Election Update - Presidential, Senate, Governor, House, Ballot Initiatives

With North Carolina called, all 50 states have been called. Barring any reversals, Barack Obama will win the electoral vote by a count of 364 to 174, and the popular vote with 65.1 million, about 53%, to McCain's 57.2 million, about 46%. Obama set the record for most votes received, and McCain has the third most in history, behind George W. Bush's 59 million in 2004, a record at the time.

The Democrats have been projected to win the Oregon Senate election, giving them 57 in their caucus [55 Democrats and 2 Independents that vote with them]. Minnesota's race is too close to call and will be recounted, the Republican leading his Democratic challenger by 240 votes. In Georgia, the Republican incumbent has 50% of the vote with 99% reporting. To win in Georgia, one must have at least 50% when all the votes are counted or there will be a run-off election in a month between the top two vote getters. In Alaska, the Republican incumbent has a narrow lead over his challenger with 99% of precincts reporting.

In the House, the Democrats have won 254 seats according to CNN, a pickup of 19 seats. The Republicans retained 173 seats, and 8 seats remain undecided.

The Republicans won 4 Governor elections to the Democrats' 7, a net gain of one for the Democrats.

As far as ballot initiatives go, there were many so I will only recap big or controversial issues. Bans on gay marriage were soundly passed in 3 states: Florida, Arizona, and California while Arkansas banned gay couples from adopting. Colorado did not end affirmative action while Nebraska did. Colorado struck down an amendment stating life begins at conception, and California and South Dakota turned down limits on abortion. Michigan passed propositions that allow limited uses of medical marijuana as well as allowing embryonic stem cell research in addition to other stem cell research already under way in Michigan. Washington passed a measure allowing doctor assisted suicide.

Links
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#S
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#val=H
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#val=G
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23908644

Update

Nebraska's vote is now totally McCain's and Alaska and Montana have been called for John McCain, and Indiana has been called for Obama. Missouri and North Carolina are still too close to call. Obama holds a thin lead North Carolina while McCain leads in Missouri and Montana.

Obama now leads 349-163 and 59.1 million to 53.2 million in the popular vote.

Senate races remain undecided in Minnesota, Oregon, Georgia, and Alaska.

Also of note, Proposal 1 [Michigan], legalizing medical marijuana, and Proposal 2 [Michigan], legalizing embryonic stem cell research, passed. Propostion 8 [California], banning gay marriage, has 52% approval with 43% of the the vote reporting, and two other proposals banning gay marriage in Florida and Arizona have passed.

Barack Obama President-Elect of the United States of America; McCain concedes

Barack Obama has been projected winner of California, pushing him above 270, assuring victory. He has also been projected victor in Washington, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and also in Florida. John McCain has been projected to win Idaho, South Dakota, and Arizona. With Nebraska's votes in doubt, Barack Obama has taken a commanding 338-156 lead. He also has taken a majority in the popular vote with 46.3 million votes to McCain's 42.9 million.

John McCain has conceded the race and President Bush has reportedly called Obama to congratulate him.

CNN is projecting that the GOP has 40 seats in the Senate wrapped up, meaing they only need one more to keep the Democrats from 60. The Dems have already been projected gains of at least 10 so far in the House and were predicted to gain 20-30 overall.

This leaves North Carolina, Montana, Missouri, and Indiana too close to call with Alaskan polls still open.

On behalf of the Truth For Youth and its contributors, I'd like to congratulate the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Update

Obama has been projected winner in Iowa and Virginia, while McCain has been projected in Texas, Utah, and Mississippi. Interestingly, Nebraska has been called for McCain, but two of the 5 electoral votes are called for Obama--more on that later. Obama is leading 222-138 in the electoral college.

The popular vote stands at 28.9 million to 27.7 million in Obama's favor.

Nevada, Indiana, Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina are still too close to call.

The Mississippi Senate race is too close to call and is one of the races that is deemed critical in the Democratic effort to reach 60 seats and be free from a filibuster.

Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that have a system other than the usual winner-take-all system used by the other states. A state's electoral total derives from the state's Congressional delegation--House and Senate combined. Nebraska and Maine award the state's two electoral votes deriving from the Senate to the overall popular vote winner of the state while the other electors, the House's, are awarded to the winner of each Congressional district.

Update - Obama projected winner of Ohio

CNN and Fox News are projecting Barack Obama as winner of Ohio, a major swing state, and New Mexico while they are calling Louisiana for McCain, giving Obama a commanding 200-90 electoral lead. With the typically Democratic West Coast factored in, that would give Obama 273 electoral votes and victory.

The GOP has never won the Presidency without Ohio.

These are just projections, and the actual result may differ as in Florida in 2000, but it certainly seems that the road is open for Barack Obama to win.

Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado, and Virginia are still too close to call.

Networks Call Pennsylvania for Obama; Other news

The major networks have called the battleground state of Pennsylvania for Barack Obama. Between Fox News and CNN, Obama has taken 175 Electoral Votes, winning New York, the District of Columbia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois as well as Pennsylvania. John McCain has been projected as winner in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, and Wyoming for 81 Electoral Votes.

This gives Obama 15 states plus D.C. while McCain has won 11.

Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina are too close to call. The popular vote is nearly tied, with CNN reporting Obama with 15.3 million to McCain's 15.1 million.

In the Senate, the Democrats are projected to pick up 3 seats including Elizabeth Dole's in North Carolina, giving them a majority. The Republicans have successfully defended the Georgia race and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's seat in Kentucky.

!!!!!!

OH MY GOD. ONE DAY! GET OUT TO VOTE TOMORROW!

Russia and Georgia agree to ceasefire, Russian tanks advance farther into Georgia

Tuesday, August 12, the Russian and Georgian governments agreed to a truce. The peace, produced by negotiations run by French President, and current EU President, Sarkozy entails a Six-point plan includes return of troops to pre-war positions as well as providing aid for civilians. The treaty, according to Sarkozy, "underlines, respects, guarantees Georgia's territorial integrity," and that the countries involved in the plan want to make it long-term.

However, the ceasefire does not seem to be in effect. On August 13, a convoy of Russian armored vehicles was seen leaving Gori--but going South, deeper into Georgia, not North. One Russian soldier reportedly shouted at reporters, “Come with us, beauty, we're going to Tbilisi [the Georgian capital].” Russian troops stopped just miles from Tbilisi. Georgian resistance in Ossetia was limited to isolated sniper fire as the bulk of the Georgian Army rallied around the capital, limited to old rocket launchers and vintage cannons to resist Russian armor. In addition to Russian soldiers, Abkhazian and Ossetian militants were also seen entering Georgia after reportedly looting ethnic Georgian homes within Ossetia and Abkhazia, on Abkhazian, laughing at the retreating Georgians, reportedly said that the Georgians received “American training in running away.” In response, President Saakashvili has announced that Georgia is leaving the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States), an alliance of the states that made up the Soviet Union (Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine). Saakashvili has called it a final farewell to a relic of the Soviet Union.

In response to renewed belligerence, the U.S. and Britain have made new threats of Russia’s removal from the G-8, some Western politicians have even referred to the group by its Cold War name, the G-7, as well as threats of barring Russia from the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The crisis has shown rifts among NATO, with other nations response not being as strong as that of the United States and Great Britain. The U.S. boycotted a NATO meeting with Russia, NATO cancelled joint naval exercises with Russia, and President Bush has sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Europe. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has also announced that Russia will need to ask for permission to return to Ukrainian naval bases. Finally, Poland and the U.S. have finalized a controversial deal for a missile shield placed in Poland with radar stations in the Czech Republic. In exchange for an unspecified number of U.S. Patriot missiles, Poland gives the U.S. the right to install 10 missile defense interceptors in Poland. The U.S. has also begun to send humanitarian aid to Georgia, under President Bush’s stern warning to Russia not to interfere.

In response, Russia has told Georgia that they can forget about annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, declaring her borders “limited,” and has issued an ultimatum to the U.S.: Friendship with Georgia, or long-term partnership with Russia, which is included on nuclear negotiations with North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile, Russian troops have reportedly advanced past Gori and Senaki and stopped just short of Tbilisi and Kutaisi, the second largest city in Georgia, and has allegedly launched missile strikes into Poti on the Black Sea, aimed at destroying what ships Georgia has. Russian criticism has been more focused on Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian President, calling him a tool and project of the United States and the West.

