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

Fred Thompson Drops Out of GOP Race

Republican candidate Fred Thompson dropped out today after finishing third in South Carolina last Saturday where he was hoping to invigorate his campaign. Thompson finished third in Iowa, fifth in Michigan and Nevada, sixth in New Hampshire and a distant second to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Wyoming. After much hype, Thompson's campaign couldn't gain traction when he entered the race. He has been described as lackluster with no energy despite, albeit late, a good showing in recent debates. Five candidates remain in the Republican race: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani.

My Take
Odds are his votes will spread between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney who have been running campaigns on traditional conservative views, perhaps leaning towards Huckabee given Romney's shift on the issues. This can potentially hurt Rudy Giuliani further in Florida.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/22/thompson.out/index.html

Quote de Jour

"And on the eve of the bus boycotts in Montgomery, at a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today:"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome.

What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake."
-Senator Barack Obama in his speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Update

Hello bloggers!

First of all, Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I sincerely hope you have at least watched King's "I have a Dream" speech (found easily on Youtube) or given some thought to the ever continuing struggle for equal rights of both a political and spiritual nature for all people in the United States and more importantly around the world.

Second, please enjoy the two posts Chris put up yesterday. The Know Your Candidate he constructed was flawless and extremely informative, so please be sure to comment on it with your thoughts.

Third, three more Know Your Candidate posts will be up and running within the next week or so; John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton posts will be available for your viewing pleasure.

Finally, please note that February 5th is "Super Tuesday"; what this means is that 24 states in the Union will be holding their primary elections on this date. For the Democrats, 24 states is equal to 52% of the delegates needed to win their Presidential nomination, and for the Republicans, 42% of the delegates needed will be up for grabs on this day. I highly suggest tuning into either CNN or MSNBC for coverage of Super Tuesday, but you can always count on our blog to have full coverage either way.

Thanks for reading.

Know Your Candidate - Mitt Romney

Candidate #2: Willard "Mitt" Romney

Background: Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947, in Detroit, Michigan. His father George was a successful businessman and chairman of American Motors Corporation. He went on to be governor of Michigan from 1963-1969, and ran for President in 1968. His mother was a Michigan candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1970. Romney is a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints, or, Mormonism. He was a Mormon missionary in France for two and a half years after leaving Stanford University after two quarters. He married Ann Romney after returning from his missionary work in 1969 and both attended Brigham Young University; Mitt later attended Harvard Business and Law School, completing his formal education. He was vice president of the Boston firm Bain & Company, Inc. for several years before co-founding Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. His investments yielded 113% annually, and he invested in or bought out many companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority. He later returned to Bain & Company where as CEO he completely turned around the company. In 1999, he took over the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee and turned that around as well, saving the Olympics from bankruptcy by turning a near $400 million dollar deficit into a $100 million surplus. After the Olympics he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and held the position from 2003 to 2007, when he decided to run for President.

Education: He attended Stanford University before his missionary work in France. Afterwards, at Brigham Young University, he earned his B.A. and was valedictorian, graduating summa cum laude. He graduated cum laude with a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School.

Political History: His first foray into politics was in 1994 where he ran against incumbent Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts for a U.S. Senate seat. It was Kennedy’s greatest challenge as senator further hampered by an anti-Democratic party trend in 1994, but Romney was soundly defeated in the election by a margin of 58%-41%. Fresh from his work at the 2002 Winter Olympics, Romney was “drafted” by the Massachusetts Republican party to replace unpopular and scandal-ridden Jane Swift. Helped by the efficiency he instilled in the Olympic turnaround, Romney won the election by a 50%-45% margin. He chose not to run for reelection in 2006 and entered the 2008 Presidential race in early 2007.

The Issues

Foreign Policy
Iraq
Romney believes in staying in Iraq as long as success is a possibility but thinks that President Bush gave inane reasons to invade. He believes that if Iraq is left unstable it would cause chaos within the country and neighboring countries: the Kurds would destabilize Turkey, Iran would swallow the Shia region, and the Sunni region would become an al-Qaeda base. He supported the 2007 troop surge and believes that those troops should be kept in the region as support based from Kuwait. He has said that if a withdrawal is planned it should be kept secret between the U.S. and Iraqi governments. He does not believe policy should change in step with polls.

Iran
Romney believes that in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments on Israel the Secretary-General should present an indictment under the Genocide Convention for threats against Israel, and that failure to act should lead the United States to reconsider its level of support and funding for the United Nations. He has stated that he wants stronger sanctions on Iran.

