November 27, 2007
"Give me that Conservative Banner!"
Once again the Republican candidates are bickering over who is the most conservative. The debate flared up when Rudy Giuliani made the claim that Mitt Romney was soft on crime during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts. Giuliani cited the fact that Romney appointed a judge that later set free a convicted murder that is now charged with killing two young couples after his release.
After Giuliani brought it up Romney immediately called for the Judge's resignation. WHAT!?! Romney going back and changing his past decisions and opinions, I'm shocked! Aside from the crime issue, this event again proves that Romney is a Republican John Kerry that flips and flops like a fish out of water. The Democrats will have so much blackmail on him if he is the nominee that they won't even need to run a candidate with strong values, just a campaign that shreds Romney.
Anyways, After Giuliani’s comment Romney fired back by saying that Giuliani was too liberal to carry the Republican banner in 2008. Now ok, it may be true that Giuliani is liberal on social issues, but how can Romney get away with saying that. It is the definition of Hypocrisy. Romney was elected governor of the most liberal state in America; he couldn't have been that conservative. Oh, but now I remember, Romney has pretty much changed all of his positions since he left that office. A fact that Giuliani pointed out when he claimed that Romney was running away from his record as Governor of Massachusetts. Hey, I would too if I was running for the Republican nomination.
So as both candidates are jockeying too carry the conservative torch to the White House it is almost turning into a game of who will have to change the least. I mean it is obvious that neither of the candidates are the conservatives' favorite son. Romney has chosen the strategy of changing all his positions so that he can slip into the conservative mold perfectly. This may work great for him in the primaries so long as he can avoid the flip flop label and not be seen as a conservative mirage that will evaporate once he is elected. However, I think that Romney will suffer dearly for this strategy in the general election because he'll have alienated independents, while at the same time only be seen as a new convert to conservatives. This will likely make them uneasy and less likely to get out there and vote.
Giuliani, on the other hand has chosen a much different strategy. He has not changed many of his positions, but at the same time is taking some heat for what some conservatives consider being liberal. This will likely hurt him in the primaries, but make him much more appealing in the general election because he will not have given the Democrats as much to play with. In the end, I think Giuliani is hoping that his actions as mayor of NYC during 9-11 will be enough to win over conservatives in the primaries.
As of now it is way too early too tell who the Republican nominee will be, however I would be willing to bet that either Romney or Giuliani will come out on top.
Posted by niemij at 04:51 PM | Comments (0)
November 21, 2007
When you play with fire, You better be ready to handle the burn.
Now, I am sure a bunch of canidates have done this during their campaigns, but it brings up an interesting point of how canidates handle these supposed town hall meetings. I mean I really don't understand why canidates feel they need to forge questions to pad their resumes and bring out their strengths. I think the risk highly outweighs the reward because if you get caught people are going to hear about it in articles like the one above. However, if you don't get caught and are able to answer a question that was planted no one is going to hear about it except the people in that room.
In Clinton's case, the question was almost humerously obvious. A young man asked:
"As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"
And then Clinton responded by saying
"It's usually young people who ask me about global warming.."
I mean come on, who talks like that. Who says "As a young person...". I could have told you that the question was planted right from that. I just don't understand what Clinton felt she would gain from forcing someone to ask that question.
Aside from the negative impact that question planting directly has on a canidates image, I think there is also another side that is even more relevant. Question planting sends a signal to voters that you are not able to answer question that people actually want to ask and that you as a canidate don't have plans for issues that people would ask about. It also shows that you are afraid of getting a little roughed up. The bottom line, it shows that you are weak. An accolade that no canidate wants these days as we try to fight terrorism and insure Homeland Security.
In the end the fact that Clinton got caught is not really going to mean anything. It is like speeding. Everybody does it, it is just a matter of not getting caught. And like speeding, the risk of a $200 fine usually outwieghs the reward of getting somewhere 1 or 2 minutes earlier.
Posted by niemij at 04:40 PM | Comments (0)
November 08, 2007
Obama Getting Desperate
I read an article that talks about how Obama is taking the strategy that many troubled candidates take these days: Focus on Iowa. Analysts are predicting it is his best bet because he only trails Hillary by 3% in a recent pole taken there. This is a sharp contrast to the national pole numbers that show Hillary running away with the contest that people had predicted would be a fight to the finish. However, it still could be if Obama can pull off a miracle in Iowa.
Why is Iowa so important? I think the only easy answer is that it is the "traditionally" the first caucus and the first official test for anyone that wants to head to the White House. We can see now how serious people take this tradition when you look at all the fuss that has popped up after many states, including Michigan, passed bills to move their primary in front of Iowa's Caucus. This frankly angered me because I don't think that Iowa should get any special treatment. I mean what makes this state so important, and why should it have a larger say in deciding who becomes each party's nominee. If I had my way, I would make it so multiple states from different regions and different political leanings all had their primaries on the same first day. This would prevent any one state from being focused on to the point of political obsession.
Now I understand that Iowans are going to cry a river as wide as the Mississippi if this happens, but frankly all I can say is for them to suck it up. They are not special and they don't deserve special attention.