Finally, despite more recent reports by U.S. and Russian officials that indicate that Russia was planning on pulling out of Georgia later today, Russian military convoys were reportedly scene advancing towards Poti and Kutaisi while full blown Russian T-72 tanks were scene leaving Gori in the direction of Tbilisi. U.S. officials estimate Russian forces at 15,000 strong, up from initial estimates of 8-10,000.

My Take
I cannot help but laugh at the stupidity of Western diplomats in their dealings with Russia. It should come as no surprise that Russia is breaking this truce, if it ever began to pull back. It should come as no surprise that Moscow cannot be taken it at its word. One needs simply to look at history--old and recent. There is a reason one of Germany’s roles in European affairs was to keep the Russians out of Europe--whether it was the Prussians keeping out the Tsars or West Germany being the first buffer against the Commissars. RUSSIA CAN’T BE TRUSTED. People often learn in school about Senator McCarthy’s Anti-Communist hearings and about how he went too far. Not many learn that in some of his accusations he was correct--the Soviets really had a major spying operation in America and the U.S. government during World War II, when we were “friends” with the Soviets. The IMF (International Monetary Fund), set up by the great economist John Maynard Keynes, was also set up by a Communist in the Treasury Department with a built in mechanism to ruin the U.S. that wasn’t realized until, just in the nick of time, Richard Nixon was President. In 2001, nearly 10 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. finally caught Robert Hanssen--a high level F.B.I. official who was a spy for the Russians.

Russia could not be trusted then and cannot be trusted now. They apparently agree to a ceasefire and to pull out of Georgia, but Russian tanks are still running around Georgia’s biggest cities. And Joseph Stalin publicly promised free elections in Eastern Europe. The stepping up of anti-Saakashvili rhetoric should come as no surprise to anyone with a basic knowledge of Russia. As I said in my previous post, if undeterred Russia is going to try to do what is in their interest--the removal of Saakashvili’s government whether by force--covert or otherwise--or a prolonged military presence forcing Saakashvili to resign to save Georgia’s sovereignty.

On a side note, this brings to light the need for America’s energy independence. Europe has been relatively silent, except for a few voices, due to Russia’s control of oil. Russia’s recent post-Cold War resurgence is due to the massive surpluses they have been running thanks to oil exports. It’s sleek, new gear, not old Soviet materials, that are rolling into Georgia. The most prudent course of action is an “All of the Above” approach favored by many, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, that entails lifting all drilling bans, funding for research and development such as wind and solar, nuclear power, and even properly inflating our tires--everything. We cannot sustain shipping $700 billion a year for our energy needs indefinitely--no nation in history has survived unchanged incurring deficits, whether government, trade, and energy, as the U.S. is now.

On an electoral note, I am of the mind that prolonged exposure of the Georgian crisis helps John McCain more than Barack Obama. McCain has been firmer, even more so than Bush, and has echoes of the Cold War in his rhetoric. If reminded, the Americans who lived through it will remember the Cold War, and despite increased youth turnout, older people most likely will make up the bulk of the vote.

Provocative? Maybe. Disagree with me on Russia, Energy, or Anything Else? Feel free to comment.

Links
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.russia.war/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.russia.out/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_road_to_tbilisi;_ylt=AjSED6q_KBRS3FPOjWpFwLJvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.us/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia;_ylt=AlFdKa7AexyZX3mKVcKSU8xvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia;_ylt=AuP4rxAHFFjSEZOPqkRiIjhvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/14/georgia.russia.war/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/poland_us_missile_defense;_ylt=Asf3TdtshgRtaYvc8SEccplvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/then.now/

Russia invades Georgia, divide nation in two

On August 8, as the world watched the Olympic Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, China, Russian tanks rumbled into the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in Central Asia, breaking that tiny country beneath the behemoth that is Russia.

However, to understand the full story behind this situation, a brief history listen is required. Georgia is a Central Asian country wedged between the Black and Caspian Seas that borders Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian Empire annexed Georgia and the controversial provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, in the early and mid 1800s. Amidst the chaos that World War I brought to Russia, Georgia gained independence from Russia in 1918. However, in 1921 the Soviet Red Army invaded and retook Georgia, making it a Soviet Republic. Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin later ordered Abkhazia to consolidate with Georgia in 1931. Later, in 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolving, Georgia voted to leave the USSR by popular referendum (a vote of the people). With the yoke of the strict Communist system gone, nationalism drove Ossetians and Abkhazians to fight for Independence from Georgia. Georgian forces were forced out of both regions in 1992 although most of the world, including the West, continued to recognize them as part of Georgia while the provinces wished for a return to Russia. Tensions remained high throughout the 1990s and early 2000s as peace talks often break down and small conflicts erupt. However, into this picture came a resurgent Russia. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia took a nationalistic and authoritarian turn as high oil prices pour billions into the Russian treasury and Putin begins to modernize the military, decaying since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russian policy is bolder, as Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons begin to make Cold War era practice runs in the direction of Europe and Japan as well American military targets throughout Asia and Europe. Wishing to restore Russia to its former Soviet glory, Putin laid claim to “all former Soviet property” as well as taking strategic positions to aid pro-Moscow factions, in this case extending Russian citizenship to Ossetians and Abkhazians, as well as curbing civil liberties and silencing dissent--the Russian government was accused of involvement in the fatal radiation poisoning of a critical journalist in Britain as well as the dioxin poisoning of a Ukrainian Presidential candidate critical of Moscow.

Back to 2008, tensions between South Ossetia and Georgia escalate through the year, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Putin, now Prime Minister, reserve the right to defend “Russians” in the provinces, who had been given citizenship by Russia. Tensions boil over in early August, with each side claiming the other fired first. On August 6, Georgian troops entered South Ossetia and made large gains. In response, the Russians move their military to the defense of South Ossetia. The Georgian Army was quickly overwhelmed and in retreat. Abkhazians, seeing their chance, engage Georgian troops on their border in combat, and Russia expands their military action to aid Abkhazia. The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, declared a state of emergency and of war with war with Russia. Georgia called up all her reserves and pulled it’s entire contingent out of Iraq.

By Sunday, August 10, Georgian troops submitted to the Russian demand of withdrawal from South Ossetia and called for a ceasefire. The Russians rejected their request and that of the Western world including President Bush, the Presidential candidates, and Pope Benedict XVI for a cease to hostilities. Going beyond their original demands, the Russian Army invaded Georgia proper, taking the city of Gori, just south of South Ossetia. On Monday, August 11, Russia invaded Georgian controlled territory from Abkhazia, opening a second front in the war while Russian troops used the central city of Gori to take crucial highways, dividing Georgia in two as Georgian troops retreat to defensive positions around the capital city of Tbilisi.

Russia maintains that she has not started or intends to start an offensive despite Russian troops occupying Gori, the Senaki Georgian Army base, invading with their Black Sea fleet, and using air dominance to target radar stations and infrastructure around the Georgian capital, allegedly including a civilian airport. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin maintains that Russia is in the right, accusing Georgia of genocide while the Georgian government accuses the Russian Army of ethnic cleansing of ethnic Georgians within the provinces. The Russian aggression has been criticized by many Western leaders. Particular disgust and worry has come from Eastern European countries that were in the Soviet sphere of influence during the Cold War. Ukraine has reserved the right to bar the Russian Navy from returning to their Crimean bases due to their deployment to Georgia--the Russian Navy has a lease on those bases until 2017. Meanwhile, Poland and the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, condemned Russia and urge NATO and the West to take a firmer stance. The Presidents of those four nations are planning to travel to Georgia to stand with the Georgian President while French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

My Take
It is interesting to note that this come amid efforts by Georgia and the Ukraine to enter NATO, and that Georgia provides a pipeline for oil for Western Europe, bypassing Russia--the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to Europe. Also, Georgia was a rumored sight of radar bases for the proposed missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Coincidence?

I think not. Tensions have escalated and eased for over 15 years in Georgia, but Russia is ready with a full invasion force of tens of thousands of men, hundreds of tanks, and precise air strikes NOW. This an obviously planned act of Russia flexing its reconstituted strength over its old sphere of dominance, peeved by Eastern expansion of NATO and the European Union into said sphere and NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo, stripping that province from Serbia--an old Russian ally.