General Middle-East
Romney has said that he wants to make alliances with nations to help with modernization and decrease the risk that they might fall into a “jihadist state.” He has not ruled out the possibility of attacking al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and believes that sensitive plans such as these must be kept secret. He believes in forming “Special Partnership Forces” to fight terrorism. These would be made up of SEALs and Delta Force agents, and they would give assistance or humanitarian aid. SPFs would be in countries with the permission of the host government to lead operations against terrorists.

Other
He wants to double the size of the Guantanomo Bay prison and wishes to keep interrogation techniques secret for security purposes but wishes to use only “enhanced interrogation,” not torture. Romney has expressed desires to free Cuba and eliminate the threat of Hugo Chavez and the like in order to foster a Latin America inclined to align itself with the U.S. through economic ties. He believes in strengthening alliances with strained nations like France and Germany so that a united front can be maintained against global jihad.

Immigration
Mitt Romney wishes to increase legal immigration while stifling illegal immigration. He believes that illegal aliens should go home eventually, but has supported Z visa plans to allow them to stay as well. He has stated that he is against amnesty but advocates a pathway to citizenship through application and paying back taxes. He believes in issuing a tamper proof national ID card for non-citizens. He has been often accused of allowing “sanctuary cities” to go unpunished while he has criticized rival Rudy Giuliani about turning New York City into one. He has also accused other candidates of amnesty or supporting benefits like tuition for illegal aliens. In his last month of office Romney signed an executive order that allowed police to arrest people based on federal immigration violations.

Economy
Budget
Romney has said he wants to fundamentally change Washington by cutting spending and eliminating "pork". He often has cited his ability to balance the Massachusetts deficit of $1.2 billion and raise a surplus of $700 million. He wants to institute a line-item veto to help cut pork as well as giving the President the discretion to cut funding passed by Congress by 20%. He supports the idea of an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget.

Taxes/Minimum Wage
He wants lower taxes for everyone, lower corporate taxes, no taxes on middle class savings, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and a law requiring a 60% vote to raise taxes. He wants an end to taxes on interests, dividends & capital gains. During his governorship, he did raise fees but only to cover their cost. He has signed an anti-tax pledge for no new taxes or increases in existing taxes. He supports moderate increases in the minimum wage instead of large hikes every once in a while.

Energy/Technology
Romney has advocated plans to pursue nuclear power and liquefied coal as energy sources. He believes alternative energy and drilling in ANWR in Alaska is the key to end dependence on foreign oil. He also believes in a general investment in research in cleaner energy sources. He also wants part of energy to be energy security to help U.S. energy interests.

Free Trade
He believes in free trade but thinks that deals must be renegotiated—especially with China. Romney thinks measures should be taken to improve the U.S.’s position or Asian economies will overtake the U.S.

Social Issues
Healthcare
Romney plans to encourage states to decrease insurance regulation to lower costs as well as giving states full freedom on how to spend Medicaid dollars. He would also make all expenses tax deductible and increase competition to lower cost and raise quality.

Environment
As governor he chose to promote public health over dirty power plants that could harm people. He believes in producing cleaner alternative energy to help the environment and get the U.S. off of foreign oil.

Education
He believes in making students competitive globally by focusing on math and science. At one point he desired to abolish the Education Department but now says he would expand and enhance the No Child Left Behind Act. He believes in a voucher system and support for home-schoolers. He believes in merit pay for teachers. He supports replacing struggling schools with charter schools.

Crime
He believes in the death penalty and three strikes laws. He also has advocated a one strike plan in which criminals would be tracked with a GPS after one felony. He wishes to reform sentencing and appeal lenient sentences.

Other Issues
Gun Control
He supports the NRA and the second amendment but supports the assault weapons ban to protect police from heavy weaponry.

Drugs
He does not support any legalization of marijuana and wishes to take the fight to the Central American “narco-terrorists.”

Abortion
He supported abortion rights as governor, but now is in opposition to the Roe v. Wade ruling.

Homosexuality
He has allowed gay partner benefits but has recently taken a stance opposing gay marriage and civil union and would welcome a ban.

Family
He believes that family is a pillar of America along with economy and military, and he has said that each child deserves a father and mother. He believes in teaching family values in schools but not necessarily religion.