Back to Obama though, I think that with every day more people are starting to think that Obama should have waited to run for President. Before he ran everybody seemed to love him. He was the face of change that America loved to see. However, I think they loved to see it as a possible change, something in the back of everyone’s minds that we could look forward to. Now that he is running this year he has spoiled it. His message seems to get diluted by all the other big names in the Democratic race, mainly Clinton. Also being on the campaign trail as such a rookie has made him look dumb to a lot of people and someone that has fallen out of the minds of many Americans who have just come to accept that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. Looks like Obama will have to wait another 4 years to be the candidate of change. Only problem is that now he has opened his ideas, and these ideas are likely to be pretty stale come 2012.
Posted by niemij at 03:44 PM | Comments (0)
November 07, 2007
The Fallout from Colbert's Drop Out
I am writing this entry in response to news that Stephen Colbert's short lived presidental campaign is over.
As an avid fan of Stephen's show The Colbert Report I was both excited and disappointed when I watched him announce that he was running for President as a favorite son from South Carolina. I was excited to see his use of satire enter a new arena, and also interested to see dumb he could make the press look when they actually made a big deal about it. However, at the same time I was sad at how he was diluting the seriousness of the election.
I remember watching World News Tonight with Charles Gibson where Colbert's announcement actually made it into the 30 minute broadcast. Of course they debated about whether this was good for the election or not, and in a sense scolded him for entering the race for leader of the free world. However, the fact that he was only running in South Carolina kept the joke more funny than morbid, and it avoided the repercussions of him actually running for President in all 50 states. I mean in a sense he was keeping the joke in South Carolina, but effectively made it seem like it affected the entire race.
Also, as a watched his show in the weeks following his announcement I got a rare comedic insight into what it takes to actually file to become a canidate. Also I got a crash course in election law 101 when Colbert described how and how he could not use the money from his delicious corprate sponsor: Doritos. I mean that alone says something about how he was just poking fun at the process in general. It was the press that was dying to take him seriously.
However, now that Colbert has dropped out of the race for a variety of reasons we will never be able to see the true effect his canidacy would have had. I would have been willing to bet that he would have beat a couple of the Democratic nominees had their commisson not voted against him competing (Colbert dropped out of the Republican race earlier due to the high priced filing fee). Also if Colbert would have actually won some delegates it would be a sort of signal to the two parties that we are fed up with getting the same canidates year in and year out. So fed up that we are willing to vote for a man that says the number one threat to America are those pesky bears.
Posted by niemij at 11:52 AM | Comments (0)
November 04, 2007
Since when was it unpopular to be consistent?
Here is a link an article I found on Fox News. It talks about how Clinton and Edwards are bickering about what Clinton said during a debate pertaining to letting illegal immigrants obtain drivers licenses.
This story represents something that is wrong with all of the presidential candidates from both parties this year. They all lack consistency. Whether it is Mitt Romney flopping back in forth between supporting abortion, Guiliani changing wives every few months, or Edwards and Clinton swapping back in forth on drivers licenses for immigrants. No one has consistency. I feel like every year election year various political interest groups line capitol hill, each with their own mold. Then every canidate shops around for a mold they want to fill and then forces themselves to fit. The end result: we have the same canidates every year, just with different names and different faces. I think the prime example of this is Mitt Romney, however he is by far not the only one. Mitt ran a relatively moderate republican campaign when he was governor of Massachusetts, quite possibly one of the most liberal states in the nation. Now he is running for the Republican nominatation as the ultra conservatives mouthpiece, mixing and matching his positions until the conservatives smile and say "that's the man we want, he fits our mold perfectly!" I mean how can you be the same person who was the governor of Massachusetts, AND be the conservative party canidate? You just can't be both. Just can't.
Anyways, as referred to in the article, Edwards flopped on the issue of issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. He supported it in 2004, and now is staunchly against it. Another example of a canidate switching his views to fit the mold and conform to what some would call "the flavor of the week." Also if that wasn't bad enough, he has the courage to then attach Hillary Clinton when she mixed up her words during a debate. The arguement stems from the fact that the Governor of New York wants to enact a plan that would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses, I position both canidates opose (at least for this week). However Clinton said she supported the Governor, implying she supported the governor taking action on immigration, but not his exact plan. However, Edwards took this as a flip flop and started becoming an even bigger hypocrite then he already is (umm 2 America's and $400 hair cuts anyone?) by yelling to all the new outlets that his chief rival can't keep her positions straight.
I also think it is sad that politicians like Edwards and Clinton even spend time talking about these little issues. The fact that they stoop down to the level of a "he said, she said" type arguement says a lot about their priorities. I mean our country has much more important issues. In the end I just hope one canidate can get his or her act together and stop waving in the winds of political change like a windsocket in a tornado.
Posted by niemij at 11:06 PM
October 17, 2007
Welcome!
This Blog will be about the 2008 Presidential Campaign. I will focus my opinions on actions that are taken from both Republican and Democratic Canidates, and also other events relating to the campaign.
Posted by niemij at 10:36 PM