It is foolish to think that Russia ever had designs simply to aid “Russians” in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. One must only look at the history with dealing with states that begin to lean Western. Consider the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. As well as the historical echo of another authoritarian regime: Hitler’s Germany initially demanded the absorption of Sudetenland Germans before taking all of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Is Georgia marked by Russia for absorption? Will merely a blatantly pro-Moscow government be installed? No proof exists for either scenario, but Putin had ominous words directed at the pro-America Georgian President Saakashvili, alluding to the fate of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein: "Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said in Moscow. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection." Will another name be added to the list of people whose blood is already allegedly on Putin’s hands?

Verily, Russia stands most to gain from the annexation or at least the deposing of the current government. Greater control of European oil, denting U.S. plans for a defensive missile shield, regaining an old friend, insulating Georgia from NATO and EU expansion, a re-assertion of Russian power for the world to see, and, perhaps most importantly, the harming of American clout in foreign affairs. The United States left the Cold War the greatest power in the history of the world. No country had the ability to project power as the U.S. could. Grateful for aid in rolling back Communism by pressuring the Soviets, Eastern Europe has been especially loyal to the U.S., siding with the U.S. and supporting it when Western Europe has been skeptical. If Georgia, a de facto ally of the United States, is overrun by Russia and bent to Moscow’s desired position, what does that say of the U.S.? Its word? Its ability to protect other nations? If Russia sees the U.S. sit and don’t back up its talk, what do you think will be Russia’s designs for the former Soviet states not yet in NATO’s protective embrace? What will other countries, China in Asia, and others think of American threats? The deck is stacked in Russia’s favor. Russia holds a veto vote in the UN Security Council. The U.S. and NATO will not intervene and risk nuclear war. Russia can get away with whatever it wants in Georgia bar some “super solution,” but none existed in 1956 and 1968, and none exists now.

Although Georgia is essentially doomed militarily and has little hope of aid in that respect, there are measures that can be taken by the U.S. and the West. The immediate acceptance of the Ukraine into NATO would remove another target out of Russia’s reach, limiting their military scope and forcing Russia to take a new approach to its foreign policy. Baring Russia out of the WTO, GATT, and removal from the G-8 would isolate Russia in trade. Additionally, a heightened drive for energy independence: offshore drilling, exploration in natural gas rich Scandinavia, alternative fuels like hydrogen, nuclear power, wind power, and even properly inflating tires. In time, Russia’s great hold on the West, energy, will be diminished. Russia wants to return to the glory of the Soviet Empire. It will take the Cold War cooperation of America and the West to stop them.

Election ’08
Barack Obama has mostly echoed calls by the UN, the EU, NATO, and President Bush in calling for an immediate ceasefire as well as a return to diplomacy. John McCain has been more direct and forceful in his rhetoric against Russia, calling on the West to use leverage against Russia such as acceptance into international organizations as well as diplomatic pressure, saying "We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world." When the Obama campaign called his remarks needlessly belligerent, McCain declared Obama’s policy tantamount to appeasement. This crisis provides the candidates with a genuine foreign policy test, something that debate points can’t cover.

More pictures are available here.

Links
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080811/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_south_ossetia
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/georgia.russia/index.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/10/2330218.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_re_eu/un_georgia_russia;_ylt=AlsrDrovDM7jxiIHeSLf3yp0bBAF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/ukraine_russia_georgia;_ylt=AujWN3X6J0shGynjcB3O4OV0bBAF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080811/ap_on_re_eu/eastern_europe_russia_georgia;_ylt=Atq9qa8kSFp2U0VpT6sParJ0bBAF
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/47174.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080811/wl_mcclatchy/3015456
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080809/pl_politico/12409

100 Days!

Hello folks, just letting you know that today, July 27th, marks the 100 day point until the election.

I'll take some pragmatism with my change, please!

Well, hello there blog reader! It's been a while... 4 months and 5 days to be exact. For that, allow me to apologize; the blog fell into a coinciding disrepair with all of our bloggers. Chris, Marco, Chelsea and I were busy preparing for AP exams, and with the end of the year pressures that go along with Senior year, none of us were particularly filled with energy or able to make posts any more. As summer began our project was forgotten, although in pretty much every conversation I've had with them (and I talk to Marco daily) the idea to restart the blog has been included. To do justice to that, I'll bat lead off once again.

Since our effort went into a hiatus, we have had a whole host of political stuff happen; gas climbed to over 4 dollars a gallon (the price of oil spiked to over $140 a barrel), Barack Obama and John McCain gained their respective party's presumptive nomination, the home mortgage crisis has pretty much drowned our already flailing economy and brought us dangerously close to a categorical recession, and the Supreme Court made a number of landmark decisions. Those issues and topics will be covered in the days and weeks ahead in our best possible detail, but my actual post has to deal with something that has inspired me personally to resuscitate the blog: the issue of "pragmatism."

Now, you're definitely cursing my "big vocabulary" and wondering exactly what pragmatism is. A dictionary.com definition of pragmatism: "a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value."

Okay, so now that the definition is cleared up for three of you, I'll explain the meaning of the definition applied to my posts for the rest of you. Pragmatism is the philosophy of practicality; that is, any solution to a problem should serve practical interests, and more specifically this series of posts will attempt to reconcile issues on both sides of the political spectrum with a practical solution for both sides. More specifically, this series of posts should be labeled "reconciled pragmatism" but that doesn't exactly do poetic justice, now does it?

Okay, and one more thing before I get into serious detail with this post. When you're reading these posts, please do read them from the first word to the last word without skipping parts you don't want to read. I'll be bashing and praising parts of both sides of any given issue, so if your well reasoned (and hijacked) argument is offended, please grind through it and hear me all the way out. So, without further adieu, I present the first in my series of "pragmatic" posts. The issue at hand is gay marriage.

First things first, why gay marriage? Well, recently this issue has been pressed to the top of the headlines on news websites and newspapers, and considering the point of this blog is to focus our youthful votes on issues that actually require deep thought and debate (economics, warfare and foreign policy, energy), the fact that gay marriage is being given our time has some importance for both moral figures and gays themselves, but the fact is that the vast majority of society could care less. That doesn't mean that this issue has no importance; basic facts about the issue state otherwise, but it is no doubt a second-hand issue when energy needs are slaughtering our economy while we're dumping $341 million dollars per day into Iraq.

So, we've established that gay marriage is an (although second-hand) issue that needs solving without (in my opinion) a great national debate.

The Right Wing's Opinion:
Yes, fiscal conservatives, I realize that the Christian Right does not speak for you, but for purposes of expediency we're going to lump you all into one category. (That applies to you, too, Catholic liberals.) Generally speaking, the right's moral argument on gay marriage says something like this: because 5,000 years of human tradition, from Lucy to the most recent religiously sanctioned marriages. establishes that the definition of marriage is one man plus one woman equals marriage, and that gays are trying to redefine the traditional and... basically logical definition of marriage. Okay, to this I say yes, yes yes yes. This is both reasoned, researched, and basically irrefutable. Morally. There is not and will never be a moral argument in favor of gay marriage that you will hear me or any other honest moralist make, because that argument simply does not exist. The part of the right's argument that I do not agree with is a ban on a national piece of policy that regulates "gay marriage" (or what I will refer to in this paragraph and later on in detail as a "union"). Sorry guys, you tried that one already. The battle over the legality of interracial marriage has a myriad of parallels to the current battle over the legality of same-sex marriage. "Each [person] has the right and the privilege of marrying withing his or her own group." This argument could easily be substituted for gays, to something like "Each gay can marry, legally, in any state to someone of the opposite gender." The first (incidentally quoted from the Justice Shenk's dissenting opinion in the 1948 California Supreme Court case, Perez v. Lippold) is from a the California case that overturned California's ban on interracial marriage in 1948. The second (which I invented) is a standard yet flimsy civil argument against gay marriage. With that presented, I will move on to the left's argument

The Left's Argument:
The left's typical civil (or legal) argument speaks as something like this: because marriage is an institution tied to insurance claims, emergency room visits, and other property issues, the fact that gays couples are denied equal access to the institution of marriage is an infringement of their equal protection under the laws (the "due process clause" spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment). To this I say yes, yes yes yes. Again, this is both reasoned, researched, and definitely irrefutable. The fact that gays can be together for decades without equal protection under the law as citizens is a serious injustice and breach of our Constitutional protection for all citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the leftist argument spells out that a "civil union" is also unconstitutional, citing Brown v. Board as evidence of this. How could a civil rights case possibly apply to gay marriage? Well, Brown's majority opinion states that a "separate" institution (that is, civil union for marriage) is "inherently unequal." Again, yes yes yes. Without getting into too much detail, civil unions only confer local or state benefits at best and have no weight in federal law, making them legally speaking nothing more than a note on a page. What this means is, for example, Tom and Bob might have a legal civil union in Connecticut, but if Tom commits a federal offense, Bob can be forced to testify against him in federal court, whereas if they were married under the law they could not be forced to testify against each other. However, gays get this issue wrong on one major point: by calling it "marriage," they are fighting an uphill battle. The word marriage evokes one image for most people, religious marriage. The problem is that "most people" can also be defined as "most of the electorate" so fear tactics about the "preservation of marriage" are laughably easy to use in order to detract from gay marriage reform attempts. However, the right wing on this issue is totally focused on protection of religious marriage, not civil marriage. Sometimes I wonder if the strongest advocates of a prohibition on gay marriage even realize that. In any case, in the defense of religious marriage they are correct, religious marriage is a moral issue and therefore worth protecting.