Strengths: He is viewed as the ideal fiscal candidate to deal with the budget and the economy due to his business background. He has turned around a state, the Olympics, and several businesses. He cites bipartisanship by his work as a Republican governor of a liberal state like Massachusetts. He is strong on defense as well as building alliances for defense.

Weaknesses: He has changed his positions on several issues over the years although he says this is due to experience, but this weakness undermined John Kerry in 2004. Some dislike him because of his Mormon beliefs.

Political Claim to Fame
He spearheaded the sometimes called "miraculous" turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and then turned around the fiscal crisis as governor of Massachusetts. He is also from a family of Washington and state politicians. People began to speculate his presidential run in 2004.

2008 Election
He started running in early 2007 and was one of the original two front runners—him and Rudy Giuliani. His strategy has focused heavily on early states and he quickly opened up leads in Iowa and New Hampshire. His leads began to slip as the year wore on. He finished second in both the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. He won the Wyoming caucus, the Michigan primary, and Nevada caucus before finishing fourth in South Carolina. He is currently in first with 72 delegates as of January 20, 2008.

More Info.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#893
http://www.mittromney.com/homepage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

Nevada Caucuses; South Carolina Republican Primary

Both the Nevada Caucus and South Carolina GOP Primary were held yesterday (the Democratic primary will be held next week). In Nevada, Hillary Clinton edged out Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney blew out the GOP field with over 50% of the voted. The Internet sensation, Ron Paul, had a surprise second place finish. In South Carolina, John McCain won a tight race with Mike Huckabee despite counties in McCain leaning parts of South Carolina running out of ballots early on.

The scores are percentage of vote--number of delegates awarded.

Nevada (D)
Clinton: 51%--12
Obama: 45%--13
Edwards: 4%--0
Uncommitted: 0%
Kucinich: 0%

Nevada (R)
Romney: 51%--18
Paul: 14%--4
McCain: 13%--4
Huckabee: 8%--2
Thompson: 8%--2
Giuliani: 4%--1
Hunter: 2%--0

South Carolina (R)
McCain: 33%--19
Huckabee: 30%--5
Thompson: 16%--0
Romney: 15%--0
Paul: 4%--0
Giuliani: 2%--0
Hunter: 0%--0

By a caucus rule, Barack Obama actually won more delegates than Hillary Clinton in the Nevada caucus despite the fact that she got over 50% of the vote. Following these two poor performances, Duncan Hunter officially dropped out of the Republican race.

Here is how the candidates stand in terms of overall delegates:

Democrats (2,025 needed to win)
Clinton: 210
Obama: 123
Edwards: 52
Kucinich: 1

Republicans (1,191 needed to win)
Romney: 72
McCain: 38
Huckabee: 29
Thompson: 8
Paul: 6
Giuliani: 2
Hunter: 1

My Take

Dems
The next contest is next Saturday, the 26th, in South Carolina. South Carolina is beginning to look more and more like a do or die state for Obama as Clinton took her third state in a row and maintains leads in national polls while Obama holds a relatively slim 44-38 point lead in South Carolina in pre-Nevada polls. John Edwards, a native son who won there in 2004, is on his last gasps as Obama and Clinton routinely take 40+% each in polls and primaries after Iowa. If he maintains some level of support through at least Super Tuesday, he can gain leverage by throwing his delegates in one direction or another if neither Clinton nor Obama gain the needed majority, but his presidential hopes are all but over.

South Carolina will be critical.

GOP
The next GOP contest is on January 29 in Florida. Some degree of clarity is emerging from the Republican race as Mitt Romney maintains a large delegate count in comparison to his rivals. He has finished at least third in five states, and first in two. John McCain remains popular nationally and has moved into second in the delegate count. If he can rally Independent support he can start to make a charge in Florida, Maine, and Super Tuesday. Mike Huckabee's star is beginning to fade as he has come up short in all events after Iowa. He will need to do well in Florida and other southern states to maintain momentum. Ron Paul has finished nowhere near where he was hyped by his fans and it is becoming more and more clear that he will not be able to win. Fred Thompson has been floundering since his hype died down, and a third place finish in South Carolina can either be his last twitch or perhaps the start of some traction. He will need to appeal to conservatives in a southern state like Florida to stage a comeback and perform well there, in Maine, and on Super Tuesday. He proved in the last debate that he can be strong and dynamic, but it might almost be too late to change the tide. Rudy Giuliani is in a delicate situation. Mitt Romney has eaten up delegate and McCain is soaring in national polls and in Florida. He finished with 2% in South Carolina and will need victory or a very close second in Florida to feasibly continue the campaign in my view. He said he was going to bank on Florida--now, it might be his last hope.

