person doing whatever they want and it condemns envy and resent. Unfortunately, however, I would not be surprised if she is misinterpreting a cultural manifestation (perhaps Southern) as an example of what Christianity is supposed to be. As with all cultures, that of the South has its flaws and cannot be expected to represent all the truth and teachings of the Bible.

Further lies and other grandiose generalizations lump conservatives, Christians, and residents of red states together as ignorant, cheating, misleading, nonsensical, soul-selling individuals.

Now, for the few liberal readers of my site, I have a question. Do you agree with these kinds of statements? Do you realize Jane Smiley and others who hold similar beliefs back the Democratic Party and influence many of their beliefs, social, and international agendas?

I found this article rather appauling in its verbal brutality and unveiled despise if not hatred towards conservatives and Christians. She titled the article “[w]hy Americans Hate Democrats.” I would like to ask, “Why does Jane Smiley hate everyone who disagrees with her so much?” Her closing statement in the article: “Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.” Oddly, given the tone of her words, it appears she would desire almost the same fate for her opposition.