Reconciliation:
Okay, so I have presented why the right is correct to protect the religious institution of marriage, and why the left is correct to assault the civil institution of marriage. My reconciliation on this issue comes in several forms. The first is that a federal piece of policy, whether it be an executive order, a law passed by Congress, or a Supreme Court decision, must be enacted which removes the word "marriage" from federal and state statutes that apply to marriage. The fact that marriage was written into our laws in the first place is a violation of the first clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is called the "exercise clause" and can be applied to this very issue in an active way. My belief on the practicality (pragmatism!) of this argument is simple: we required schools to desegregate with Brown, and I think with a new piece of policy we can require secretaries to edit "marriage" out of statutes and replace it with "union." Further, the definition of the term "union" is afforded to the states, so folks concerned about too much federal power are satisfied, and a de facto check to the states abridging gay unions is that anything that abridges same-sex marriage must also abridge straight marriages. Alas, by simply rewording the idea within the law, you detach all religious stigma from the issue and make it a simple civil issue. The second form of reconciliation is contained in the second clause of the First Amendment, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religious marriage survives and is defended against a precedent less and illogical redefinition of the institution, while preserving the legal rights of gays. A side-benefit for moralists (at least in my view) comes in a different, sort of twisted way. For religious couples to claim they are married, as they most certainly will want to, they must attend their religious services and by doing so in fact strengthen religious ties in America! While this solution might lend itself to a bit too many practical benefits, I submit that it is the best solution available.

There, is basically, my exhaustive and detailed argument in reconciliation of the issue of gay marriage. For a quick and easy summary: Detractors of gay marriage are trying to defend religious marriage from intrusion by gay couples, and supporters are trying to receive equal protection under the laws guaranteed to them in the Constitution. To solve this problem, we redefine the legal definition of marriage as the states see fit, and the new definition must be termed "union". Also, states continue to recognize religious marriage, however religious marriage contains no special legal rights compared to a "union."

The fact is that we must recognize religious heritage while also recognizing common rights of all citizens. Both sides of this issue can be reconciled.

I appreciate any and all arguments against this post, as the free exchange of ideas is key to improving my own argument and changing any views I have presented here.

Pragmatic?

---

Phew. That was exhaustive. If you even got to this point, thank you. The comment button is below, use it! Idea exchange and questions are both seriously desired :)

PS, the blog hiatus at least worked for our blog authors; all four of us received fives on the AP Gov exam.

PPS, a quick google search for "civil argument gay marriage" yielded several articles; three of the top articles look dangerously similar to mine. I would like to note for the record that I share the ideas of these articles and no idea is original any more but I did not straight up steal any of the material posted in this post. This was a more pragmatic solution that I had envisioned in some discussion with good ol' Jillian on the topic at issue here. I just didn't write it down first!

Quick Bibliography:
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/marriage_equality0905.pdf?docID=881
http://www.brownat50.org/brownCases/PreBrownCases/PerezvLippoldCal1948.html
Also, the US Constitution was referenced in physical form for the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Obama wins Mississippi Primary, Texas Caucus

Senator Barack Obama won the Mississippi primary yesterday and has been projected the winner of March 4's Texas caucus. He took 61% of the Mississippi vote and is currently at 56% in the Texas caucus with 41% reporting. Texas holds both a primary, which Senator Hillary Clinton won, and a caucus depending on district or county. Senator John McCain won the Mississippi primary and has increased his delegate count to 1,325.

Democrats (2,025 needed to win)
Barack Obama: 1,611 (207 superdelegates)
Hillary Clinton: 1,480 (237 superdelegates)

There are 931 delegates unawarded or uncommitted; however there are not enough pledged delegates left for either to realistically win enough for clinching the nomination. There are still 359 undecided superdelegates, but the 796 superdelegates can change their mind at any time and can swing the election either way.

My Take
Although neither can clinch victory, Clinton is falling into a deeper hole and will most likely only be able to take the nomination by the superdelegate vote. Buth, this would embitter mainstream Democrats since having the party elite choose the candidate would, effectively, invalidate their vote since Obama has taken the pledged delegates from the states by a wide margin. I believe, in an effort to best preserve party unity, the superdelegates would affirm the party's popular vote, and Obama would win the nomination unless Clinton surges in the remaining primaries and begins to look like a better general election candidate. Incidentally, Clinton has lost a superdelegate through his resignation in the New York Spitzer scandal.

Links
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=MS
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Obama wins Wyoming Caucus; Dems debate fate of MI/FL Delegates

On Saturday, March 8, Barack Obama won the Democratic Wyoming caucus. He took 61% of the caucus to 38% for Hillary Clinton. The overall delegate total was little changed by Obama’s 7-5 victory. Mitt Romney won the Republican Wyoming caucus in January.

Overall Delegate Count (2,024 needed to win)
Barack Obama: 1,527 (1,328 pledged; 199 super)
Hillary Clinton: 1,428 (1,190 pledged; 238 super)

There are still 1,066 delegates to be awarded, however there are only around 750 pledged delegates left, and neither can realistically win enough for clinching the nomination. There are still 359 undecided superdelegates, but the 796 superdelegates can change their mind at any time.

My Take
This makes little difference. The major contest is still Pennsylvania on April 22 and Mississippi this Tuesday, but it is so long until the Pennsylvania primaries that a victory by either in Mississippi would carry no significant momentum. On a side note, this victory attests to Obama’s caucus strength since in the individual counties he won with at least 60% of the vote while receiving around 45% support in those that he lost.

Michigan/Florida
More important for the Democratic race is the fate of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. For moving their primary up past February 5, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped the states of their delegates to deter other states from doing the same. Now, with the race so close, there is talk of what to do with the states’ delegates. Some say that the votes should stand, but neither campaigned in either state and Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot. Some have called for a revote, but that would cost $10 million in Michigan and $20 million in Florida. There have been also calls for a caucus or Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has stated that mail-in ballots might be utilized to keep costs low. The question of who picks up the cost is the major stumbling block, as Governor Granholm of Michigan has stated that no Michigan tax dollars will be used for the effort, and Dean asserted that the DNC will not foot the bill to make up for Michigan’s and Florida’s decision to break party rules.

My Take
Personally, I believe that a caucus should be held in each state so cost is down and it is more of a party decision since I believe that a party’s candidate should be chosen primarily by the party, and I originally stood in solidarity with DNC in its effort to maintain some control over the nominating process. But, I think in the end funds will be gathered by some means for a primary redo. But, the race is too close to ignore two big states. However, results from a contest with only Clinton on the ballot cannot stand, and mail-ins would be a horrible mess to distribute and collect to count—not to mention coordinating mailing for a certain day by millions that live in Florida and Michigan. What do you guys think should be done?

Final Note
Ron Paul has, in effect, ended his campaign by acknowledging he will not be the nominee or that there is hope for a brokered convention in which his beliefs and principles can make it onto the Republican platform. He has vowed to continue to fight for his beliefs and for change in America.

Edit, 3/11/08-
Ron Paul has affirmed in an interview that he has, in fact, not ended his campaign.