The candidates have a little over a week to work in Florida. After that, the picture should be clearer yet of how the GOP will play out.

Florida/South Carolina Info.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/florida.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/south.carolina.html

Other Sites:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/19/hunter-exits-presidential-race/

Quote de Jour

“Think about that. She’s {Hillary Clinton} running against ‘nobody’ and ‘nobody’ gets 40 percent of the vote, the other 5 percent of the vote went to three other people: 27,924 votes went to the guy who believes in UFOs, the guy who dropped out and the guy who last held public office somewhere around 1855.”
-Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, referring to Hillary Clinton's win in Michigan's primary yesterday

Michigan Results In; Romney Victorious

Today, January 15th, the state of Michigan held its primaries for both the Democratic and Republican party. In the Republican Party, Mitt Romney won the GOP primary, with roughly 39% of the vote (as of this posting, only 74% of the Republican votes have been counted). These results are certainly indicative of the state of Michigan's economy and job market; Mitt Romney is seen primarily as the candidate of the "fiscal conservative." What this means is that money-minded Republicans support him and the state of Michigan's economy likely lent Romney many votes from Michigan Republicans. Another argument proposed is that Romney was able to garner votes because of his "favorite son" status; or a native Michigander which lead many to vote for him in light of his history in Michigan. Romney will use the Michigan primary to propel his campaign and continue through Super Tuesday, although it was unlikely he would have dropped out of the race had he lost Michigan. Romney was also aided by the poor weather throughout Michigan today; low voter turnout helped to increase Romney's comfortable lead.

John McCain's campaign is slowed by the results of this primary, as his momentum from New Hampshire becomes dulled by his second place finish. McCain won the state of Michigan in 2000, but as Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina aptly stated: "If Michigan had a history of picking our nominee for president, John would already be president." McCain will be continuing in the race through Super Tuesday (or "Super Duper Tuesday", as it is sometimes referred to), although his campaign funds are diminishing rapidly.

Rudy Giuliani was also a surprise, as he only garnered 3% of the vote. While Giuliani did not bother to campaign in Michigan, the fact that he gained such a small percent of the vote in an industrial, Northern state was surprising to many analysts.

On the Democratic side, the Democratic primary was a wash considering Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were the only candidates to keep their name on the ballot because of the Michigan Democratic Party's decision to break party rules and move the primary up to a date considered too close to the New Hampshire primary by the Democratic National Party. Because the Michigan Democratic Party chose to do this, the Democratic National Party has chosen to withhold Michigan delegates from the Democratic Convention this August. Hillary received 56% of the vote, while "Uncommitted" received 39% of the vote. An "Uncommitted" vote is supposed to represent the voters who would have voted for Barack Obama or John Edwards, but I am having a hard time believing that Hillary Clinton would have won Michigan with 56% against her Democratic rivals.

The more positive for Democrats, however, were the results of the Republican primary. A win for Mitt Romney splits the Iowa Caucus and the first two primaries three ways for the Republicans and ensures there is no clear cut frontrunner going in to Super Tuesday. With Rudy Giuliani campaigning and polling strongly on Super Tuesday states, a four way race might (although it is more likely a two way race) emerge going into the Republican National Convention in August, something that has not happened since the 1964 Republican National Convention. Another effect is that the Republicans will now be forced to spend more money fighting each other than fighting Democrats, which helps the Democrats and makes the Republicans look worse based on the lengths they take to attack each other.

The Michigan primary has done what the state party has wanted it to do; make Michigan more important in the primary race. The GOP is the most shaken up by this primary and the fact that the Democratic party came out in such numbers to vote for an inconsequential primary sent a very important message from the Democrats in Michigan to the Republican party: they are searching for change, and they do not believe the Republican nominees provide the change that they are looking for.

Sources Used:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI

Quote de Jour

"I'm concerned about justice. I'm concerned about brotherhood. I'm concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about these, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer but you can't murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that."
-Martin Luther King

He speaks pure truth.

Our Silence Explained

Okay, now regular readers or people who check on the blog may have realized that we have not put up any posts in the past several days. Well, our Know Your Candidate segment will be in full force, as our writers prepare to give you a veritable deluge of information on several Presidential nominee candidates, including Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. So, please excuse our silence while we prepare these posts in a timely, concise and complete manner.

Democratic Field Narrows; Bill Richardson drops out

The Associated Press is reporting that Governor Bill Richardson has decided to drop out of the Democratic race; more information to come as soon as it becomes available.

---

Today, the Associated Press (and the New York Times) reported that Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico, is going to announce the termination of his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination. After posting single digit numbers in both the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, Richardson met with his advisers and will be announcing the end of his candidacy on Thursday. While Richardson's dropping out might seem inconsequential, his endorsement might prove very important in the upcoming South Carolina primary for the Democratic Party. It is important to note that Richardson's 5% of the vote would have changed the landscape of the New Hampshire primary; assuming he endorses Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, Richardson's exit from the race might make or break the candidacy of either of those candidates. Needless to say, Richardson dropping out of the campaign will likely cause some serious waves in the race for the Democratic nomination. As soon as Richardson's endorsement becomes public, this post will be updated with analysis on what his endorsement means for the race.



Sources used:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10cnd-richardson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH

Quote de Jour

"If pro is the opposite of con, then isn't progress the opposite of Congress?"
-from a few sources, popularly thought to be from Keith Avery, but this quote also appears in "America: The Book" by the writers of The Daily Show.

Quote de Jour wants your opinion!

"Congratulations to Mike Huckabee, to Barack Obama. ... Iowa has spoken. Cold, white people have had their say. Tomorrow night is New Hampshire, where colder, whiter people will have their say. And if all goes right, Obama and Huckabee will soon be the president of Scandinavia."
-Daily Show Host Jon Stewart


In all seriousness, what do you think of the lack of diversity and small populations of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states that seemingly have the biggest impact on this election?

According to CNN.com, New Hampshire and Iowa are 96.0% and 93.9% white, respectively.

Thoughts?

Quote de Jour

"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
-John F. Kennedy

What do you think?

Ok guys, here's a post where everyone can hear your voice. It's not hard, I promise!


So here it is; who vs. who will give the Republicans/Democrats the best chance of getting into office? Try to put aside who you personally like and try to think who would be best for the party you argue in favor of.
Here's what I think:


In my opinion I feel that the Republicans best chance would be Huckabee Vs Clinton.


Personally my Republican favorites are Giuliani and Thompson, but I don't think that either could pull a win in the presidential election. Giuliani, in my opinion, is probably the best overall Republican leader (not most experienced, just a good leader); however, I feel that his pro-choice views and his three marriages would lead some of the extreme Christian conservatives to stay home on Election Day. And Thompson, well I think his level headed ways would be just what the country needs right now; however he just doesn't have a strong enough following to even make him an option in the election. Huckabee, on the other hand, has a strong following with the Christian conservatives and would easily get their votes. I also feel that Huckabee has a very likable personality and easily relates many constituents, which may lead some independents who base votes on personality to vote Republican.


The reason I picked Clinton as the best option for the republican's opponent is based on my belief that many Obama supporters would just simply refuse to vote for
her. I completely understand that is 2007 and that things have changed, but I really feel that there are thousands of men and women out there who feel that a woman could not handle the Presidency. I also think Hilary lacks the personality that Obama has and would lose votes that way.



So there it is. You don't have to write out a paragraph or anything, just say what you think!

"The Big Mo'."

In the 1980 primaries, George Herbert Walker Bush edged out Ronald Reagan in the Iowa Caucus by two percentage points. When he was asked about his victory later, he claimed that he had "the Big Mo'," momentum. A word and concept that has as much bearing in politics as it does in college football, momentum can be a maker or breaker in the world of Presidential primaries.

As in anything, momentum comes from all things related to Presidential politics. Primarily, momentum in the Presidential primary race comes from victories in early primaries such as Iowa and New Hampshire, but momentum also comes from endorsements and debates. The polls (from CNN/WMUR/University of New Hampshire) can speak for themselves:

_____December 27-30.....January 4-5........January 5-6

Obama________30%___________33%___________39%
Clinton________34%___________33%___________29%
Edwards_______17%___________20%___________16%
Richardson______5%____________4% ____________7%

**Note: Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were not included in this poll, but were included in the CNN poll.