Links
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/09/michigan.florida/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/florida.michigan/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/ron.paul/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703061.html

McCain wraps the nomination; Clinton and Obama march on

Yesterday, Tuesday, March 4th (dubbed "Crucial Tuesday" by some analysts) was a make or break day for both Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton. Tuesday's results are as follows:

Democrats

Hillary Clinton

Texas- 51% (majority)
Ohio- 54% (majority)
Vermont- 39%
Rhode Island- 58% (majority)


Barack Obama

Texas- 48%
Ohio- 44%
Vermont- 59% (majority)
Rhode Island- 41%


My analysis: Crucial Tuesday would have been the final test for Hillary Clinton; if she had lost Texas or Ohio her campaign would likely have been over and with that the Democratic primary race. Clinton's 10 point win in Ohio was a huge surge for her campaign, with that she snapped Obama's 11 primary winning streak. When the final results for Texas came in, Clinton had only a 3 point lead but she can still claim victory in the Lone Star State. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic primaries usually use a proportional delegate count; 51% of the Texas vote means (more or less) 51% of the delegate count. Obama had 102 delegate lead before Crucial Tuesday votes, and now he commands a (CNN projected) 96 delegate lead. As you can see, although Clinton came out victorious in three of the primaries, the delegate count shifted very little due to the proportional delegate distribution. Clinton's strategy at this point will be to win Pennsylvania and use her superdelegate support to win the nomination; Obama's chief strategy at this point is to basically derail Clinton's strategy by strong campaigning for the April 22 competition in Pennsylvania.

In Texas, Hillary Clinton won a majority of Latino voters, older voters, less educated (high school or less), voters on the issue of Health Care, and voters who decided in recent weeks. Clinton's win among Latino voters is evidence of enduring Latino support from the administration of Bill Clinton. Older voters typically support Hillary Clinton and that trend has held true in every primary and caucus so far. Less educated voters in Texas voting for Clinton can be seen as a reflection of Clinton's strong working class support. Clinton's win amongst Health Care voters is a reflection of her strong and well-outlined plan for health care, and her win among voters who recently decided who to vote for is a reflection both of her strong anti-Obama ads being run in the past few days and her strong performance in last week's debate.

Obama took a majority of higher educated voters, the black vote, the youth vote, and voters on the issue if Iraq. Obama's strong performance in higher educated voters is likely a reflection of Obama's strong support on college campuses: most college voters also fall into the youth bracket. Obama's support from blacks and the youth have been a staple of his campaign and those two demographics have consistently supported Obama. Voters on Iraq favor Obama for his anti-war stance on the war since its inception and also because Clinton voted to approve the war.



GOP

John McCain (majorities in every race)

Texas- 51%
Ohio- 60%
Vermont- 72%
Rhode Island- 65%

Mike Huckabee

Texas- 38%
Ohio- 31%
Vermont- 14%
Rhode Island- 22%

Ron Paul

Texas- 5%
Ohio- 5%
Vermont- 7%
Rhode Island- 7%

My analysis: John McCain locked the nomination on Crucial Tuesday, winning all four of the states by 13 point margins (or higher) and cruising past the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. McCain currently sits at 1, 289 projected delegates, a comfortable margin past the needed delegate count. What this means is that McCain will be able to spend the next two months focusing more on emphasizing his own strengths and downplaying his Democratic rivals while infighting in the Democratic party will detract from their own anti-McCain rhetoric. This extra time helps McCain to play up his strengths and prepare for the Democratic assault nearing the general election. Mike Huckabee, expecting greater success in the March 4 primaries, backed out of the race earlier today saying "[I] Wish it would have ended differently, but it is what it is." Strangely enough, Ron Paul still considers the race to be on, his website* has no indication of Paul dropping out of the race. In addition, today McCain received the official endorsement of President George W. Bush at the White House. Now that the primary season for the Republicans is over, I anticipate a full GOP backing of McCain. Although many right-wing pundits are still withholding support for McCain, I believe that soon they will give McCain their full endorsements and prepare along with him for the upcoming general election.


Sources used: (apologies for the inundation, but this is a complete list.)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#OHDEM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=VT
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#OH
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#RI
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/mccain.bush/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/huckabee/index.html
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Election Update - Obama soars past Clinton; McCain locks up Republican Nomination

First off, let me apologize for no significant updates on the election over the last few weeks due to the inundation of several members with other commitments. However, I hope that in the future that our response to news will be as quick and as prompt as possible.

Now then, over the past weeks, John McCain and Barack Obama used momentum from Super Tuesday to forward their campaign efforts. Obama swept through the Democratic contests in Louisiana, Nebraska (caucus), Washington, Maine (caucus), Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, and Hawaii (caucus)—taking the lead in delegates over rival Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has also officially won the New Mexico primary. John McCain has also roared forward, coming within 200 delegates of a clinched nomination by taking Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Wisconsin. Rival Mike Huckabee won in the Kansas caucus, but, after nearly a month, has not caught up to Mitt Romney’s total before Romney suspended his campaign and endorsed McCain.

This Tuesday is what some are now calling “Super Tuesday 2,” when the delegate rich states of Ohio and Texas vote and can give John McCain a clinch, and, on the Dems’ side, make or break Hillary Clinton.

Democrats (2,025 to win)
Barack Obama: 1,369 (185 Superdelegates)
Hillary Clinton: 1,267 (236 Superdelegates)
There are still 1,387 delegates left.

My Take
Everything is going Obama’s way. Clinton’s big state strategy, so secure a month ago, is in jeopardy as Obama has taken the lead in Texas and is closing the gap in Ohio. Considering how rich in delegates those two states are, if Hillary doesn’t take enough to close the gap her campaign will come crashing down. She probably knows this, and her desperation can be seen by her sudden desire to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates as well as challenging Texas’s established “two step” caucus and primary set up, especially considering Obama’s strength in caucuses.

Republicans (1,191 to win)
John McCain: 1,033 (66 Unpledged RNC)
Mitt Romney(out): 255
Mike Huckabee: 247 (3 Unpledged RNC)
Ron Paul: 21
There are 824 delegates left.

My Take
The race is pretty much over. Huckabee will need nearly all the remaining delegates plus support from Romney’s delegates—not likely considering Romney’s endorsement of McCain. John McCain will the Republican nominee, and after March 4 it will be official or within a few delegates.

Links
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R

Fidel Castro Steps Down as Cuba's Leader

A year and a half after temporarily handing power over to his brother Raul, Fidel Castro has announced his intention to officially step down after 49 years or rule after his communist revolution swept through Cuba. He cited his health as the primary reason for stepping down. Cuba's National Assembly is on February 24, and most likely Castro's wishes will be met and Raul will become President and Commander-in-Chief.

Cuba was a under the hand of U.S. business interests until Castro seized power from the regime of Fulgencio Batista, dictator of Cuba until 1958, and eventually instituting a communist government with close ties with the Soviet Union. Over the years, Cuba was often the target of U.S. Cold War rhetoric. Its height in international relations came in 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Soviets attempted to place nuclear weapons in Cuba, minutes away from Washington, D.C.

In opposition to the communist government, the United States has accepted all refugees who have made it to U.S. soil, a 90 mile journey. Additionally, an embargo, or ban on all trade, has been levied since 1962. Cuba enjoyed the favor of Soviet governments and had many "easy money" markets and special subsidies from Moscow, but beginning in the 1980s and accelerated by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba has been suffering economically, losing nearly 90% of its markets--Communist Eastern Europe. Many have called for an end to the embargo ranging from Steven Spielberg to the late Pope John Paul II, saying it would bring an end to Castro's rule.

Castro's retirement was greeted with joy by Cubans living in Florida--many descended from refugees--as well as hope that a freer, more democratic Cuba might follow. There have been voices in the Cuban government calling for change since the downturn of the Soviet Union, resulting in a Cuban downturn.

My Take
I honestly don't believe there will be that much change in Cuba--at least while Fidel is alive. Raul fought side by side with Fidel in the 1950s and believes in what his brother believes in. He will continue to pursue a repressive policy to maintain, and, in response to the limiting of the Cuban peoples' freedom, the government will not raise the embargo anytime soon. While Fidel is still alive, he can use some backroom power to make sure his policy, and Raul's, stay in effect. Once Fidel is dead and the depression does not abate, then there is a chance that turmoil might come to Cuba. Until then, expect business to go on as "normal" as you can call it on Cuba.

What's a Superdelegate?

According dictionary.com a superdelegate is “a party leader or elected public official chosen as an uncommitted delegate to a national political convention.” Only the Democrats have superdelegates, and they are chosen by the Democratic Party based on their status within the party. Superdelegates attend the Democratic National Convention and cast their own vote for a Presidential candidate, and do not necessarily have to follow the popular vote. Some of Michigan’s Superdelegates include Governor Granholm, U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow and U.S. Rep. John Dingell.

In an election this close, the superdelegate's role becomes more deciding than it does symbolic. The margin of defeat in the delegates (gained by primary elections) between Obama and Clinton right now is less that the amount of superdelegates (719) that will be at the Convention in late August.

A CNN report concluded that “While divided over which candidate to support, Democrats are largely agreed that the battle over delegates needs to be resolved without a sense that superdelegates -- which include Democratic lawmakers, governors, and other VIPs -- are making a decision that opposes what voters want.”

If the superdelegates actually ended up making the difference, or reversing the decision on the popular vote in the primaries, would that not be considered undemocratic? There is also a concern among party members that delegates may work out deals with each other, trying to swing the vote to one candidate. On the other hand, some believe superdelegates will follow the interest of their constituents.

So what do you think? Should superdelegates hold this much power? Or should the popular vote in the Primary hold up at the National Convention?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/17/2008.dems/index.html

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Quote de Jour

"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security ultimately will lose both."
-Abraham Lincoln

Quote de Jour

"The greatest threat to our [democratic] experiment will not come from those who would openly oppose us, but those who will silently follow us."
-Thomas Paine

Super Tuesday Explained

Ok guys so I know Super Tuesday has passed but this clip does a really good job of explaining what has happened over the last few months or so.



Let us know what you think.

Election Update - Mitt Romney "Suspends" Campaign

Mitt Romney effectively ended his bid for the Presidency by suspending his campaign in order to provide the Republican party with unity heading into the general election. He made the announcement at the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). He said that a drawn out GOP campaign would weaken and divide the party, making it easier for the Democratic candidate--Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton--to win the White House come November. He called for unity in the party against the threat of radical Islam and of surrender in the war on terror. Several notable conservative leaders, including Billy Graham, have already pledged support for McCain, while others, such as Sean Hannity, approach the Senator with caution. Mike Huckabee has stated that he has no plans of quitting any time soon.

Election Update
More accurate Super Tuesday delegate numbers are now available.

Democrats (2,025 needed to win)
Hillary Clinton: 1,033(193 Superdelegates)
Barack Obama: 937(106 Superdelegates)

Additionally, the New Mexico have been updated.
99% Reporting
Hillary Clinton: 49%(68,654)
Barack Obama: 48%(67,531)

My Take
Not much has changed. Hillary's lead has grown in New Mexico, so she will probably win, but it will only be a gain of one delegate, and the Democratic party is already looking towards future contests.

Republicans (1,191 needed to win)
John McCain: 714(17 Superdelegates)
Mitt Romney: 286(0 Superdelegates)
Mike Huckabee: 181(3 Superdelegates)

My Take
Romney's move opens up a lot of the conservative vote, especially in the caucuses where his performance was superb. The conservative vote might switch to Huckabee, making this a close election, but there is little room for error if Huckabee wants a majority. Huckabee's performance will improve, especially in the South, but it is my belief that John McCain will win the nomination.

Side Note
It certainly is ironic that what was once a contested GOP field has developed into dominance for Senator McCain while the Democrat field, previously epitomized by trends of single candidate dominace, is now so hotly contested. Many people predicted a divided GOP convention, but, if anything, a divided Democratic party is more likely. What will happen? Only time will tell, stay tuned.

Extra Information
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R

Super Tuesday Results a Boon for Senators McCain and Obama

Yesterday was Super Tuesday. Twenty-four states held presidential primaries or caucuses: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. For the Democrats, 1,681 delegates were up for grabs in 16 primaries and 7 caucuses while the Republicans had 1,020 delegates at stake in 15 primaries and 6 caucuses.

Democrats
At the time of this posting, all states have been called with the exception of New Mexico's primary, where Hillary Clinton holds a thin 200 vote lead.

98%reporting
Clinton: 66,173--49%
Obama: 65,963--48%

If I had to make a call, I'd go with Hillary Clinton based on other trends that I will explain later. Additionally, given how tight the rest of Super Tuesday was, this can be crucial. In the rest of the Super Tuesday competition, Barack Obama took 13 states: all six caucuses (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Dakota) plus seven primaries (Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, and Utah), and Clinton won in 8 states, all primaries (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Tennesse). The final count was almost deadlocked, but Obama came through and is projected to win 840-850 delegates to Clinton's 830-840 when all is settled. This puts Barack Obama ahead in earned delegates, 635-630, but Senator Clinton's superdelegate advantage puts her ahead overall 823-741. 2,025 delegates are needed to win the nomination.

Republicans
On the Republican side, John McCain moved into full frontrunner status with 9 state wins, Mitt Romney picked up 7, and Mike Huckabee won in 5 states. Senator took several large states, all primaries (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma). Mitt Romney performed strongly in the caucuses (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota) as well as in the primaries in Massachusetts and Utah. Mike Huckabee won several southern primaries (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee) and a caucus (West Virginia). John McCain has vaulted into a huge lead over Romney, second, and Mike Huckabee, third. 680-270-176-16 (Ron Paul remained in fourth). 1,191 delegates are needed to win the nomination.

Noticeable Trends
Analyzing Super Tuesday results, I've noticed concrete trends in both parties.

Democrats
Both candidates were powerful in the Northeast and split the region rather evenly with Clinton holding an edge; Senator Clinton took Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York while Obama won in Delaware and Connecticut. In the South, there was another close race with Senator Clinton holding a slim lead; Alabama and Georgia went for Obama, while Clinton took Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Clinton was strong in both Western states--winning both Arizona and California while Obama won in Alaska. Obama carried the Midwest states of Kansas, Minnesota, Illinois, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, and the nations traditional "bellwether," Missouri. Additionally, Obama won in all the caucus states, a testament to the loyalty of his supporters and the skill of his organization.

Republicans
A much more decisive race, John McCain was a powerhouse in the Northeast and West, winning Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. He also picked up victories in South (Oklahoma) and Midwest by taking Illinois and Missouri. Mike Huckabee's support rested firmly in the South as he won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Mitt Romney was able to win primaries in Massachusetts, where he was governor, and Utah, which has a high Mormon population. Utah also translated into Midwest success for Romney--he went on to take Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota. Romney's campaign organization was espoused by a near sweep of the caucuses--Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska; he has won in several other previous caucuses. Huckabee won the West Virginia caucus. Ron Paul was able to gather some delegates from caucuses, where organization and fervor matters.

The Bellwhether State
Throughout this post, I've referred to Missouri as the "bellwhether state." I am referring to Missouri's uncanny ability to predict elections. Missouri is a central state with liberals and conservatives, so it is a better indicator than Texas or Massachusetts. Beginning in 1904, Missouri has voted for the winner of the Presidential election every time except 1956 and has been within 2% of the national popular vote. Missouri has also been an economic indicator as well as political.

Delegate Apportioning
How a state distributes delegates in a primary or caucus is entirely up to the state; it can be based on county, district, by percentage, or the winner can be awarded all the delegates. It can also affect momentum depending on how it goes, as seen in Super Tuesday. For the Republicans, Huckabee took Alabama with 41%, and John McCain had 37%. Huckabee was awarded 20 delegates while McCain took home 16. In California, however, McCain got 42% to Mitt Romney's 34%, but McCain took 116 delegates to Romney's 3. In Missouri, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney took 33%, 32%, and 29% respectively, but McCain won all 58 delegates. All Super Tuesday states were proportional on the Democrat side.

West Virginia Controversy
West Virginia's Republican caucus had a little bit of machine style dealings on Tuesday. Romney came in expecting to win the winner-take-all state and led in the early balloting. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney moved on to the second ballot, but Ron Paul was disqualified. Romney stood comfortably in the high 40% range, but the other three candidate's delegates made a deal. Allegedly acting on orders from campaign coordinators, most of McCain's votes defected to Huckabee while all of Paul's vote caucused for Huckabee. As a result, Huckabee won a majority and all 18 delegates. Ron Paul received 3 delegates for their aid. Mitt Romney officials said that this was just the kind of dealing a Washington-insider like McCain would pull--even pulling the strings for a "tax and spend" governor.

My Take
Democrats
The Democrat race emerged with no clear cut nominee so the race will continue on. Obama gained some momentum by dominating the Midwest, a much larger region than the Northeast or West, where Clinton holds an edge. Additionally, there are several democratic caucuses in February alone, where Obama is clearly stronger. Midwestern states will be holding primaries as well. If I HAD to guess, I'd say Obama ekes it out in the end.