Between December 27-30 and January 4-5, Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus, which surprisingly only boosted him 3% in the polls. However, on January 5th, the Democratic candidates participated in a debate hosted by ABC, WMUR and (yay, youth!) Facebook. Obama and Edwards were able to mostly subdue Hillary Clinton in the debate, forcing her into spots where her very visceral responses seems to have lost her the debate. (As an aside, it's my opinion that Hillary lost the debate more than any candidate won it.) As a result, Senator Obama's momentum has launched his campaign into the foreground of the Democratic nomination discussion.

Now you might be asking what about Mike Huckabee, the Republican winner of Iowa? Well, Huckabee's campaign in Iowa is not necessarily a "fluke" but it is very different. Mike Huckabee's main support comes from Christian evangelicals, a group which is a significant minority in New Hampshire, undercutting his support there. This also undercuts his momentum. However, if the first primary was in South Carolina, which has a significant evangelical population, Huckabee might find that his momentum would carry him all the way to the Republican nomination.

We can see here how momentum is huge in a tight race. Obama's momentum brought him through a dead heat with Hillary Clinton and now polls predict him gaining a huge victory over her in the primary on Tuesday, January 8th.

-----------

Now, for the fun part of my post: (for me anyways) informed predictions of the Republican and Democratic primary race!

Republicans

Iowa has gone to Huckabee, as we saw last Thursday. Based on the latest CNN polls, I predict that John McCain will win the primary race in New Hampshire. After New Hampshire, I predict that Mike Huckabee will prevail in South Carolina, but Rudy Giuliani will win several Super Tuesday states, including Florida. This might make some of the late primaries very critical, and we just might get through April without a clear-cut Republican nominee, making the Republican National Convention in August very, very interesting. I believe if Mitt Romney is unable to take New Hampshire but rebounds in Michigan, his campaign will live to fight another day.

Democrats

On the Democratic side, I believe that Barack Obama will have a decisive victory in New Hampshire. After this, I believe the large African American constituency in South Carolina will carry him through to the Democratic nomination. An important thing to note is that since 1968, only 1 candidate (Democratic or Republican) has lost their party's nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, and South Carolina's large African American voter base will solidify Barack Obama's nomination for the Democratic Party.

Candidate Quizzes

Not technically in the Know Your Candidate series, but the label seemed appropriate since some of the quizzes match you with a candidate.

Below are links to political quizzes that match you up with an ideology or a candidate. They are not perfect, and several questions are in some cases vague or too black and white, but they will hopefully give you a general idea about where you lie on the political spectrum and which candidates you are closest too.

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008
http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html
http://glassbooth.org/
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (Note, when you get a result you'll see a general picture towards the center, scroll down)
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
http://madrabbit.net/webrabbit/quizshow.html

Enjoy.

Caucus Results

Well, the Iowa Caucuses have come and gone, and the eye of the nation has been on New Hampshire. However, last Saturday, January 5, there was another caucus in Wyoming for the Republicans. Mike Huckabee took Iowa for the Republicans while Wyoming went for Mitt Romney, and on the Democrat side Barack Obama took the Iowa caucuses. However, due to superdelegates, Hillary Clinton has a sizable lead so far over Obama nationally so far.

Superdelegates are guaranteed delegates from each state that aren't pledged to a single candidate. The current results on CNN come from predictions of a superdelegate's actions or statements from the superdelegate. Superdelegates are typically governors, Senators, etc.

But, without further ado, the caucus results:

Iowa (Democrat)
Obama: 38%--16
Edwards: 30%--14
Clinton: 29%--15
Richardson: 2%--0
Biden: 1%--0
Uncommitted: 0%--0
Dodd: 0%--0
Gravel: 0%--0
Kucinich: 0%--0

Iowa (Republican)
Huckabee: 34%--17
Romney: 25%--12
Thompson: 13%--3
McCain: 13%--3
Paul: 10%--2
Giuliani: 4%--0
Hunter: 1%--0

Wyoming (Republican)
Romney: 67%--8
Thompson: 25%--3
Hunter: 8%--1
Giuliani: 0%--0
Huckabee: 0%--0
McCain: 0%--0
Paul: 0%--0

I wrote these with the percentage of the vote followed by the number of delegates awarded. Here are the current national numbers, including superdelegates. The percentage of total delegates awarded so far followed by the number of delegates that candidate has. Please note that the number of delegates awarded per state is left completely up to the party and that accounts for the disparity in the number of Democratic and Republican delegates. More Democratic superdelegates have been factored in as well.