Republicans
John McCain has clearly taken control of this race, surging nearly 600 delegates, and is now over half way to the nomination. A conservative's "worst fear" came true as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee split the conservative vote, allowing McCain, who has held various left leaning positions and allies, to step in. Strong conservatives would be further incensed by the Huckabee-McCain-Paul deal, possibly portraying McCain as the big government dealer many fear him to be. However, as long as Romney and Huckabee are in the race, the effect will continue. Some have even said that Huckabee is staying in to help McCain by hurting Romney. Mitt Romney needs a breakthrough fast to reach southern conservatives and will need to translate Midwest success into a virtual sweep if that is to be his base. Ron Paul is attracting little attention and would probably need Romney and Huckabee to drop out and conservatives are given more insight into his views. If I HAD to guess, I'd say it looks like smooth sailing for McCain from here on in, and there is a real possibility it will be.

Additional Info.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/romney-camp-accuses-mccain-huckabee-of-shady-w.-va.-deal-2008-02-05.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/#20080205
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R

Quote de Jour

"Give us the child who wants to learn, give us the people in need of work, give us the veterans who need our care. We say give us the economy to rebuild and this war to end, give us this nation to heal, this world to lead, this moment to seize."
-Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton's close to a speech made late Tuesday night. More on the results of Super Tuesday to come very soon.

Quote of the Day

"She is more conservative...I will campaign for Hillary if he {McCain} gets the nomination."
-Well known Conservative author and pundit Ann Coulter

Election Update - Giuliani and Edwards Drop Out

In the last ten days there have been 4 contests in 3 states. The Democrats have held their primaries in South Carolina and Florida, and the Republicans have held their Florida primary as well as a caucus in Maine. Barack Obama convincingly won the South Carolina primary with 55% of the vote--doubling up on Hillary Clinton's 27%. Senator Clinton won Florida, but, like Michigan, the Democratic party stripped Florida of its delegates for moving up their primary. For the Republicans, John McCain won Florida with 36% of the vote to Mitt Romney's 31%. Rudy Giuliani won 15% of the vote. In Maine, Mitt Romney won with relative ease with 52% of the vote, and is projected to take all 18 delegates. John McCain came in second in Maine with 21%, and Ron Paul closely followed with 19%. Please note that this is with 68% of the caucus reporting.

After the Florida primaries, both John Edwards on the Democratic side and Rudy Giuliani on the Republican side dropped out. The Edwards campaign never gained traction and couldn't rebound from a disappointing second place finish in Iowa. Rudy Giuliani bet his entire campaign on Florida, but was swallowed up by the momentum Governor Romney and Senator McCain brought in by their earlier victories. Rudy Giuliani has endorsed John McCain.

Super Tuesday is this Tuesday, February 5, and 24 states will hold a caucus or primary.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton remains the leader in total delegates to date:

Hillary Clinton: 232
Barack Obama: 158
John Edwards(OUT): 26

On the Republican side, John McCain has moved into the lead for total delegates with Mitt Romney coming in a close second.

John McCain: 97
Mitt Romney: 92
Mike Huckabee: 29
Ron Paul: 6

My Take
Democrats
The race has come down to two candidates at last, and Super Tuesday will the pivotal fight. Hillary Clinton leads in several delegate rich states, but Barack Obama has made gains both in those states and nationally. Whether it will be enough, we shall see. On an interesting note, Senator Clinton's lead is due mostly to superdelegates, and Barack Obama has the lead in delegates won in caucuses and primaries.

Republicans
Everything seems to be going John McCain's way. He won Florida and is leading in many Super Tuesday states according to Detroit Free Press article. Although he has taken Maine, Mitt Romney will likely gain little momentum since the coverage has been sparse like it was in Wyoming. Mike Huckabee can hurt Mitt Romney in the South since both are courting the conservative wing of the GOP while John McCain has the moderates solidly in his camp. Ron Paul is a very long shot, and, barring a Super Tuesday miracle, should be just about done come Wednesday. He is polling well in Alaska, and if he can win there and pull off a miracle in other states, something may begin.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS15/802030591/1215

Quote de Jour

"We can't fix Washington by sending the same people back to sit in different chairs."
-Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, most likely referring to his rival John McCain for the GOP bid.

Know Your Candidate- Hillary Clinton

Candidate #3- Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton

Background and Early Life

Hillary Diane Rodham was born on 0ctober 26,1947 in Chicago, Illinois. Growing up in a conservative household as a child, Hillary began her political career at the age of 17, volunteering to campaign for unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964. She graduated high school the following year, having been named a National Merit Finalist, and also a member of the National Honors Society. After enrolling in Wellesely College, she became the president of the university’s Young Republicans organization. Her political views quickly changed as the events of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War unfolded. Upon her graduation with a political science degree in 1969, her fellow students demanded she make the commencement address. After a seven minute standing ovation, her speech gained her national recognition and an appearance in Life magazine. Hillary then moved on to Yale Law School, becoming a member of the Board of Editors on the Yale Review of Law and Social Action and an active volunteer on campus. She met Bill Clinton, a fellow Yalie, in 1971. In 1973 she received a Juris Doctor (professional law) degree, and did her post-graduate studies at Yale Child Study Center, a place she was active in throughout her career at Yale.

Political qualifications and History

Hillary was the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree and during her time in the White House beside her husband, she supported and at times initiated domestic policy, especially in health care. She was elected a Senator of New York in 2000 and again in 2006.

Hillary on the Issues

Iraq-In 2003, Clinton voted for military use in Iraq, a decision she now regrets. She has voted for spending bills that call for a withdrawal of troops by the end of March. She calls for a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq in opposition to President Bush’s troop increases.

Health Care- Hillary would require that all individuals should have health insurance. She calls for federal assistance to those who cannot afford it in any of 4 ways:

1. She would require insurance companies to give coverage to anyone who applies, while stopping them from boosting the premiums of people with pre-existing medical conditions.

2. Would require that large businesses provide in part or in full, health coverage for employees.

3. Would increase the size of Medicaid and federal children’s health insurance programs.

4. Would offer tax credits to help families pay medical bills.

This huge health care program has an estimated cost of $110 Billion a year. Clinton would provide this money from eliminating President Bush’s tax cuts to those making over $250,000 and putting and end to waste and inefficiency in our current system.

Economy

Budget- Hillary would make sure the government is not cutting taxes, nor spending more than it can afford. She calls for a return for the fiscal responsibility that was in place under Bill Clinton, when the budget was balanced and our nation was posting a surplus. With a more fiscally responsible government, Hillary says we can begin “ cutting out private contractors, closing loopholes, [and] getting the health care system to be more efficient.

Jobs-Clinton vows to create 5 million “Green collar” jobs (a job in the agricultural sector of the economy, also a eco-friendly job) if elected. She will also raise the minimum wage.

Taxes- As stated before, Hillary plans on eliminating the Bush administration tax cut for those making over $250,000. She wants to extend tax cuts to the middle class such as the 10 percent income tax rate, the child tax credit, and ending the marriage penalty tax. (For information on these taxes, I would recommend using ask.com or google.)

Education- Clinton has made clear that we need to do a better job preparing our youth for a 21^st century economy. She plans on doing so by making reforms at all level of education. She plans on increasing the number of math, science, and engineering graduates, as well as making college more affordable through tax credits.

Immigration- Clinton has supported of bi-partisan legislation backed by President Bush that would do the following: Increase funding to improve border security technology and further enforcement of existing laws, as well as provide legal paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants. She also voted for a bill that would lead to construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border.

Minor and Social Issues

Abortion-Supports abortion rights.

Guns- Clinton voted for a 10-year extension of a bill banning assault weapons and extensive background checks at gun shows. She supports mandatory trigger locks on all handguns, and wants to hold adults responsible for their children’s use of guns.

Same-sex marriage-Supports civil unions, but opposes same-sex marriages. She believes states should finally decide the issue and that an amendment banning same-sex marriage “has no place in the Constitution.”

Stem Cell Research- Supports expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Strengths-Hillary has been especially stern throughout this election and hopes to erase any question regarding weaknesses she has because she is a woman. She has helped her husband Bill create the Clinton Foundation, which is a multi-million dollar organization set on helping climate change, funding AIDS researching, improve health among Americans and providing essential disaster relief.

Weaknesses- There are people who claim that a woman cannot lead the free world, or that America is not ready for a female President. Hillary can also come off as cold or overly stern, and is meeting strong opposition from those who do not want a return to Clinton policies.

Political Claim to Fame- Was one of the most active First-Ladies in our nations history, and has taken her political action forward into the United States Senate.