Democrat
Clinton: 56%--169
Obama: 22%--66
Edwards: 16%--47
Richardson: 6%--19
Kucinich: 0%--1
Mike Gravel: 0%--0
Joe Biden: 0%--0*
Chris Dodd: 0%--0*

*These two have already dropped out, so you probably won't hear anymore of them on this blog.
Republican
Romney: 44%--26
Huckabee: 34%--20
Thompson: 10%--6
McCain: 5%--3
Paul: 3%--2
Giuliani: 2%--1
Hunter: 2%--1

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R
---
My Take

Dems
The win in Iowa was great for Barack Obama. It puts him in the spotlight and gives him valuable momentum which he will need since Hillary Clinton already has a sizable corps of delegates on her side. John Edwards went all or nothing in Iowa, and only scraped by Clinton with a second place finish. This bad for him, seeing that he is much further behind in New Hampshire and the other early states than he was in Iowa (http://tinyurl.com/23hw94).

Richardson finished low, but his numbers elsewhere don't make it look like a comeback is in the making, so in my opinion it is safe to assume the Democratic race is now a three horse race. The race is close in South Carolina, but Nevada and Florida are currently strongly in Clinton's hands, so Obama will need strong showings in both New Hampshire and South Carolina to gain the traction necessary to carry him to the nomination.

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are already out, Mike Gravel consistently polls 0%, and Dennis Kucinich is in the 1%-3%, so they are inconsequential barring an incredible showing in New Hampshire or South Carolina if they stay that long.

GOP
Mike Huckabee won by a surprisingly large margin over Mitt Romney, and while Romney did come back with a victory in Wyoming, the country and the media is talking about New Hampshire not Wyoming, so that will serve as little more than an addition to his ultimate total. Rudy Giuliani finished poorly, as expected, but still maintains his leads nationally as well as in Nevada and Florida--the two big primaries before Super Tuesday. However, his numbers remain low in New Hampshire and South Carolina where his rivals are strong.

John McCain is leading in New Hampshire, Huckabee leads in South Carolina, and Romney maintains a strong base in each. If Huckabee can take first or a close second in both, he can gain the momentum needed. Romney's early leads have been and are eroding, and after the abysmal Iowa showing he needs a victory and needs it soon. McCain needs New Hampshire since his South Carolina position is behind Romney, Huckabee, and even Giuliani. McCain is a popular figure who is good at getting the Independent vote out, so New Hampshire can be the key to his taking the nomination.

Fred Thompson maintains respectable numbers in all four early primaries, but he has too many rivals far ahead, the next primary or two is do or die for him, even more so for Ron Paul who has decent support in New Hampshire (10%) but is in the low single digits elsewhere. New Hampshire is his pivotal battle. Duncan Hunter, while taking a delegate in Wyoming, is at 1% or 2% elsewhere and is thus inconsequential.

Final Word
Like in a playoff series, the second matchup is much closer scrutinized than the first. I think that New Hampshire will give us a better idea since the fate of so many candidates, like I said earlier, depends on this state. Until New Hampshire has voted, I don't think anyone can accurately call this race.

Early State Info:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/iowa.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/new.hampshire.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/south.carolina.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/nevada.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/florida.html

Quote de Jour

While we are all busy watching what unfolds in Iowa tonight, I would like to give our readers something to think about.

"And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second, we have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do."
- Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Durham, NH, 9/5/07

I am not sure on the exact context of this quote, but I have two theories regarding what message Mitt Romney was trying to convey...
1.We should expect our government to provide the necessary resources for us to be alive.
2.The government has the right to determine whether or not I should be kept alive.

Both of these occupy the far ends of our political spectrum and I would appreciate if someone could direct me into the middle.

Our Holiday Hiatus comes to a close

Hello blog readers!

Now that the holidays are over, the blog cycle will be picking up as we move into a very exciting phase in Presidential elections: "primary season." Although primaries are not necessarily the only method of selecting a state's presidential nominee (see Chelsea's post on the Iowa Caucus), the next four months will likely determine a definite Democratic and Republican Presidential candidate and thus are hugely important in the Presidential campaigns. If you are wondering where the Know Your Candidate segment went, that will be reemerging as soon as the New Hampshire primary is over (that is Tuesday, January 8th). At that point, I will take the top 3 Republican and Democrat finishers in the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary and write a section on each of them. If the top 3 finishers are different (for example, if Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain were the top 3 in New Hampshire and Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee were top 3 in Iowa) then I will write a section on all 4 of those candidates.

Thanks for reading and Happy Holidays!