Sources and further reading

http://.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/hillary-clinton/#economy

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

New Results from Super Tuesday

Alright guys I know there has been a lot of primary action in the last few weeks, so I decided it would be nice to do a quick some up of what has happened.



State..Democrat Winner (# Delegates)..Republican Winner (# Delegates)


Jan 3rd::Iowa---------------Obama (16) ------------------- Huckabee (17)
Jan 5th::Wyoming-----------primary March 8th------- Romney (18)
Jan 8th::New Hampshire--Clinton (9) -------------------McCain (7)
Jan 15th::Michigan----------Clinton (0) -------------------Romney (24)
Jan 19th::Nevada------------Clinton (12)------------------Romney (18)
" " ::South Carolina----------- Obama (25)-----------------McCain (19)
Jan 29th::Florida-------------Clinton(0)--------------------McCain(57)
Feb 2nd::Maine---------------(primary Feb 10th)--------Romney(18)
Feb 5th::Alabama------------Obama(20)-------------------Huckabee(20)
" "::Alaska-----------------------Obama(9) ---------------------Romeny(12)
" "::Arizona---------------------Clinton(26)--------------------McCain(50)
" "::Arkansas-------------------Clinton(23)--------------------Huckabee(26)
" "::California------------------Clinton(42)--------------------McCain(116)
" "::Colorado--------------------Obama(13)--------------------Romney(22)
" "::Connecticut---------------Obama(26)-------------------McCain(26)
" "::Delaware-------------------Obama(9)---------------------McCain(18)
" "::Georgia---------------------Obama(27)-------------------Huckabee(45)
" "::Idaho------------------------Obama(15)-------------------(primary May 27)
" "::Illinois-----------------------Obama(72)------------------McCain(54)
" "::Kansas-----------------------Obama(23)-----------------(primary Feb 9th)
" "::Massachusetts-------------Clinton(54)----------------Romney(52)
" "::Minnesota------------------Obama(48)--------------Romney(38)
" "::Missouri--------------------Obama(36)-----------------McCain(58)
" "::Montana------------------(Primary June 3rd)-------Romney(25)
" "::New Jersey-----------------Clinton(59)--------------McCain(52)

Alright guys so I have a ton of homework and I couldnt finish all the updates to night but thats half of them. And the rest will be up tomorrow!

Of Treason, Bribery, and high Crimes and Misdemeanors

I'll preface this post by saying that this is not a radical departure from the point of this blog. However, I am no political activist. This story is a serious issue that the weak-kneed media is not giving due attention to. Consider this my first "editorial" post: if CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and other media outlets are going to sweep this story under the carpet, then I will be one of the sources that treats this issue with the gravity that it truly carries. If this blog will truly call itself "The Truth for Youth," this story is an example of that truth. If you have not heard about the report of the Bush Administration's deception of the American public, please scroll to the bottom of this post and click the top or bottom link to familiarize yourself and then read on.


The headlines are out. The trumpet has been sounded. The drums are beating. Treason, treason, treason.

Nine hundred and thirty-five. That is a large number. Imagine if you had a friend who, over the course of two years, lied to you... let's say for comparison's sake, fifty times. Imagine most of these lies were about another friend of yours, and they were so well done and believable that you were utterly deceived and destroyed your relationship with your second friend. Imagine that five or six years later, another one of your friends finds out that all of those things your first friend said about the second were lies. You would be pretty mad at the lying friend, right? If you still maintained contact with them, better yet if they were a close friend, you would probably lose all trust in them and likely become their enemies. Yet, they have already made themselves your enemy when they lied to you all those years ago.

This is the context of the Bush Administration's lies to America.

This is the most serious galvanization of the trust of the American people in history, period.

The Centre for Public Integrity calls it "an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." A campaign consisting of nine hundred and thirty-five specific cases of duping the American people into believing Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. For the record, nine hundred and thirty-five equals one to two lies per day for three years from the Bush Administration. At the time, most of the readers of this post were in their early teens, so the magnitude of this situation is significantly harder to grasp; we have no real frame of reference for this "campaign." However, it does not take a political science degree to know when an unprecedented act of corruption has occurred. To use a familiar colloquial phrase, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand (with a primer) that this campaign of deliberate lies sets a most dangerous precedent for the American people.

A reference to "galvanization" and any other thing would cause serious uproar. Again, if your friend was found lying to you even fifty times you would cut off ties with them, so why, in a matter of global importance, is a war that was started by nine hundred and thirty-five lies not being prosecuted?

Why has our spineless Congress not taken action? Where is the conviction of politicians in Washington when an executive, which I might remind you the Founders intended to be constantly restrained, is allowed to run rampant: lying to the American people, lying about those lies, and orchestrating a war based on those lies? Where is the voice of the American people, and why has it not risen up and demanded action against this tyrant we call our President? I hate to be rhetorical, but what is a tyrant if not a leader of a nation who lies to his people for his own gain?

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America reads, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

At this point, I would like to establish my right as an American citizen to interpret the Constitution. Of course, my interpretation has no real world weight; that power lies solely with the Supreme Court. However, I will give non-Supreme Court interpretation precedence with a quote from transcript dated from year ago, January 16th, 2007. It deals with the suspension of habeas corpus for prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

---

Senator Specter (R-Pennsylvania): Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

Alberto Gonzalez, (Former) Attorney General: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

---

Alright, so now that we have established that non-Supreme Court justices can have almost comically misguided interpretations of the Constitution, I will try my hand. (For the record, "habeas corpus" is the right to challenge someone when they accuse you of a crime of being mistaken about it- that principal is a tenet of our legal system and by extension, our democracy.)

If the Constitution states that the President should be impeached in the case of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," then I suppose we have to define treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "the betrayal of a trust." Well, actually, the Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." For the sake of argument, we will say that because the President and his cabal have not explicitly levied war against the United States, so treason is out. Bribery, the next possible charge, is "the act of promising, giving, receiving, or agreeing to receive money or some other item of value with the corrupt aim of influencing a public official in the discharge of his official duties." While there are plenty of allegations towards the President but more often the Vice President about the war and the amount of money the individuals are making off of it, there is no definitive proof, so we can disregard bribery as well. Now, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This phrase, during the Constitutional Convention itself, was picked up, tossed around and thrown through the ringer, so even today it is open to debate. The charge against Bill Clinton was perjury; lying under oath. So, if the President of the United States and his cabal, the group of people Americans would refer as the leaders and the people who frame the public debate/opinion simply due to the nature of their offices manage to fabricate claims of weapons of mass destruction a total of nine hundred and thirty-five times, is this a crime? I believe it is a crime, a negligence of the office of President of the United States. The Leader of the Free World cannot have an unpunished track record like the one we currently are allowing it to have. The American people cannot be taken seriously with this report out if no action is taken in the future. This campaign of lies will reflect down on the integrity of America; the next time we have a threat and it is real, we will be without allies. Skepticism is part of human nature and this is no different, once we cry wolf once, the likelihood of international support is diminished significantly, if not entirely, by this incredible blunder by the Bush Administration.


Martin Bormann, Karl Donitz, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Hans Fritzsche, Walther Funk, Hermann Goring, Rudolf Hess, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Konstantin von Neurath, Erich Raeder, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Baldur von Schirach, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Julius Streicher. All names of men prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials for the crimes of "participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace," "war crimes," "crimes against humanity," or "planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace."


Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. Names of men and a woman who must be held accountable for their lies against the American people, regardless of their knowledge or lack of knowledge about the lies they were committing. At the very least, an extensive investigation must be done NOW, not after the administration leaves, but NOW, today, January 23rd, 2008.

Regardless of your stance on the war, the fact remains that the pretense for war was the Weapons of Mass Destruction and the imminent threat that the Bush Administration proposed Saddam Hussein was. President Bush in 2005 said "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." He went on to say "it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power." This is the flimsy justification for the lies against the American public, and does not change the fact that we entered this war believing we were dismantling a serious threat to the American people, not to unseat Saddam Hussein.


The argument is clear. Treason has been committed, the government of the American people has been sold out to criminals, and Congress must act, or the American people will soon be acting for it.


**NOTE: These are MY views and MY VIEWS ONLY. I, Josh, the author of this post will take all criticism. If you don't agree with these views, please don't punish my fellow editors by ignoring our blog. Just ignore me. Thank you.


Sources used:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23098129-401,00.html?from=mostpop
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?ei=5124&en=8874f78501ec940b&ex=1358830800&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1201140338-N6cIDyP/LZsVYAnjAbOOhA

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec4