United States Presidential News

As we watch the Barack Obama campaign make mistake after mistake in addressing the issues, we also see an attempt to compare him to Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and even Martin Luther King. Indeed, these are all very noble and wise men to compare Barack Obama to, but I would like to take this opportunity to compare Barack Obama to Ralph Nader.

In fact, Ralph Nader and Barack Obama are both inline on many key issues, and it seems to me that you could pick either of these two candidates if you believed in certain things, as their rhetoric, politics and message is very much the same on most of the main issues. There are only a few real differences. First, Barack Obama clearly by observation is not nearly as smart as Ralph Nader, at least that is my opinion, and I'd have to wager probably Ralph Nader is a good 20-25 points higher than Barack Obama in IQ.

Next, Barack Obama has a lot more money than Ralph Nader, as MoveOn.org has really assisted him, thus, he can outspend even Hilary Clinton's political Machine. One thing that might be nice is to see Ralph Nader as a running mate with Barack Obama, that would give a little intelligence to Barack Obama's message, rather than all this flowery rhetoric and rosy speeches read from clay tablets.

So far, Barack Obama has tried to distance himself from Ralph Nader, but that will prove to be a mistake, as Ralph Nader's type of follower is very much part of Barack's voting base. If Barack gets the nomination, Ralph Nader will take significant votes from Barack and as the election process goes on it could cost Barack the general election. If Ralph Nader gets 2-4% of the vote, as Barack's followers get tired of all talk and no substance, then John McCain might easily walk away with it. Leaving Democrats holding the bag for falling once again for a candidate with no substance behind the words.

This of course, is my opinion and Barack Obama's spin masters, campaign managers and handlers are getting a little cocky in my view, and its only a matter of time until Barack Obama buries himself. And if Ralph Nader ever debates with Barack Obama, then Barack does not stand a chance on his own. He'll need a special WiFi listening device in his ear to debate with Ralph Nader, who can probably hold his own against anyone. I write this from a non-biased opinion, I am voting NOA in this next election, cause I am just tired of all the BS anyway - what about you?

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance Winslow's Bio

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
http://EzineArticles.com/?Barack-Obama-Campaign-Managers,-Spin-Masters-and-Handlers-Considered&id=1021529

What Do You Feel Like When You Are Watching Barack Obama Or Hillary Clinton

2008-03-10T06:27:00.000-07:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eric_Schultz
http://EzineArticles.com/?What-Do-You-Feel-Like-When-You-Are-Watching-Barack-Obama-Or-Hillary-Clinton&id=1021323

I don't normally tell people where I stand as far as who will I be voting for but I must make this reference. It seems that whenever people are interviewing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, that they both take on attitudes that are very different.

I was talking to a very close friend and she made a funny reference to how Barack comes across as per Hillary does. When you see Barack Obama, you feel like you are on a date and you are trying to feel each other out. I mean don't get me wrong, I think Barack might be a great guy aside the whole politics stuff. I am not really a fan of the dude but thats just me. I like Hillary Clinton's approach on how she deals with the public. She knows she's there under scrunity and she handles it professionally. You can't get any better than that.

Is it possible that we could possibly hire another republican in office despite everything that has been done with the last president? I am just mouthing and verbalizing what I see in the future if we were to get John McCain or Ron Paul, I am not worried about Huckabee because no act of God will get him anywhere near the finish line with the elections the way they are going.

I was seeing a news clip the other day of the guy wearing what I like to call a five o clock shadow and to me, he looked a bit unkempt & disheveled. He must have met Monica Lewinski or something. I trying to figure why he was still running. I think that answer is in the fables with the slowest always finish the race regardless of what the outcome is. That was for Biggest Loser, not the elections Huckmeister. Well, lets see what this week Super Tuesday brings us and every other political drama we can think of.

I love politics.
My Texan Democrat Blog
I want to get out there and support the democratic party.

John McCain Is In For a Rough Ride

2008-03-10T06:12:00.000-07:00

By Alex Nobles

The biggest news so far this election, is former front runner Mitt Romney dropping out of the race. Where will this lead the country? Will Huckabee or Ron Paul step up and seriously challenge John McCain, or will the party just join together to beat the democrats?

The longer Obama and Hillary are attacking each other the better it is for the republicans...

What is the only problem? John McCain just does not appeal to the conservative base like Mitt Romney did. I am finding myself hard pressed to believe that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Jay Severn will have an easy time throwing their support behind John McCain.

These people, along with most serious republicans, are not just going to support John McCain. John McCain is an independent and is very far from a conservative. Then again, are these not the folks that supported George W. Bush the second go around, and then regretted it?

More...

The American people are faced with, perhaps an election for the "lesser of two evils". The question is, are the American people willing to go through another 2004? If they are not, which I don't assume they are, there will be many independents running for President this year.

These events could and just may, change the way we know politics. The American people's anger is at an all time high, and no longer will they just side with somebody just because they hate the other more. The republican's whole campaign has been run on two things... 9/11 and beating Hillary.

We all found out how good running on a 9/11 was, it just didn't site well with the American people. Eventually, John McCain will find himself at a loss if he continues to push the "safety" factor. Hillary Clinton could sure as hell beat him in that, thanks to her husband. Really, John McCain only has one card, and that is that America hates Hillary.

If Hillary wins the democratic nomination, I really feel going one on one with John McCain, she would win over Americas love.

John McCain better get geared up to get hurt... the Ron Paul revolution will attack! John McCain will be fighting a movement that few can explain, a movement that John McCain is against. I truly believe that Rudy Giuliani's campaign was crippled by Ron Paulites.

At this point, few can actually say that Ron Paul could beat John McCain for the republican nomination. This will truly anger the half of million plus, Americans that support Ron Paul's ideas. John McCain, even if Ron Paul doesn't run in a third party, will be fighting Ron Paul's movement all the way up until November.

John McCain can argue all he wants with the idea that he is better for America than Hillary Clinton; but he is going to have a difficult time if he is fighting for a conservative name, while still appealing to the masses. This election, mark my words, will be divided bitterly... The Libertarian party, and possibly the Constitution Party will rise out of the ashes and will be a huge spoiler. These two parties will cripple John McCain's only playing card.

Alexander Nobles

Writer and Editor:

http://www.politicallore.com

http://www.politicallore.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-announces-grand-march-on-washington-dc/153

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alex_Nobles
http://EzineArticles.com/?John-McCain-Is-In-For-a-Rough-Ride&id=1016579

Hillary Will Continue Campaigning Against Obama

2008-03-10T06:01:00.000-07:00

Senator Hillary Clinton's camp has shot down all talk of moving out of the Presidential trail after the pivotal March 4 nominating contests in Ohio and Texas, where competitor Senator Barack Obama is expected to land a knockout. Clinton's decision followed talks by prominent politicians that she reexamine her contest prospects at this primary.

Several key politicians have suggested that Clinton fold her campaign if she fails to win the landslides in the contests. A prolonged Clinton-Obama combat, they believe, could work in favor of the likely Republican nominee, Senator John McCain.

Clinton's communications chief, Howard Wolfson, insisted that the race would continue after this primary into the next key showdown in Pennsylvania in April and the Puerto Rico primary in June. "We're going to win this nomination. This nomination fight is going to go forward after Ohio and Texas. We're going to go to Pennsylvania, where a lot more Americans are going to vote, and we're going to be the nominee in Denver," he said.

Meanwhile, Obama is spending lavishly in Texas and Ohio, reportedly outspending Clinton by a ratio of about two to one on television ads, in the run-up to the March 4 primaries, in order to deliver a knockout blow to Clinton. This, combined with the extensive travel schedule all over Texas and Ohio, highlights the anticipation of the deciding nature of this voting.

Obama hopes to extend his current winning streak of 11 straight nominating contests. He has closed important Clinton leads in the past three weeks, with most polls having him in the lead in both states. In fact, he is said to have started planning the makeup of his Cabinet, which includes two prominent Republicans.

A total of 2,025 delegates are needed for victory at the Democrats' convention. The current count of nominating delegates shows Obama leading by 1,389 to Clinton's 1,279. The Democratic rivals are currently in Ohio. Polls reveal that the race is virtually tied in Ohio and Texas, and a shift in this deadlock will help decide the much-awaited Democratic contest.

Find more on issue when Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for being too closely linked to the past He said Clinton was finding it difficult "to break out of the politics of the past," referring to the time of her husband, Bill Clinton's presidentship.

Emma Johnson has majored in American History. She writes on politics and current affairs.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Hillary-Will-Continue-Campaigning-Against-Obama&id=1024585

Obama, Clinton Prepare for Ohio and Texas

2008-03-10T05:25:00.000-07:00

The candidates in the Democratic camps ramped up their campaigning ahead of tomorrow's primaries in Ohio and Texas. Currently Barack Obama is leading ahead of Hillary Clinton, having won 11 consecutive victories, in the last few primaries.

The Clinton camp released a new television commercial that implied that she had the required experience that would help her make disaster averting decisions. The Obama camp was quick to retort to the ad by highlighting Clinton's endorsement of the controversial war in Iraq.

Both candidates continued to trade comments at each other's campaign and strategies over the weekend. Obama called Clinton's pledge to ignite political change an empty promise. He went on to say that, "Real change isn't voting for George Bush's war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually a vote for more diplomacy when you start running for president." Clinton retorted in a rally in Texas by highlighting Obama's inexperience in foreign policy once again.

Clinton not only faces stiff competition from Obama, but also falling support within her own camp. On Friday, she lost the support of the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller. Rockefeller stressed on the fact that Obama was able to predict the outcome of what would happen in Iraq when others could not. Rockefeller stated that sound judgment and decisive action were required in the Oval office and Obama was the most likely candidate who had such qualities.

Clinton successfully managed to raise funds for her campaign this month. She publicly announced that she had raised $35 million. However, Obama's campaign representative stated that he had managed to raise considerably more. The $35 million figure is considered to be $8.2 million more than what was dominated during the last financial quarter. The average contribution was around $100 with more than $30 million being donated over the internet.

It could be an indication of how close the competition between the two leaders is, and how high the stakes involved are. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both spending extravagantly on their electoral campaigns. In contrast, Republican John McCain has spent only about a third as much.

Author is an expert in politics related topics.

To know more information about us presidential elections 2008 articles please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Obama,-Clinton-Prepare-for-Ohio-and-Texas&id=1024439

For the Past 10-Years Politicians Having Been Using the Figure - 12 Million Illegal Aliens!

2008-03-10T05:08:00.000-07:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
http://EzineArticles.com/?For-the-Past-10-Years-Politicians-Having-Been-Using-the-Figure---12-Million-Illegal-Aliens!&id=1021187

The other day, Barack Obama promised the American People that as President; "We may not always agree, you may not always like what I have to say, but I'll never lie to you" and in the next paragraph of his stump speech he discussed a "path to citizenship" and that there were 12 million undocumented workers in the US.

First, that quote about not always agreeing and never lying, is not his own, it has been used by other politicians running for President. He also promised us that he would tell us his genuine thoughts - that quote was plagiarized, not original or genuine. Next, he either lied, made a huge incompetent error or misrepresented the figure of the number of illegal aliens in the United States. The 12 million illegal aliens is a figure that has been used by newspapers, TV and politicians for over 10-years. There has to be over 30 million illegal aliens in the US now, but no one knows for sure, still, suffice it to say, its well over 20 million.

Isn't it time our politicians running for President of the United States of America, stopped sugar coating the real problem with illegal aliens, TB, Hepatitis, over taxing our health care system, anchor babies, prisons filling up, MS-13 gang problem and the huge amount of drugs being smuggled over out leaking borders? Well, is that really too much to ask? Whether they are lying, incompetent or its just business as usual, really makes no matter to me. I am just one citizen who quite frankly is tired of the rhetoric, incompetence, BS and lies. Maybe you are too, if so, why not write a letter to your local editor and exercise your civic rights, and make mention of it?

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance Winslow's Bio

Bill Clinton - Texas Is Do Or Die For Hillary

2008-03-08T22:38:00.000-08:00

Texas, according to former President Bill Clinton, would be the litmus test that would decide the fate of his wife Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions. The results in the primary elections to be held on March 4, 2008, in Texas, as well as in Ohio, he indicated, would determine whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The former president has throughout played an active role in his wife's presidential campaign. Addressing a rally in Galveston, Texas, on Wednesday, he asked voters to vote for her to ensure that she is nominated. "This whole nomination process has come down to Texas and Ohio," he told a 300 strong audience comprising of Hillary Clinton's supporters. "If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you," he added, for good effect.

Hillary Clinton, once a frontrunner in the presidential race has, for some time, seen her position gradually lagging behind her rival Obama. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to be nominated. With the Illinois senator's recent victory in Wisconsin, Clinton has 1,233 delegates as compared to Obama's 1,303. For Hillary Clinton, who desperately needs to improve her count of delegates, the primaries in Texas and Ohio could very well be the last ray of hope. Both, Hillary Clinton and Obama will be vying hard for the 228 delegates in Texas and 161 in Ohio.

As Martin Frost, a congressman from Dallas, with a neutral position explained, "Clinton could win the statewide vote, but she could still just break even or end up behind in the delegate count," adding, "The press is playing attention to who wins the delegates, so that will be important."

Find more about Hillary Clinton - latest information and collection of flip flop videos about her presidential election 2008 campaign, speeches, and quotes.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Bill-Clinton---Texas-Is-Do-Or-Die-For-Hillary&id=1001901

Barack Obama's Extraordinary Rise In Politics, "The Obamagic"

2008-03-08T22:14:00.000-08:00

By Nana Kwame Aboagye

It is evident that in politics predictions are difficult. Even the best and brightest of political pundits with so many years of intellectual and practical experience behind them get it all wrong sometimes. In spite of the overwhelming difficulty in predicting political outcomes, certain outcomes defies comprehension. Barack Obama's rise falls into this category.

Barack Obama ever since he was elected into office as a Junior Senator from Illinois and assumed office in 2005 has been seen as a rising star with the ability to have a rich and successful political career and get very far in this respect.

In spite of his achievements prior to his election as US Senator 3 years ago, he was relatively unknown. For him to have come this far is very commendable. His "fast track" political career is simply unbelievable. Being audacious is not enough to guarantee perpetual success but the resilience to sustain this audacity to propel you from to success to success is what is really needed. It is not surprising that these qualities are lacking in many. Obama has these among other qualities. The man who wrote "the audacity of hope" is truly living it. The possession of such attributes among others such as charisma and intelligence does not necessarily follow that success is assured. It is not like the right combination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms to produce water. Obama's rise in the US political arena to the extent that he has been able to make such an impression and stamp his authority and clout over the political process can be compared to a protagonist in a Grisham or Ludlum novel.

When Obama decided to run for the presidency, in fact it seemed premature to most people. This is because he had been insufficiently tested in crucible of federal politics. The reason is that he was assumed to lack experience. In addition, would he be able to absorb the "shocks and hits" and not falter?

The ability to absorb "shocks and hits" and still remain undettered is a major characteristics that sets political giants apart from the others. President Bill Clinton has one or two advise to give on this. It will be unwise for President Clinton to make public such advise in this area. Clinton will obviously divulge such tactical secret to Hillary his better half. Since she is on the chase having the table turned and pursuing "Obamagic" which has gripped the United States.

Senator Clinton is very eloquent and intelligent and was seen as a front runner. But Obama's win in Iowa and The impressive performance of Obama in South Carolina meant that the race for the Democratic presidential candidacy was not still tight and open. The overwhelmingly impressive performance in the Super Tuesday meant Obama could no longer be dismissed as a lucky politician whose achievement on this political journey will luck energy to fuel such an enormous momentum.

Even after Super Tuesday, with successive wins over Senator Clinton in many states including major states like Washington, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin meant that Senator Clinton the front runner is now chasing Obama and finding it difficult to stand up and keep pace with Senator Obama.

In spite of this development Senator Clinton can not be dismissed. She is eloquent and intelligent in her own right and capable of turning things around. Though now it seems most difficult at this stage but not impossible due to the unpredictability of politics. If this happens it will be one of the most extraordinarily surprising outcomes and "comebacks" ever. She is fighting a good fight but so far Obama is simply a major stumbling block to Senator Clinton and the Democratic presidential candidacy. In his speeches Obama seems to have an overwhelming power over words and delivers them with passion and poise which endear him to the American people. His charisma is profoundly magnetic which draws people to him.

Obama seems to have shattered the long time held prejudice that a black person can not get that far in politics. Though Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes have been unable to get this far, Obama has, and that erroneous belief can now be dismissed with contempt. American have shown and are showing that the "land of the free" with the Statue of Liberty which greets many is indeed a land where one can aspire to be whatever he wants to become no matter how far fetched the aspiration is. Indeed the first black person and the first woman thus far have shown such maturity, intelligence that indeed they have made history.Their names will always be remembered from generation to generation.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nana_Kwame_Aboagye
http://EzineArticles.com/?Barack-Obamas-Extraordinary-Rise-In-Politics,-The-Obamagic&id=1000965

The Consequences Of Voter Apathy

2008-03-08T21:58:00.000-08:00

By Sheryl Miller

I do not take writing this article lightly. Patriotism is a family tradition.

My grandfather, Benjamin David came from Europe to Ellis Island. He had been gassed in a war in Europe, so the first time he did not pass the physical. He was sent back to Europe. Fortunately, for me, he believed in America, came back again, this time with my grandmother Clara and my mother Rebecca an infant, making me a first generation American.

My father Sanford Miller was born in Cleveland, Ohio. His parents were born in Russia, making me a second generation American My father fought in WW II , was stabbed in the back in Okinawa. He later founded a JWV War Veteran Post and was a Jewish War Veteran Commander. When he passed away in 1980 his coffin was draped with the American flag , taps was played at his funeral.

My path was different. In 1984 the National Republican Convention came to Dallas for President Ronald Reagan's second term. His arrival was at the Anatole Hotel. The Disc Jockey of my generation Ron Chapman and Maureen Reagan were there to get us pumped up. No encouragement was needed, he was a very popular president.

I loved President Ronald Reagan enough that I took my mother and a major in the armed forces to his inauguration. I then attended several more inaugurations, however, first was best. I was then hooked on politics.

Determined to run for political office in my city, Richardson,Texas, I filed the last day of filing and to my surprise the Washington Times wrote an article about me. I immediately took five precincts and shocked everyone in Richardson, including myself. I ended up with 42% of the vote, unheard of for a Neophyte.

The best part about running the first time was my Mom was still alive. She phoned strangers and asked them to vote for her daughter. She bragged that her daughter won 42%... Having no guidance in politics, I possibly would have won in two years.

I ran again in 2000, 2005, and in 2007 lost by 3%. Until you run you have no idea how hard it is. It is exhausting, extremely expensive, You feel like you have physically been kicked in the stomach. People tell you they are not voting for you. They have not researched issues, your opponents platform or yours.

I understand voter apathy better than anyone having lost four times. A tragic example is what happened in Dallas County in 2006. 45,000 registered voters stayed home. This cost every job from judges to Dallas County Clerks, many others who had been doing good jobs in public service. These people had nothing to do with national issues that plague our country today. Forced start over professionally for no reason except voter apathy.

Not voting, not knowing the issues are the worst things an American can do. People have gotten the idea elected officials are self-employed. Nothing could be further from the truth. One citizen cannot make a difference, multiply that by thousands, officials will realize they can be replaced.

Voter apathy is at its highest today. Our younger generation is tired of candidates, elected officials spending, while the money is needed for other problems.

The answer is the American people must get involved. The perfect examples of getting involved are the Super Tuesday Primaries. The winners seem to come out of no where, but did they?

Your obligation is to work for candidates. Start a grassroots group now.

Everyone that knows me in Richardson, knows I not only talk the talk, I walk the walk. Join me today, lets take back our America.

God Bless America and You

Please feel free to E-mail me for questions and guidance in your grassroots startup effort. voterapathy@att.net

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sheryl_Miller
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Consequences-Of-Voter-Apathy&id=977769

Now Who Was It That Said, Washington Is Broken?

2008-03-08T21:45:00.001-08:00

By John DeJong

This is perhaps the most bizarre Republican Primary Election that I've ever witnessed. As a matter of fact, the entire GOP looks like it is going over the edge. In my mind, it is an unholy alliance that my party has wrapped its arms around the most Liberal of all our Candidates to run for President of the United States. Yet as we've all witnessed in just one week, it's nothing more than politics as usual within the Republican hierarchy.

Over the course of just one year I have become so disgusted at many of those who I thought were honorable men. From President Bush's promise to sign the Amnesty Bill to John McCain's collaborations, I have constantly found myself growing more and more disgruntled by the wholesale lack of Conservative actions and utterly sickened by the slimy way in which Liberalism has been infiltrating my party.

You know it's bad enough that the Mainstream Media has virtually brainwashed just about everyone in the GOP into actually believing McCain can beat Hillary, but what realty ticks me off even more is that he so arrogantly believes it as well...which just isn't going to happen this year next year or any other year. You see, John McCain, the tyrannosaurs armed warped minded curmudgeon of old school political back room legerdemain has been set-up by his buddies in the MSM. And this election is going to be a brutal defeat for the GOP.

After their 2006 landslide defeat one would think that the Republicans would have learned their lesson about following the "popular choices" of Americans as portrayed by the MSM. But no, these morons are still mesmerized by the MSM. Hey, maybe next year the MSM will convince all Republican legislators to do the chicken dance on the House Floor after the Liberal President takes his/her Oath of Office. Oh, and make no mistakes about this; the next President will be a Liberal. Whether it's HC or BO, or even if somehow Satan fixes the election and McCain wins, the President will be a Liberal.

This could have been avoided only by Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee joining forces to defeat Mr. Collaboration. Except both of these men let McCain play them against one another while he placed his way-too-small hands upon his toad looking cheeks and blew raspberries at the both of them. You could almost hear him in the background smirking, "Nah Nah Na Nah Nah. I'm gonna win because I got the all the marbles and you don't."

The sad thing here is that Mitt Romney has now proven to be a true flip flopper after all. He was going to fight till the bitter end one week and then the next week he flipping quits? What's up with that? Now he comes out and endorses the vile man who used dirty tricks and back-room deals to kill his campaign. I guess for his next trick Romney will burn pictures of Donny and Marie for the sake of "Party Unity". Don't put it past him because he has knelt down before the lumpy posterior of "Johnny Two-Faces" and pursed his anxious lips in submission. He earned his brown nose for a future in the Party that will unfortunately never be.

What other deal did Mitt cut for himself? What was his thirty pieces of silver? I have always believed that it is far easier for a good man to become bad than for a bad man to ever turn good. At least Romney has proven this belief to remain true. Just as Jimmy Swaggert fell for sex and Jim Bakker gave his soul for money, the Governor has thrown away his morals for a small taste of John McCain's venomous apple. The theory is that McCain won't go for a second term and Romney's hoping to be his VP till 2012. The only problem with that is McCain won't win. Thus Romney has not only bet on a fleabag, but he's also destroyed any chance of ever becoming President. Because we now all see what he is.

It would be nice if Mike Huckabee could pull a miracle out of his hat and win. In the past week he has proven to be a far better man than Romney portrayed himself to be. To think I actually voted for Romney in Florida. That makes my stomach turn. The only hope for Huck is that he gets the support of all the delegates who were lied to by Romney. That and McCain not getting the required 1191 number would mean a convention vote. That's where the game can get really exciting, ladies and gentlemen.

It's a shame that the Republican Party didn't get it back in 2006. It still hasn't sunk in to their arrogant political pea brains. They can "broker" all the moves and power they want, but it's the voters who will determine what WE want. News Flash, Mr. Reagan foot soldier is going to get his butt whipped by a woman. That's only if Hillary's crew remembers to send Obama the memo that says he's supposed to lose. Apparently, he didn't get the first one.

John DeJong is the lead creative designer for NotMeUSA. He has been writing humorous advertisements for over twenty-five years. All of the funny t-shirts, prescription pill bottles, and gag spray bottles were created by him. You can view these by visiting http://www.notmeusa.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_DeJong
http://EzineArticles.com/?Now-Who-Was-It-That-Said,-Washington-Is-Broken?&id=1020265

Obama Promises to Help Small Business and Create Small Business Reform

2008-03-08T21:33:00.000-08:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
http://EzineArticles.com/?Obama-Promises-to-Help-Small-Business-and-Create-Small-Business-Reform&id=1018509

Mr. Obama has made a pledge to small businesses to help them navigate the over regulation they face. Obama has apparently been listening to the small businesses in Ohio and thus, made a promise to them and has stated he will make sure there is small business reform. Obama stated that over half of all Americans work in for small businesses. Actually, 10% of Americans own their own small business and over 65% work for a small business.

My question to the Obama campaign is why now is he bringing this to the table? The plight of the small businessman is not a new problem? Didn't Obama rise through the ranks of the political system, hasn't he ever dealt with this before, or did he simply not care, because he got his campaign contributions from other groups like PACs, Unions and Corporate America? Is he serious or just giving small business lip service? I would certainly like to know.

Personally and in my personal opinion, I am completely troubled by this candidate, for a number of reasons and this latest last minute grab for the small business vote is a bit much for me to swallow. It also appears that Barack Obama is double speaking and clearly does not understand much about what the SBA Small Business Administration has been doing.

About everything Obama promises, the SBA is already doing. It seems each time we check to see if Obama means what he says, we are left with an empty feeling when we check his actions against his words. Vote against Obama, I do not believe he is the small business candidate. And where is Oprah, did she finally see through the rhetoric?

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance Winslow's Bio

Denounce or Reject?

2008-03-08T21:13:00.000-08:00

By Denrique Preudhomme

Here I go again, shaking things up for the politically aware, provocative thinkers and social butterflies: those who perhaps need a topic to spark conversation at the next social mixer. Here goes...

In their final Democratic debate (February 26) at Cleveland State University, just one week before what appears to be critical primaries in Ohio and Texas, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced-off. As the showdown on who's the most suitable candidate for the White House began, fingers pointed to: who initially supported a useless war in Iraq; who supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that needs renegotiation; who failed to be strong enough to "denounce" or is it "reject" support from controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan...and more.

Clinton believes that Obama's choice of the word "denounce" to express his refusal of Farrakhan's candidacy endorsement is just not emphatic enough. Obama described Farrakhan's numerous anti-Semitic remarks as "reprehensible," and said, "I obviously cannot censor him," and that he has been very clear in his denunciation. Clinton fired back, "There is a difference between denouncing and rejecting."

Is there really a difference? Okay, let's examination both words.

From Webster's II Dictionary:

• Denounce: 1. To condemn openly.

2. To accuse formally.

3. To announce formally the ending of.

• Reject: 1. To refuse to accept, recognize, or make use of.

2. To refuse to consider or grant.

3. To refuse affection or recognition to (a person).

Did Senator Clinton make a valid point, that Senator Obama's "denouncing" claim is not strong enough to prove that he has completely "rejected" any association with Farrakhan? As far as I'm concerned... semantics. Plus, perhaps Clinton needs to consider that one needs to pick their words very carefully when making public statements against a controversial leader like Farrakhan.

Nonetheless, regardless of what Clinton believes, what Obama claims or what the pundits predict as the outcome of the final debate between the two Democratic rivals, the question is: can somebody...anybody "denounce", "reject" or simply put an end to: the war in Iraq, the rising cost of oil and gas, the mortgage crisis and the economic recession?

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Denrique_Preudhomme
http://EzineArticles.com/?Denounce-or-Reject?&id=1016441

Wall Street Journal Op Ed Compares Obama to Ronald Reagan - Stating They Underestimated Reagan Too?

2008-03-02T08:29:00.000-08:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
http://EzineArticles.com/?Wall-Street-Journal-Op-Ed-Compares-Obama-to-Ronald-Reagan---Stating-They-Underestimated-Reagan-Too?&id=1016140

A Gentleman by the Name of Hayes, wrote an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal stating that Ronald Reagan's rhetoric was underestimated by the Democrats and that is party why he won and that Obama is being underestimated now by the Republicans in the same way. I beg to differ, and will go toe-to-toe with anyone who wishes to join with Mr. Hayes to debate me on this topic, as he will need all the help he can get.

You see this Op Ed piece and Mr. Hayes fails to realize that Ronald Reagan was one of the best Governors that California ever had, he was President of the Screen Actors Guild prior to that, he also did talk radio for a year on politics. He was very wise, and accomplished in every regard. And he could back up his words quoting Milton Friedman, Henry Kissinger, and had an incredible array of topics that he could speak on for hours straight. To compare Mr. Obama with Ronald Reagan without considering these other points, is apples and oranges.

It is amazing the amount of Press that Obama is getting, and how often he makes mistakes while speaking, for instance the other day he stated that NAFTA was sending job overseas, wrong, over the borders okay, but that is not what he said. In fact, in OH he says NAFTA is a mistake, but in TX he will have to backtrack that when talking to the Longshoremen, and in El Paso, and in San Antonio where they send over to Mexico so many US Products. And its 65% Hispanic in San Antonio. There is a big difference between offering hope and giving lip service.

Oh sure, you can get away with it for a while, but what happens when you have to explain the cliches, or the positions behind your words? Then what? Ronald Reagan knew his stuff. Obama's handlers will need to be very careful to make sure he sticks to the "chicken soup for the soul" routine, but its a long time until November, and the Media loves to build them up and tear them down. Oh you want me to back up my words do you? Okay how about Howard Dean and John Kerry? If the Democrats run Obama, they need to send him back to learn a few things to compete.

Besides we are talking about the United States of America, the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind; 17 trillion dollar GDP, and 303 million people. There is a lot at stake here, this is not a joke, we need someone who can handle it and who gets it, but I just don't get that from Obama.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance Winslow's Bio

Voting In The US Primaries

2008-02-26T02:38:00.000-08:00

By Gianni Truvianni

In the United States for the most part there are two prevailing political parties one of them being the Republican party (which I mention first because I am one) and the Democratic party. This holding true even though there are several other parties as the United States is a democracy that allows other parties though it does not really do much to encourage them. These other parties being the Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, Independents and others. As for the primaries they are basically what could be classified as an internal election within the Republican and Democratic parties (among those voters who are registered in the party) to chose which of their candidates will represent the party in the "General Election" which is the one that actually determines who will occupy the "White House" for the four years to follow.

This for the most part is a great thing about the American system that it actually allows the people or in this case the registered voters of each party to vote for the candidate they feel they want to represent their party in the general election as opposed to having the candidate picked out for them by a small group of people within the party. This system in a way even guarantees that the person chosen to represent either the Republican or Democratic party will at least enjoy the support of most of his or her party and therefore stand a better chance of winning in the general election then a candidate who is chosen by the party leaders. However I always ask myself can there be a downside to this system?

I believe there to be one flaw in all this and that not being so much in the system itself but in the way in which Americans tend to vote. If people vote for a candidate who has the same political views as they do or the one whose views come the closest out of all the candidates to their own then an errant choice can never be made. This if what I have stated happens. unfortunately however in many occasions this does not because party rivalry in America is so strong that it often occurs that when choosing a candidate to represent their party many an American will chose someone more for the reason that they stand a better chance of winning in the general election then any other reason. Meaning to them it is better to chose someone who will win for their party then someone who upholds their political ideology.

Of coarse I am not claiming that there is no importance in having ones party win the election but does this line of thinking not defeat the basic principle of voting for a candidate in the first place. To my way of seeing things the best and only logical reason to vote for a candidate is because the person whom we are voting for represents our political ideas or at least comes the closest from all the candidates to doing so for what is the rationale of voting for someone simply because he or she stands a better chance of winning? When thinking in this manner we should also not rule out the idea that if enough people refrain from voting for a candidate because that person might not necessarily win then it is almost certain that he or she will not as he or she will have lost perhaps millions of possible votes just because of this philosophy.

However it is unfortunate and sad that in the United States of America the country which in its relatively young history has had more leaders democratically elected then any other country on earth that many people do not vote for someone simply because they do not approve of that person's chances of winning. There is even a sense some people get that they are throwing away their vote if they give it to someone who has "no chance of winning". This as if casting a vote were like betting on a horse at the track where the object is just that, to pick a winner.

I even remember back in 1992 when my fellow Republicans (like Democrats alike in 2000 apropos Ralph Nadar) were telling some not to vote for Ross Perot not because he would not be a good man to lead the nation but because he stood no chance of winning. The arguments always returning to the same "why vote for someone who has no chance of winning?" or "don't throw away your vote". I however ask isn't the whole point of voting to do so for the man or woman whom we think is the best qualified to run the country rather then to just to have ended up on the winning side?

When it comes to this issue I have even noticed that in America, it is even a matter of shame at least for some to have voted for someone who did not win as if the point had been to pick a winner which obviously they did not. I for my part do not wish to tell people for whom to vote for or for whom not to vote for but to tell them that we should vote for the candidate and not for his or her chances after all we are casting a vote not laying down a bet.

My name is Gianni Truvianni, I am an author who writes with the simple aim of sharing his ideas, thoughts and so much more of what I am with those who are interested in perhaps reading something new. As for the details regarding my life I would say that there is nothing that lifts them above the ordinary. I was born in New York City in 1967 on May 21st and am presently living in Warsaw, Poland because my wife happens to be from this particular country that was also the birthplace for my only daughter. My daughter being the star of "Little Opera Singer" which was my first ever completed story.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gianni_Truvianni
http://EzineArticles.com/?Voting-In-The-US-Primaries&id=955090

Can The 2008 Candidates Use The Internet Revolution To Restore The Economy?

2008-02-26T02:37:00.000-08:00

By Vernon Rich

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada...South Carolina...on and on they go trying to get the win and the most delegates for the summer convention. It's fun to watch, more exciting than the run of the mill soap opera or game show...these folks are for real and they are out to convince you that their remedy for all our ills will cure the whole shebang...Is it possible? Who knows? One thing is sure, the economy looks dismal...the stock exchanges are staying down, foreign interests are trying to buy out our economy...jobs are at a low...taxes are outrageous...on and on...it seems we are on a downslide on all fronts! And, the new politicians are preaching a sure cure for everything! Can they deliver? We are hoping they can. We are hoping there can be new change and that life will get better in America!

All candidates for 2008 are promising change...a change for the better...more jobs...a check for $800.00 for each of us...tax cuts...etc...Have they forgotten anything that could make the recession stop? One of the most important factors in stopping a recession is the creation of new jobs. New jobs...hmmm....how can that be done? The candidates for President of our country tell us they can create new jobs...but, they do not really explain how they will do it. Can they do it? Who knows at this point in the process and it is difficult to get detailed answers form the candidates.

Everyone knows that to get things done right, one should do it themselves; others just never get it right. So having this kind of knowledge, how does one go about turning it into wisdom? Americans are best at their individual level...individuals get more done than a group...each American is a powerhouse just waiting to release huge amounts of energy! Edison, Ford, Einstein, the list of great individuals is long, full of great individual achievements that have helped America become the great country that it is...Not one politician has mentioned the great super information highway of the internet as a way to empower the individual to cure our recession by creating new jobs. Maybe the internet revolution is just too new for them? Maybe they just don't understand that anyone with a computer and a basic education can create their own job, a job that can be done at home, and a job that pays really good money. Should the politicians be required to learn html language? Maybe that would help?

Let's do some basic math. One person starts a new internet business and this can be done with less than one hundred dollars! No building needs to be bought or prime located property purchased ...no inventory...no mailing costs...the list goes on how easy and cheap it is to set up an internet business, at home, using a pc with access to the world wide web. Get this; if one person creates a new internet business and hires three employees ...well suddenly, we have four once unemployed people with good paying jobs. Just one person starting an internet business can add four jobs to our failing economy! There are over 100 million computer owners in the United States! Do the math!

There are several hundred million computer owners worldwide! Do that math. If only 100 computer owners start an on-line business, which each can do for less than 100 dollars...that would mean four hundred new good paying jobs are almost instantly created! If 100,000 computer owners started a new online business there would be instantly created, 400,000 new good paying jobs!

And, if only one million of the one hundred million computer owners each started an online business, there would instantly be created 4 million new jobs and that would surely put the brakes on a failing economy! And, what if this would happen world wide? Hmmm...poverty would suddenly shrink!

If one of the new candidates could add this kind of information to their individual platforms, all this confusion about who the clear cut front runner should be would instantly be cleared up and we would have a real front runner!

For anyone owning a computer who wants to know the details in starting their own internet business for less than one hundred dollars, there is a great non-profit website giving a detailed step-by-step blueprint for free on how to do it. The hard to find information is put together in an ebook form that can be instantly downloaded to your computer and in less than a week, any person with basic computer skills can start their own profitable online business. Please read on.

Vernon Rich is a free-lance cyber investigative journalist who roams on and off-line for news, products and services to review and report. Please go to: http://richreviews.org for a free copy of the ebook, How To Save The American Economy: The Internet Revolution

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Vernon_Rich
http://EzineArticles.com/?Can-The-2008-Candidates-Use-The-Internet-Revolution-To-Restore-The-Economy?&id=949231

Are You Skeptical Of The Intention Of The 2008 Presidential Candidates In The 08 Election?

2008-02-26T02:27:00.000-08:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eric_Schultz
http://EzineArticles.com/?Are-You-Skeptical-Of-The-Intention-Of-The-2008-Presidential-Candidates-In-The-08-Election?&id=950761

The United States of America will be holding their 56^th quadrennial elections to elect their new President and Vice-President on November 04, 2008. An election year is the time for review, introspection and planning for the future. Both, the political parties as well as the voters look back on the years gone by since the last elections, the promises made and the actual results delivered, quality of life today compared to a couple of years back and decide on their future course of action.

Today, the Republican Party is at its weakest in 25 years as its economic and social policies have brought the country's life to a standstill. Increased cost of health-care, high educational fees and rising inflation have left the average American struggling to get by.

The American voters today are a disillusioned and frustrated lot and many allude to a sense of doom - feeling of helplessness and inability to control one's destiny both domestically and internationally. If you thought it is the effect of 9/11 and the Iraq war, you are partially correct. The loss of jobs, loss of purchasing power, inability to access quality health care, loss of affordable housing facilities, drop in standards of living due to rising cost of living and most important inability to take any action, either individually or collectively, due to corrupt practices and unholy nexus between industry-corporate-politics-bureaucracy and media leads to feelings of political impotency. Some of the major issues which are making American voters skeptical are :

Loss of about 4500 men and women belonging to USA armed forces in war overseas

Loss of about 3000 people in terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001.

The increase in the population of Hispanics accounting for nearly half the annual population growth. They are now the country's largest minority group.

Sharp increase in Gasoline prices

55% increase in home foreclosure rates.

Increasing cost of health-care.

Loss of health insurance benefits.

Higher rates of unemployment and poverty.

Increasing cost of education.

Increased threat to American life anywhere in the world owing to Islamic terrorist threat.

Sudden changing climatic patterns affecting rural economic life.

Add to this the incumbent Republican government's increased war spending which reduced $236 billion federal budget surplus into a $163 billion deficit.

The American electorate is looking towards the Democrats to get them out of this mess that the Republicans have put them into. But are the Democrats ready to take up this challenge? Will they grab this historic opportunity or will they lose this golden chance to change the course of American destiny in this new era? Only time will tell.

I love politics.

My Texan Democrat Blog
I want to get out there and support the democratic party.

Will the Cuban-Americans Play a Key Role in 2008 Presidential Elections?

2008-02-26T02:24:00.000-08:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eric_Schultz
http://EzineArticles.com/?Will-the-Cuban-Americans-Play-a-Key-Role-in-2008-Presidential-Elections?&id=950745

Cuban-Americans have traditionally been Republican supporters, especially first-generation Cuban immigrants. They whole-heartedly supported the Grand Old Party and its actions against Fidel Castro in the form of economic embargos, and sanctions. This was an ethnic group whose support was taken for granted by the republicans, but can they count on them this time round. Miami-Dade County accounts for 770,000 of the nearly 1 million Cuban-Americans in the state.

The South Florida Cuban-Americans have always voted in large numbers in Presidential elections and the present republican candidate's are campaigning to get their votes in the primary/caucus. John McCain, Arizona Senator and Robert Giuliani, former New York Mayor, Michael Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor and Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor are campaigning to get the support of the Cuban-American republicans. McCain and Giuliani are popular among the community and are using all tricks to get them over to their sides.

Cuban-American's especially, second and third generation citizen's are more politically aware and their political decisions no longer depend on the past actions of the republicans. Immigration being one of the major issues currently and many Cubans still undertaking dangerous sea-journey's in overcrowded rickety old boats to enter the United States of America, everyone is closely watching the policy statements by the republican candidate's.

While John McCain's campaign has been endorsed by Senator Martinez and the states three Cuban-American House members, Robert Giuliani's has been backed by a number of local and state Cuban-American representatives. The other two contenders, namely, Huckabee and Romney are not very popular within the local Cuban community.

It goes without saying that Cuban-Americans have no love lost for the Democrats, especially, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1962 and Bill Clinton and his administration's decision in 2000 to forcibly send back Elian Gonzalez, a young boy, to his father in Cuba.

One thing is certain, a big majority of the Cuban-American's will vote for the Republicans - the only question is which candidate will they vote for in the primary/caucus. Yes, they could make a difference in the Presidential elections, if the overall voting percentage is low.

I love politics.
My Texan Democrat Blog
Encouraging all Democrats to get involved in the 08 election

Super Tuesday

2008-02-26T02:18:00.000-08:00

By Dennis Seeley

One of the benefits of being online is it is a lot easier to research candidates while learning what fellow voters are doing and staying to stay up to date. Additionally, with the internet it is easier to explain while straightforwardly examples and links supporting topics on politics such as what is Super Tuesday and how did this date evolve.

In 1988 southern states collectively banned together to carry out their primaries or caucuses on identical days. The objective was to help political parties and candidates save money while trying to accelerate the process while trying to prevent delays. This is advantageous for each political party and candidate to a point. However, a part of the spotlight of primaries and caucuses is to assist voters by providing opportunities to meet these presidential contenders before party conventions and ultimately prior to the actual presidential race.

The alignment of states to move their primaries to February 5th may save money for Democrats and Republicans. Regrettably candidate supporters are lose out by not having the politician they are interested in spend time in their state talking about issues they care about. A part of the reason is because of the degree of time or lack of time between the first Caucus (Iowa) and primaries thereafter up to Super Tuesday. This almost encourages potential presidential candidates to skip states, dash through states and local communities while only paying attention to majority of voters in targeted groups such as minorities, gender specific targets and union interests.

The current events have the political machine speeding along with super Tuesday running the chance of being renamed surprise Tuesday. Surprise victories by Senator Clinton, former Governor Mitt Romney, Senator John McCain, and the Iowa Caucus win by Mike Huckabee. The existing race is so frantic some websites dubbing February 5th Tsunami Tuesday. However, with internet politics and blogs Super Tuesday has the potential of be converted into even more chaos if Rudy Giuliani wins the Florida primary. In the event Rudy pulls out a win, this could possibly place Republicans along with their financial supporters in a predicament about who they should support.

Although the GOP is having their own candidate predicament they are not unaccompanied. The races and debates between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to live up to the history of Super Tuesday by confusing the media and political supporters. A previous Super Tuesday super star was former President Clinton who faced much of the same criticisms as Senator Clinton which he obviously was dubbed a comeback kid eventually winning on Super Tuesday.

While there is other states that will be holding their primaries after February 5th, the following 24 states will be conducting their primary or caucus on Super Tuesday. 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, West Virginia. ** Democrat caucuses only

http://politicians-uncovered.blogspot.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dennis_Seeley
http://EzineArticles.com/?Super-Tuesday&id=946399

Voting and Non Voting Theories - Presidential Election of 2004

2008-02-26T02:11:00.000-08:00

By Marzieh Motahhari

In applying theories of voting and non-voting behavior to 2004 presidential election, it is better to have some explanation on the theories themselves. Theories of voting are put into 2 categories: party identification and issue voting. If in an election people vote according to their party ID, regardless of who the candidate of their party is, we can say their model of voting behavior is party identification. But if people vote regardless of party affiliations, it is said that their voting behavior is issue voting. In the issue voting model, people put more emphasis on the candidates' personalities and characteristics rather than their party affiliation. Besides, he issues of the time are also very crucial to their decision. In other word they look at candidates' personalities and the position they take over specific issues of the time. This can be done either prospectively or retrospectively. In the prospective way, the voter looks at the policies of the parties and selects the on that resembles his/her position on the issues more. In the retrospective way, the voter only looks at the achievements and failures of the candidates as measure.

Non-voting behavior also has 2 explanations: institutional and socio-political. The difficult registration procedures that are mostly on the shoulders of the voter are one of the institutional explanations. 2 explanations exist in the socio-political branch; people are either happy or disillusioned with their conditions and for this they don't participate or they participate in the process of decision-making in other ways.I think that 2004 presidential election was an example of issue voting but let's see how.

"The back and forth movement seen in party ID over the course of election year 2004 provides strong evidence that it is not a particularly stable measure. All other things being equal, we would expect party ID to change little from quarter to quarter, but experience shows that it can and does change direction, often in an unpredictable manner."1

"Moving from the pre-9/11 to early post-9/11 period, the Republicans gained ground across the board, but those gains were generally larger among subgroups who had been less supportive of George W. Bush and his policies. The "rally 'round the flag" effect helped push Bush's approval rating to a level not seen since his father received close to 90 percent approval in the Newsweek poll after the Persian Gulf War victory, and it also seemed to boost the Republican Party's standing with those who don't generally lean that way. Republican gains were more pronounced among women than men. The Republicans improved their position significantly among African Americans, Hispanics, and whites who live outside the South" 2.

The statistics show major changes in the party ID of the voters, which is called party dealignment. In cases of party dealignment, people no longer consider party affiliations and tend to focus on the issues of the day. David Remer gives a list of the issues that voters in 2004 election faced:

• "Voter party identification

• Political fund raising.

• Public vs. Private education.

• Schools: Local Standards vs. National Standards.

• Public Debt.

• War Powers: congressional vs. executive.

• Government: open or secret.

• One party or multiple party government.

• Economic Mix.

• Lobbyist Power.

• National Security: Offensive vs. Defensive.

• Wealth Distribution.

• Media Responsibility and Ownership.

• Public Resources: To privatize or not.

• Globalization: Diplomatic Leadership vs. Force.

• Environment: Proactive vs. Reactive policy. "3

So the voters considered these issues as measures for electing their candidates. That's why I call 2004 election an issue voting election.

But for those who have not voted in 2004 election, the most likely reason can be the socio-political one. In this case I think it was disillusionment with the government that prevented people from voting. People knew that whoever became the President, their conditions as a country in war abroad would not change.

1 &2) http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2005/aug/hugick3.asp

3) http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000248.html

Marzieh Motahhari, MA student of University of Tehran, Institute of North American studies

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Marzieh_Motahhari
http://EzineArticles.com/?Voting-and-Non-Voting-Theories---Presidential-Election-of-2004&id=945651

Hillary Clinton - Are We Ready For A Real Cougar In The White House?

2008-02-26T02:08:00.000-08:00

By Linda Jacobson Franklin

Either you like her or you don't. Jon Wiener, in a Huffington Post article wrote Hillary has a man problem. A lot of men don't want to see her get elected and that includes Democratic men. Apparently, the reason for that is men are more likely to identify as Republications. They wouldn't vote for Clinton or any Democratic candidate. But, is that the real reason they have a bug up their fannies?

I don't know how many men would admit it, but having a woman sitting in the Oval Office might be more than their male egos can stand. Nevertheless, it might be something they will have to accept. Even if some Democratic men don't vote for Hillary she could still get elected if enough Republican women cast their ballots in her favor.

So maybe Hillary's problem isn't about men after all. What really counts is us women. Can she win over enough of the female vote to get elected in November?

Strong women, Real Cougars, are threatening not only to men but to other women. Hillary is the just about the strongest woman you will ever come across. She has the intelligence, the tenacity and a long, well-thought out dream she is pursuing. And, the fly in the ointment that can keep that dream from being fulfilled is us - the voter - the female voter. We hold the key to the future.

So, the question comes down to this. What does Hillary have to do to win over the women's vote? I think we can all agree we would like to see a woman running the White House, but is that woman Hillary? Many are critical that she is not genuine. Her attempts at talking from her heart don't quite hit the mark. She has also been accused of waffling, not taking a stand. Just telling us what she thinks we want to hear to win votes. All of these things may or not be true, but how many male presidential candidates have done it any differently?

Linda Franklin is a writer and an advocate for women over 40. Visit her website http://www.highyieldliving.com and receive a free copy of her book "39 Reasons Baby Boomers Will Always Be 39". Her blog http://www.boomersmakingadifference.com brings you cutting edge information every women needs to know. Become a member of the the Real Cougar Club a social community where women who are smart, confident, independent and know how to get what you want share their tips http://www.realcougarclub.com Linda's believes "aging is inevitable - how we age is always our choice".

Before starting High-Yield Living Linda was the first Canadian women to own her seat on the New York Stock Exchange. She was a partner in a Wall Street investment firm for over 20 years.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Linda_Jacobson_Franklin
http://EzineArticles.com/?Hillary-Clinton---Are-We-Ready-For-A-Real-Cougar-In-The-White-House?&id=910217

The Democratic Presidential Debate

2008-02-26T02:04:00.000-08:00

By Valerie P. Smith

Welcome to Myrtle Beach Hillary, Barack and John.

Well I'm happy to say that I did get a chance to see the Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN today. I didn't want to miss it, especially since it was held right here yesterday evening at the Palace Theatre. And on Martin Luther Kings' birthday. What a historic time we are living in now. Hillary, Barack and John. Change is definitely here!

I can only wonder with all the problems in the world why are they wasting time debating, fighting against one another and causing further separation. Isn't that how this whole mess started in the first place? Instead I think that now would be a good time for them to put their heads together to figure out a way to make it better as quickly as possible.

I have to reflect on what Momma said, "... only God will bring true peace".

Another thing I noticed was how quickly the press here turned on Obama. But then you have to remember this is South Carolina. It wasn't very long ago when slave ships were docking in Charleston. Many of the natives here are so afraid of change. But like it or not, change is here.

They were all united in their views on Bush. I do feel for our next president because he or she will be dealing with past issues that need to be cleared up, present issues that have been put on the back burner and future issues that need to be dealt with shortly. Not an easy job.

Looking For Treasures?

Visit small Treasures For You: http://smalltreasuresforyou.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Valerie_P._Smith
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Democratic-Presidential-Debate&id=943877

Huckabee - The New Face of Conservatism?

2008-02-26T02:02:00.000-08:00

By Nathan Tabor

After the South Carolina primary and the subsequent withdrawal of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter's presidential bids, the Republican field has narrowed considerably. Barring a Giuliani victory in Florida, the nominee will almost certainly be Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. As none of the remaining candidates can lay full claim to the conservative mantle, how do conservative voters select from among these three without splitting the party and dividing the base?

In the past, the various factions that compose the GOP made common cause based on a set of principles; a muscular foreign policy, free market economics, and promoting a culture that values life. After spending decades in the political wilderness, Republicans chose Ronald Reagan to turn these principles into policy. The order of events was no accident; the man (Reagan) met the moment (the Cold War and the supply-side boom) once Republicans were united in purpose.

In 2008, party unification (and subsequently, electoral victory) hinges on one thing: internalizing the lessons of the past. It is for that reason that conservatives and Republicans must approach the primaries from a different angle. Rather than viewing a choice between the current candidates as a series of trade-offs (Huckabee the social conservative vs. Romney the economic conservative), we should look at the principles beneath the positions. In that light, the current choice is between two conservatives (Romney and Huckabee) and a moderate who leans right on foreign policy (McCain).

In order for the GOP to usher in four new years of conservative governance, its voters must have one priority: to pick the candidate who 1) best embodies conservative principles and 2) is able to put those principles into practice so that they fully address the needs of the nation and its citizens.

For this reason, Mike Huckabee deserves a second look by primary voters who have written him off as "the social conservative candidate" or "an economic populist." While he has drawn heat from a number of prominent conservatives for his attacks on the Club for Growth and the fact that he raised taxes while governor of Arkansas, there is more to Huckabee than meets the eye. While it is true that he raised taxes five times as governor, he also lowered them ninety-four times.

Additionally, polls indicate that the middle class is trending Democratic-largely over economic issues. While tax cuts are excellent for stimulating economic growth, they do nothing for job security. Huckabee's overtures to Americans concerned about their jobs have not abandoned the principles of free-market economics; they still emphasize empowering individuals over expansion of government power. Rather, they are an attempt to answer the needs of the voters without resorting to the socialism-lite offered by the Democrats.

The fact is that America in 2008 faces different problems than in 1980, and while principles should not change, solutions must change where necessary to effectively meet America's needs.

An avowed supporter of the pro-life movement and traditional marriage, Huckabee also offers a fresh perspective on the culture of life. By speaking on the genocide in Darfur and the slaughter of the unborn in America in the same breath, he has effectively linked America's responsibility to the unborn and its responsibility to champion freedom and protect the innocent abroad.

This moral clarity is vitally important.

To those in the party who would like to put the issue of abortion on the back burner in favor of economic and foreign policy issues, Huckabee's rejoinder is, why choose? All life is sacred. At the same time, it is an eloquent rebuttal to those Americans who are suffering from Iraq-induced fatigue and prefer a "non-interventionist" foreign policy. As President Bush noted, the terrorists began this conflict, but we'll decide how and when to finish it.

Though the slate of Republican candidates is smaller than ever, conservatives need not despair. There is more than one candidate remaining whose platform is rooted in conservative principles. If, however, conservatives are looking something more-if they are looking for a candidate who can utilize these principles to craft new policies to meet our current challenges, they could not do better than to consider Mike Huckabee. The man from Hope is selling his own brand of optimism to voters-which makes him Reaganesque in more ways than one.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nathan_Tabor
http://EzineArticles.com/?Huckabee---The-New-Face-of-Conservatism?&id=947666

Obama Says Its Time To Confront Bill Clinton Over Inaccurate Statements

2008-02-26T01:59:00.000-08:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Obama-Says-Its-Time-To-Confront-Bill-Clinton-Over-Inaccurate-Statements&id=947722

Democrat Barack Obama says he will confront former President Bill Clinton over inaccurate statements made by the latter while supporting his wife, Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy.

This is what he had to say in an interview on "Good Morning America": "You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts-whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas." He also said, "This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate.

Among the former president's comments that riled Obama was his assertion that Obama's consistent opposition to the Iraq war was a "fairy tale". Another claim made by Clinton indicated that the union officials in Nevada had coerced members to caucus in support of Obama.

"I understand him wanting to promote his wife's candidacy, Obama said during the interview. "She's got a record that she can run on. But I think it's important that we try to maintain some-you know, level of honesty and candor during the course of the campaign. If we don't, then we feed the cynicism that has led so many Americans to be turned off to politics."

Hillary Clinton's campaign responded to Obama's allegations by saying that he was reacting to his second place position in the caucuses at Nevada.

Author is an expert in politics related topics.

To know information about us presidential elections 2008 articles please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com

The Sexism Card in This Year's Presidential Race - What Hillary Clinton Will Need to Win

2008-02-25T20:13:00.000-08:00

By D. Dutton

No one can dispute... this is an historic year for women in politics. Will presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to win primaries throughout 2008, perhaps earning the nomination of her party, and even being elected to the Oval Office? Is the country really ready for a woman at the top of the charts and the free world? Is this the right woman for the "ultimate political CEO position?"

As we all explore whether Hillary will be the first woman to ascend to the job of U.S. President ... it pays to take a look at the culture and experiences in Corporate America itself. After all, we know that gender bias exists in all levels of business and politics, particularly at the top. We can't deny that the "sexism" card will eventually be played -- whether by Hillary's opponents, by someone in the private sector, by the media (intentionally or not) or even by Hillary's camp itself -- to either discredit this female candidate OR give her a special advantage at the polls.

While the caucuses and primaries held so far are not conclusive, the red states and the blue states face history's first true test of sending a woman to the White House (as something other than first lady!). What does the pulse of the country say about Hillary as the first woman president?

Let's also review the approach a woman must take to break the world's most prestigious Glass Ceiling, and how corporate American interprets the "rules" involved. Can all this be applied to Hillary and her history-making candidacy?

First of all, we must examine the candidate's style, look, voice, approach, body language, attire, image and positioning. Even men in power must be conscious of these key elements. But a woman -- especially in this new arena of power -- will be attracting even more scrutiny. As a force like Hillary Clinton reveals her leadership strengths vs. limitations, she will need to:

Attract and impress both Wall Street and Main Street.

Demonstrate her softer side. That might very well include refining her sense of humor, along with a persona that freely shows feelings, emotions and caring -- perhaps revealing tears.

Continue to stack up against the big boys. Gaining credibility as a landslide-elected U.S. Senator in the nation's most populous state is a giant stepping stone she has already achieved.

Balance her unique circumstances as the outspoken spouse of a recent president, aligning herself with his triumphs and distancing herself from his mistakes and image troubles.

Rely on the thick skin she has developed after decades in public and political life. After all, shards from that glass ceiling (not to mention her detractors' criticisms) could more than sting.

Breaking the Glass Ceiling of the White House is going to take a powerful, magnetic, yet warm personality. It is going to be a woman who can show leadership like John Kennedy and heart like Ronald Reagan. Who decides if Hillary is the one? The American voter will -- let's help them decide.

Diane Dutton, author of A WOMAN'S LADDER TO SUCCESS IS PAVED WITH BROKEN GLASS CEILINGS, has appeared on dozens of shows nationwide. Reach her for interviews and speaking engagements at 702-683-9893, ddutton@businesswomenspeak.com and sign up for her free newsletter at http://www.businesswomenspeak.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=D._Dutton
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Sexism-Card-in-This-Years-Presidential-Race---What-Hillary-Clinton-Will-Need-to-Win&id=946514

Tom Coburn Endorses John McCain For President

2008-02-25T20:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.athenalouise.com

"What we need in our country is somebody that has the courage and the will and the constancy to take on the status quo," Coburn said. "We hear everybody talking about change, but there's only been one person who is in the race-in either party-who has been about change. Their whole life has been about change. Whether it be for judges, whether it be about protecting innocent life, whether it be about standing on principal, even when it cost you."

Coburn further elaborated on this on Fox News Today, saying, "The realistic idea that John didn't win Michigan wasn't necessarily because he told them the truth, it was because there was a 15 percent voter turnout and Mitt Romney's family was from there. So you can argue the politics of it, but the fact is Americans want principled leadership."

"They want courageous moral leadership, they're screaming out for that," Coburn said, adding, "And John represents that in so many ways-what I believe is beyond and above the others who are running have to offer."

He promised to vote for McCain, saying, " And so I'm going to stand with John McCain because I think he can bring to fruition the solutions to some of the great problems we have whether it be deficit spending-you know, our debt is going up a million dollars a minute right now and we're wasting $250 billion a year in the discretionary portion of the budget..."

"Why isn't somebody challenging that? And why don't we elect somebody that's going to clean that up", he questioned. "And then we won't be talking about tax cuts creating the deficit, we'll be having a surplus that will create tax cuts and give more money to the American people," he said.

Author is an expert in politics related topics.

To know more information about us presidential elections 2008 articles please visit:
http://www.electionspeak.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Tom-Coburn-Endorses-John-McCain-For-President&id=945872

Winning And Losing - Fred Thompson And The Republicans

2008-02-25T19:28:00.000-08:00

By Glen D. Williams

After decades of watching US presidential politics, it seems some themes recur as regularly as leap-year. Always, we complain about how long the campaign is, that it should be shorter, that we're suffering from campaign fatigue. We're now in the perpetual campaign, where fundraising and exploratory teams begin the first Wednesday of November after an election. We complain that there's too much money, but the lengthened campaigns require even more money to be viable. We complain that the mainstream media has a stranglehold on the process. We Republicans rightly complain that there is no attention to issues and principles, and that campaigns are too driven by focus group sound bites and attack ads. With all our complaining, in 2008, Fred Thompson was someone who was everything we were hoping for. For four months, he walked the land and spoke to real people about real issues...and we ignored him.

Believing the campaign season was too long and required too much money, Fred refused to enter the race until the traditional time, Fall of the year preceding the election. The MSM said he was too late, and everyone, including "conservatives," echoed that sentiment. Believing there was too much money required, and too much time required to do fundraisers, Fred chose to campaign on the Internet, and face to face with voters the media markets ignored.

Opposing the stranglehold of the 30-second-sounbite-driven media, Fred filled his speeches with content that applied true conservative principles to the real issues of today. The MSM called him boring and the "conservative" pundits agreed. Opposing the driven, 20 hour days of the over-ambitious candidates, Fred campaigned 12-15 hours a day, and took a day off every two weeks, so the MSM branded him lazy. The "conservative" pundits echoed that sentiment far and wide. The MSM and the pundits, constantly asked, "When are you getting out?" rather than, "What do you believe the country needs?" The "conservative " pundits echoed all the stories of Fred not wanting it, not having fire in his belly and ready to quit. Instead of the character assassinations and smears he was receiving, Fred gave substantive, principled contrasts between his opponents and himself. Is this fair? Maybe not, but, "politics ain't beanbags." Despite all the opposition of four leading Republicans, four major TV networks, and almost all the newspapers, Fred got his message out.

He was repeatedly praised for his principle-driven, detailed plans to deal with all the problems facing the USA. He had the only plan to permanently solve the Social Security mess and the other entitlement programs. His tax and spending reduction programs were praised as the best of all the Republicans, by conservatives and liberals alike...so good, Rudy copied them two months later. Fred's Illegal Immigration plan was known to be the most detailed, change the fewest laws, provide sealed borders, allow no amnesty and provide for orderly voluntary return of illegals to their home countries...it literally forced the other candidates to take stronger stands. His plan to rebuild our military and continue the fight against Islamic extremism, was detailed, sensible, and possible. He won the last three Republican debates, not by grandstanding or taking aimless swipes at his opponents, but by offering substance and principle every time he opened his mouth. We know these things, because Fred succeeded.

Now that he has withdrawn, the MSM and "conservative" pundits will write his political epitaph as though they were right all along. They will say he failed because of his tardiness, laziness and stubborn, plodding style. They will say this despite the fact he succeeded! His message got out! All the other candidates, to one degree or other, were forced to adopt more conservative positions on the economy, entitlements, war on terror, and illegal immigration. Whoever ends up the Republican candidate will be more conservative because Fred Thompson succeeded in communicating genuine conservative principles. Unfortunately, no matter who our candidate is, he will be but a pale shadow of Fred Thompson. The most conservative viable candidate remaining is Mitt Romney, who, with health care mandates and $ 20 B auto industry bailouts, could hardly be described as genuine. Once the nominees are known and the battle is joined, we Republicans will look back and lament the absence of Fred Thompson, the one we ignored, the one true conservative who could have made a stand on principle and advanced the conservative cause...win or lose. Now...win or lose...liberalism wins, no matter how the pundits spin it.

Glen Williams is a private citizen, webmaster, and conservative political junky, now in withdrawal. You can comment on this article by writing glen@way2hope.org

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Glen_D._Williams
http://EzineArticles.com/?Winning-And-Losing---Fred-Thompson-And-The-Republicans&id=942739

Voting the Race Color and Creed Ticket

2008-02-25T19:22:00.000-08:00

By Michael Bresciani

No one would argue that some dyed in the wool democrats and republicans will always vote their party's ticket. Loyalty to a party can be both a plus and a minus depending on who the candidate is. Other reasons we vote could be considered outright discriminatory if they occurred in a different setting. Let's see!

Ever since Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses he has courted the black vote more aggressively than at any other time in his campaign. His poll numbers are swelling exponentially among blacks and he is expected to garner as much as four fifths of the black vote across the board throughout the primary.

Only one day after upsetting Obama in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton coddled the black voters in a Baptist church in the heart of Harlem New York. Not long after her visit to Harlem Obama trumped her efforts to win the black vote by speaking at Ebenezer Church in Atlanta Georgia where Martin Luther King once pastored. But for all the efforts neither Hillary nor any other white candidate can expect to achieve much among the black voters above or below the Mason Dixon line.

The women's vote is obviously prejudiced toward Hillary Clinton in just about every state in the union. She was able to pull 52 per cent of the women's vote in New Hampshire and is expected to do that well or better in almost every other state in the nation.

Along come the evangelicals and provide former pastor Mike Huckabee with an upset in Iowa and a near win in South Carolina. The Palmetto State is said to have the greatest number of protestant Christian voters in the nation how could we expect any less?

In fact it is not unreasonable to think that some actors may have voted for Ronald Reagan just because he was a fellow actor. Some musicians may have voted for Bill Clinton because he plays a hot saxophone. All this may seem innocuous and quite harmless but in fact it illustrates the fact that Americans are bent on getting what they want even if it may not always be what they really need.

If we used these factors to decide who would get loans, housing or preference in employment it would be labeled discrimination and open to the scrutiny of the law. The only law in effect here is the natural law of birds of a feather always flocking together. Nothing especially dreadful about that except that it is sinking to the lowest common denominator anyone can use to make the important decision of who will be the next President of the United States.

When all the "birds of a feather" voters are eliminated that leaves the voters whose numbers remains unspecified and unknown except to them. The only question left is; can this unknown number of people discern and prioritize the issues and reflect that in their vote?

In this election the new kid on the block is the "sexual preference" vote. Far more subjective, the question of same sex marriage and gay rights has nothing to do with anyone's race color or creed. It is none of the above but it has influenced every candidate to either stand in direct opposition to it or pursue the voters in that highly controversial social sphere.

The issues are as always the economy, immigration, abortion, same sex marriages, terrorism, Iraq, health care, taxes, the environment and foreign affairs.

The morality or more accurately, the deepening immorality of the nation is not considered as belonging with the other issues that draw most of the attention. The Biblical view stands in direct opposition to this deduction.

The Biblical view is that all of the other issues hang on the overall morality of a nation. God has never been known to judge a nation that was suffering a poor economy, immigration problems, health care problems or high taxes. He has only intervened when a nation has fallen below the morality mark so low that he had no choice but to cause either the chastisement or end to that nation.

With over 3000 abortions a day being performed in America by the end of the election year 1,095,000 babies will have met the bottom of buckets in abortion clinics around the nation.

Those one million plus silent voices would undoubtedly not vote for any candidate that supported the robbing of their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Their vote will not be counted. For them there is no doubt what the most important issue is, but alas, it will be too late for them; their votes will never be registered in this election or any other.

So which are the most important issues? You can decide that for yourself but while you're doing that; remember this.

The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Ps 9: 16, 17)

Whether you are religious or not it doesn't take a great mind to see that voting for anything other than what a man or women stands for is reckless patronizing and should never be misconstrued for responsible patriotism. Its not about race, color or creed; it is about America!

Rev Bresciani is the author of two Christian books one that is entirely on the second coming of Christ. He is a contributing columnist for several online news and commentary sites. His articles are read throughout the world. Please enjoy a visit to http://www.americanprophet.org

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Bresciani
http://EzineArticles.com/?Voting-the-Race-Color-and-Creed-Ticket&id=942522

The Coming Election

2008-02-25T19:20:00.000-08:00

By Athena Louise

I have not, as yet, decided for whom I will vote, although I have a very good idea who I will NOT vote for. The 'debates' are supposed to be for us to see which candidate expresses our views best. The League of Women Voters use to sponsor these debates .

NBC - whose parent company is General Electric - has changed the rules. In a recent political debate, GE decided who can and cannot be present in the debate televised on NBC. Dennis Kucinich was invited, and accepted. At the last minute GE said no, he could not be present.

The lower court ruled otherwise. In the 11th hour, GE had the Nevada Supreme Court rule the debate was private and NBC could decide who could, and who could not, be present in a nationally televised presidential debate.

This is fine, if NBC had said at the beginning of the debate they only invited certain people to attend. Instead, NBC tried to give the impression this was an open debate and all candidates were invited to be present.

This led to a lot of questions in my mind. GE - those people who bring good things to life - also happens to be the biggest arms dealer in the world. There is more profit in bringing death to people than good things to life. Now, why would they not want Dennis Kucinich present at the debate they sponsor? Could it be because he is against this 'war' in Iraq? If America started pulling out now, then GE would sell fewer weapons to kill people with and therefore make less profit?

The next question that came to mind is - exactly how much behind the scenes influence corporate America has on the coming election? If they say who can and cannot be heard expressing views does that not mean they have already decided who will win primaries and the general populace basically has no voice in the decision?

What can we, as average citizens, do to counteract the influence of corporate America? I strongly suggest forget who the media claims are the front runners and read the views and positions of the ignored candidates.

We recently heard there seems to have been a problem with the voting machines in New Hampshire's primary. This did not surprise me. In the 2004 presidential election, I was a volunteer in one of the poorer neighborhoods in West Palm Beach. There were three voting machines, one which did not work. People were lined up for up to four hours waiting to vote. Of the two machines that did work, one automatically changed every 50th vote to G. Bush. In my neighborhood, which is a little more affluent and heavily republican, there were 12 voting machines and they all worked fine.

I am not going to list all the illegal things done in the last two elections. Either people remember for themselves or ignore the obvious. It is the coming election that is important. We all have to vote this year. The more people that vote, the less likely the election is manipulated. If Iowans could turn out in record numbers in below freezing weather to vote in their caucus, there is no excuse for the rest of the country not to vote, unless of course, people like the direction this country is headed.

Athena Louise

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Athena_Louise
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Coming-Election&id=940007

If He Were Our Leader

2008-02-25T19:08:00.000-08:00

By Arnold Somereville

I am not going to argue and tinker with whether Presidential candidate Barrack Obama, would make a suitable choice for the US Presidency. I will leave that to the news programs and sports bar debates. As I stand here in my living room I ask myself, just what does it mean to be the real deal, as far as a political candidate is concerned.? To me the real deal is part honesty, venerability, education, work force experience, desire, compassion, commitment... well you get the idea. In this mix I place Mr. Obama, without a prepared speech, with no advisors, no cameras, no friends and family about.....just me and him. I am impressed by this slight figure of a man, whose keen mind and sense of the times, gives me reason to pause in my overall assessment of him. Here is a relatively young man who seeks this nations highest office. Here is a person, not steeped in Washington cliques.

The multiracial Obama brings a dynamic that US politics has not seen before. Try as we may it doesn't seem as if he is going to walk away from this election. He really wants to lead this nation. Real Deal or crowd appeal? Maybe both, maybe not.

So let's decide real deal or not? You will find your own answers, based on your own mind set. I find my answers based on my sense of this candidate. I have no doubt that he is the real deal and has an excellent chance of winning the primaries. Iowa, showed me that perhaps there is a subtle change going on already in this country. Our neighbors in Iowa voted for the best possible candidate and let the nation and the world know that they are more concerned with the quality of the candidate, not his ethnic background.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Arnold_Somereville
http://EzineArticles.com/?If-He-Were-Our-Leader&id=936721

Obama For "Change"? He's Got My Vote!

2008-02-25T19:05:00.000-08:00

By J.J. Jackson

Have you heard the good news? Barack Obama is for change! Well, that seals it! He's got my vote!

Why you ask? Isn't he a liberal Democrat? Well yeah, but he's for change! So let's look at the status quo which he will be looking at changing shall we?

First up is McCain/Feingold which is a horrible restriction on free speech despite the constitutional provision prohibiting Congress from making any law that restricts our freedom of speech. Elect Obama and he will "change" this and end this horrible law.

Next are the constant infringements on our second amendment rights by the myriad of gun laws on the books which do not punish criminal activity but rather simply infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own arms. Elect Obama and he will "change" this.

Then there is the horrid income tax which basically allows the government to take money you worked hard for before you get a chance to spend or save it unless you put it in one of their approved forms of investment. Since I firmly believe that the money earned by people in compensation for their labor belongs to them first and not the government I have to vote for Obama because he will "change" this.

Moving on, there is that pesky problem of unborn children who are both alive (see basic definition of life if you disagree) and human being denied their constitutional protections and being murdered. That is definitely something that needs changing. So Barack Obama appears to be our man!

Oh, and then there is the constant treasonous messages coming from our elected officials during a time of war which continually go unpunished. Personally I'm tired of the claims that our troops are cold-blooded murderers and that the war is lost being echoed by terrorists around the world to give aid and comfort to their followers. With his campaign promise of "change", President Obama will undoubtedly correct this and start prosecuting the offenders.

And what about Social Security? After all it is clearly above and beyond the limited powers of the federal government to tax and spend. Just read Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (including his Federalist 41) and any other of a myriad of founding fathers that actually wrote the Constitution. So apparently with Barack Obama in the White House we can expect this massive mortgaging of our future to be ended in the name of "change".

Along those same lines we can obviously expect an end to Welfare.

War on Poverty? Gone - ended in the name of "change". We've spent trillions and still have "poverty" so it apparently hasn't worked. Elect Barack Obama and we can get away from this failed policy and save us billions.

Then of course Barack Obama will obviously terminate the Department of Education which is also specified nowhere as a power of our government. Can you feel the winds of "change" blowing yet?

Ah! I'm swelling with pride at knowing that there is a candidate that is going to help "change" America for the better! But wait, more "change" would be on the way if Obama is elected!

How about policies and laws that classify people by the color of their skin, ethnic background, sex, and so on and grant them special rights and privileges based on that classification? Gone! All in the name of "change"!

Huh? What's that? That's not the sort of "change" Barack Obama is talking about? Well, of course it's not. And I'm not really going to vote for him either because I know that.

What I was demonstrating to you was how many people will vote for him based on his broad based message of simply "change". Every speech Barack Obama gives he makes sure that the center point of it is this one word and repeats it as often as he thinks he can get away with it because to claim to be for "change" gives people a blank slate upon which to project their own hopes and desires.

Don't like a certain policy? Well, Barack Obama is for "change". So he hopes that you will consider voting for him in the hope that when he talks about simply being for change. He'll only talk about specifics of his policy for "change" when he has to. No need to give people willing to believe what they want to believe anything to not like after all.

But when he does talk about specifics we really see that what he calls "change" is not much more than the status quo; bigger government and less liberty on a greater scale than we already have.

The only question is how long he can ride this wave of nebulousness before he actually has to start delving a little deeper into what changes he actually proposes. And how much longer until people figure out that when he is talking about "change" he really means more of the same failed policies that have put America in the precarious situation it is in today? And will people even care?

I shudder to think that they will not.

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative and the owner and Lead Editor of the American Conservative Daily Blog and The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly articles can be read at Liberty Reborn.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=J.J._Jackson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Obama-For-Change?--Hes-Got-My-Vote!&id=938194

Ron Paul Taxes - What If He Wins? Can He Fund Government Without Them?

2008-02-25T19:01:00.000-08:00

By Carl Peterson

It's time to stop asking if Ron Paul can win. Just try stopping a river in flood! It's time to look at his economic policies and see if they stack up. Paul is the only living politician daring to challenge the banking-controlled media fairy tale that taxes support civilization. Nothing can be further from the truth! The fact is, taxation has nothing to do with funding government services, except in the reverse sense. Taxation deprives taxpayers of the means to serve themselves, forcing them into the "protective" hands of an ever-growing government bureaucracy; a bureaucracy bent upon serving only itself. Sustainable government can only be funded by real increases in savings and investments in the private sector. In the sustainable sense, government can only be funded by private surplus.

Modern taxation has one purpose, and one purpose only. That is to remove liquidity from the private sector; forcing individuals, firms, and governments to borrow from anonymous banking masters. This is where all new money comes from (7% increase per year), created by the bankers out of thin air based upon our assets (such as home mortgages, debentures, and personal guarantees), and then loaned to us through the banking system at high interest. This is also the cause for the rampant inflation of the U.S. dollar.

Paul rightly claims that by eliminating income taxes a huge dollar resource remains in private hands negating the need for much of our present federal government structure, and the accompanying increase in debt. And there is more to this line of thinking. If a considerable portion of this "saved" tax money is actually spent on saving and/or investment, this creates a new deflationary effect, forcing the value of money upwards and increasing its purchasing power. However, the resulting deflation destroys the viability of all commerce, as falling prices continually cut into business profit margins. How do you run a business if you pay a dollar for an apple and have to sell it for 90 cents?

Thus Paul's approach creates a whole new funding stream for government, with the necessity (opportunity, actually) to issue new interest-free money to balance and match the new wealth creation in the private sector. Thus, eliminating taxes does not reduce the government funding base. It actually increases it in an amazing way!

The removal of Federal taxes also opens the door to the elimination of the Federal Reserve Banking System, which presently prints and loans to the Federal Government around 13% of its fiscal requirements. The "Fed" is part of the world banking conspiracy by which private bankers have been able to create the world's money supply out of thin air for several hundred years, loaning it out at high interest.

The Ron Paul Revolution intends to end this fraud and return real power to the people. It is little wonder that the banking controlled media such as Fox News wants to keep Paul down. If Paul wins the Presidency, the bankers' money tree will wither and die, as few persons will need borrow from the bankers; and those that do will be able to borrow at much lower rates of interest.

For more information on how Ron Paul's platform will restore peace, prosperity and freedom-and save the American economy-go to http://www.carlpetersononline.com.

For the latest information regarding Paul's campaign for the Presidency, go to http://ronpaulnews.net/.

Carl Peterson may be the foremost world expert on world economics, being the first to recognize the direct links between taxation, usury, environmental destruction, ongoing warfare, and the diabolical way all new money is created by a well entrenched banking monopoly. His recent book describing a no-tax alternative, "The Zen of No Tax" is available through his personal website http://www.truthaboutax.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Carl_Peterson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Ron-Paul-Taxes---What-If-He-Wins?-Can-He-Fund-Government-Without-Them?&id=914510

Rethinking President McCain

2008-02-25T18:57:00.000-08:00

By Nathan Tabor

The election cycle of 2008 has been characterized by longshot candidates and miraculous comebacks. Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus with virtually no money and a small operation Barack Obama has turned the dominant narrative of the Democratic race from "Hillary the inevitable" to "Hillary the vulnerable." And of course, one has to mention Ron Paul, the Texas congressman with libertarian leanings who raised over $6 million.
The most surprising development of all, however, has been the resurrection of John McCain's presidential campaign. After finding himself at odds with the party base over immigration, weathering a shake-up in staff, and spending a summer without any campaign funds, McCain's withdrawal from the race seemed all but inevitable. Against all odds, McCain rallied his campaign and renewed his coffers through nonstop retail politicking throughout the early primary states. This tactic earned him a win in New Hampshire and a flood of free media coverage.

As McCain stands ready for the South Carolina primary (commanding a healthy 9-point lead in national polls), Republicans and conservatives alike must ask the question: What does McCain offer as a presidential candidate?

While Mitt Romney emphasizes his business credentials, Rudy his law-and-order approach to governance, and Huckabee his concern for the average voter, McCain has three major selling points: his character and personal integrity, his experience in matters of foreign policy, and his leadership on the issue of fiscal discipline.

Certainly, at first glance, these points make for a very persuasive case. Unfortunately for Senator McCain, closer examination raises serious questions about the nature of a McCain presidency.

The character issue is certainly a smart move for McCain's campaign; it showcases one of his most impressive attributes. McCain is well-known for the courage and fidelity he displayed as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, and he has an equally well-deserved reputation for integrity as a Senator.

Unfortunately, McCain also has the tendency to make every political issue into one of personal integrity. This is the reason that he stubbornly persisted in pushing for an amnesty bill; to abandon it would amount to a betrayal of his personal political code. However, an elected representative of the American people is responsible not only to his own moral compass, but also to those who elected him. Would President John McCain do an about-face and suddenly treat the concerns of the voters with the concern he did not grant them during his time as senator?

McCain's national security and foreign policy bona fides are indeed impressive; his expertise puts Hillary Clinton's purported experience in a very insignificant light. Additionally, McCain has been a veritable Rock of Gibralter on the issue of Iraq; when many of his colleagues were ready to abandon the war, McCain stood firm. Senator McCain's stance was vindicated as the surge began dispelling the chaos and returning Iraqi neighborhoods to relative normality.

As the surge winds down, most experts agree that the bulk of our military operations have been concluded in Iraq. Other concerns lie ahead-the belligerence of Iran's mullahs, Kim Jong-Il's nuclear stockpile, rising economic powerhouses in South America and Asia, and a Russia unsure of its future and its place in the world.

Despite the pressing nature of these issues, the majority of McCain's discussion of foreign policy has dealt with Iraq. It is laudable that McCain was correct about Iraq, but other problems are looming on the horizon. Rather than explain in detail how they should be addressed, McCain is concentrating on the images in the rear-view mirror.

Whatever McCain's shortcomings, his reputation on fiscal restraint and responsible spending is sterling. In fact, Tom Coburn, the foremost pork warrior in the Senate, has recently announced his endorsement of Senator McCain's presidential bid. Indeed, McCain has fought and continues to fight porkbarrel spending as fiercely as he resisted the senators who called for a military withdrawal from Iraq. However, opposing frivolous spending is not enough to spur economic expansion; long-term growth is ensured by keeping taxes low and penalties light. During President Bush's first term, McCain opposed cutting taxes as strongly as he supports them today.

John McCain remains a larger-than life figure in national politics; a man of integrity, a patriot, and an American hero in the truest sense of the word. He is not, however, the candidate best suited to serve as the next President of the United States. His own rationale for his candidacy raises serious questions about the agenda that a McCain administration would pursue under his leadership. As Republicans cast their votes in the South Carolina primary, they would do well to remember McCain's history and past decisions on these issues. Despite his many admirable qualities, a President McCain would be a grievous mistake; the man simply comes with too much baggage.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nathan_Tabor
http://EzineArticles.com/?Rethinking-President-McCain&id=937006

Huckabee Rewrite More Jeffersonian than Not

2008-02-25T18:55:00.000-08:00

By Michael Bresciani

Huckabee took to the air in defense of his "Human Life Amendment" and his "Traditional Marriage Amendment." Appearing on Fox's Hannity and Colmes January 15, 2007 Huckabee defended his statements and added "I'm not suggesting that we re-write the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear."

The left bloggers are enjoying some not so holy rolling all over the floors of the blogosphere rather than noticing that Thomas Jefferson was the first guy in line with such ideas or at least the groundwork for them. Those adamant disdainers of Bible thumping fundies are having a sort of religious revival of they're own.

Big bang theorists are happy to remind the GOP rednecks about Huck's view of a 6000 year old earth in an attempt to heighten the ridicule. Those with the Frankensteinian view of the first lighting strike on the ancient puddle of primordial ooze that allegedly created all life are re-electrified by Huck's words as if they have proved lightning can strike twice in the same place. Needless to say the conservatives only wish it would; at least in places where the liberals are gathering. Perhaps it would give them a chance to start life over again but get it right this time.

Thomas Jefferson was the first to put forth the idea that laws and or entire government bodies should be abolished, rescinded, disregarded or reconstructed as needed; if they interfered with the common pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Mike Huckabee's "Human Life Amendment" may not procure happiness for anyone but it could guarantee safety. With over 3000 abortions a day it cannot be argued that the most unsafe and dangerous place in America right now is a mother's womb.

Those aborted also have no chance for the "pursuit of happiness" Jefferson had in mind for everyone in these United States.

Secular progressives have thickened the controversy with the question of what biblical idea of marriage the constitution should uphold. Should it be the Old Testament version where having multiple wives was OK or the New Testament version of one man and one woman?

It does well to set aside that argument and first make note of the fact whichever version you adopt it was always men and women and never men and men or women and women the Bible was speaking of.

But if they must have an answer it is very simple. What Christ says trumps all that went before him Mosaic traditions included. It is by Christ's words that every human being will be judged. (Jn 12:48) Since his view of marriage was one man and one woman we need not look any further.

In a climate that is fast becoming "logophobic" (afraid of God's word) it might behoove any presidential candidate to carefully consider timing. Only a few months past in a show of complete ignorance about what the constitution really says a group of Colorado high school students said "We want our separation of church and state." Not knowing that the constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state is ignorant but not understanding that any marriage proposal between ecclesiastical and civil powers is frowned upon by both conservatives and liberals isn't real smart either.

It is the character that faith in God builds in a man that we hope a president or statesmen will bring to his office rather than a line upon line or precept upon precept rendition of their faith. All previous attempts to marry civil and ecclesiastical authority ended in tyranny and terror such as in the Dark Age's inquisitions.

This doesn't make Huckabee's ideas any less viable but it makes some of us wish that campaigns like Huck's would take on a conservative pastor or theologian as an advisor to bounce these ideas off before launching them. It isn't just about knowing the Bible, it's more about someone who can help to elucidate the meaning, the elements and the timing expressed in this familiar verse of scripture from Matthew 22:21, "Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Bresciani
http://EzineArticles.com/?Huckabee-Rewrite-More-Jeffersonian-than-Not&id=936479

The Election 2004 - Public Voting Behavior

2008-02-25T18:51:00.000-08:00

By Hedyeh Nasseri

In the United States presidential election of 2004, the contest was more between George W. Bush, the president of the United States and the candidate from the Republican Party and the Democratic candidate, John Kerry.

The 2004 election was actually the case of referendum on the performances of the last president George W. Bush. Although John Kerry tried hard through his campaign activities to criticize the presidential performances but George W. Bush could defend all his activities he had done during his presidency defeated John Kerry vigorously.

During the time of election both the candidates differed in personal characteristics and public policy issues used different campaign strategies to influence public minds in their own benefits.

Public Voting Behavior:

To explain the public voting behavior in the United States it is crucial to go through three different models of voting:

1. The Party Identification Model

2. The Issue Voting Model

3. Non-voting Model

Nowadays the American people are not considered as voters following the first model. The party identification model some how has been expired since 1960s. Before that time people were very strong party identifiers. Most of the people developed their party identification when they were teenager not willing to change their voting behavior for their lives. So as the most two important parties were the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, they were mostly divided in two groups, republican advocates or Democratic advocates.

For those who follow the party identification model, it was not an important matter either their party performed badly in government, adopts policy against the advocates' benefits or even if they disagreed with the party's representatives in his/her national policies; they just wanted to support their parties (although recently we see public behavior based on this model rarely but we can not say that there are no people who have the strong party affiliation).

"In the 1992 presidential election, for example, only about 29 percent strongly identified with the Republicans or Democrats, whereas 38 percent did in 1964, a drop of 9 percent" (McKay,et.,2002,p.35)

During the years after 1960s it seems that voters have become more ideologically and politically complicated. So they have mostly followed the issue voting model rather than the party identification model as a result of emerging new issues such as civil rights, Vietnam and the growth of mass media. For the new generation of voters the importance of the issues and the characteristics of the candidates are the matter not the attachment to the parties, so they vote on the issues prospectively and retrospectively.

In the prospective way the voters are supposed to be knowledgeable about the main issues of the time. They concentrate on the parties' policies on the main issues then they compare those policies with each other and then they select the candidate whose policies are compatible to their benefits.

But for voters who tend to vote retrospectively it is not crucial to gather information about the issues; if the last government have done its performances good especially on the ground of economy, it would be hopeful to reelect again.

To explain the third model it is necessary to answer the question that why in the United States, the country proud of its democracy, the number of people who are eligible to participate in election is so low.

The fact is that the American people do not bother themselves to go through the process of election which required them to get information about the candidates, their policies on issues, the differences between them and the compatibility between the position of issues and their preferences. In general speaking people in the United States have been drawn in their every day lives and they look at the world by the glasses of money. If they live in a good economic condition it is no matter for them to have Mr. X as a president or Mr. Y.

The Public Behavior: The 2004 Election

The 2004 election was the period not concentrating on party affiliation but on the candidates' characteristics, their position on major issues and the influence of some psychological factors such as morality and terror.

Security was the matter for American people in the year 2004, they had experienced the great fear aftermath the terrorist attacks in September 2001. They believed that they were secure and no one can destroy their calmness in their beloved and exceptional country but being attacked in their homeland broke the image of the United States as the country with a high security in their minds.

As a result they mostly relied on their president George W. Bush, a warlike person, to save them against an unknown enemy. So the only benefits of those terrorist attacks was changing the presidential position of George W. Bush as the candidate with"the perfect bloodlines [who come] to office amid charges that his was a bastard presidency, sired not by the voters but by the courts [in the 2000 election]" (Silberstein, 2002, p.40) to an American hero.

Therefore, although moderate people in America criticized Bush for his war policy but the public mostly preferred to live in peace in their own country with a powerful president so they did what the party affiliations had done in the past by some changes, they supported the peace party that tried to brought calmness for their people by killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you fear from unknown enemy what do you prefer to do?

You will pray and ask God to help and save you. Most of the American people did so; therefore they attracted to the candidate who was more religious and talks about morality; what was ignored in Kerry's campaign.

If we put aside those American people who were indifferent for their destiny based on the third model, the security with different perception was the matter in the 2004 election.

1. Silberstein, Sandra, War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11, Routledge,

Taylor & Francis group, 2002.

2. McKay, David, et al., Controversies in American Politics and Society. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Hedyeh_Nasseri
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Election-2004---Public-Voting-Behavior&id=924739

Democratic Party's Position On Major Issues In Elections 2008

2008-02-25T18:48:00.000-08:00

The Democratic Party is looking to regain the White House after eight years. Whether they succeed or not will depend on their stated positions on major issued affecting the lives of all Americans. If a majority of the electorates views match the Democratic candidate's own opinions, the chances of occupying the White House are bright. So what is the Democratic Party's stand on major issues. Here they are.

1. Economic Issues:

Democrats favor a higher minimum wage and more regular increases in order to assist the working poor.

Democrats have opposed tax cuts and incentives to oil companies, favoring a policy of developing domestic renewable energy.

Democrats believe that they always provide a balanced budget. They are in favor of higher taxes on the rich and businesses and better control on government spending to keep budget deficit under control.

Democrats favor affordable and quality health care and more government intervention in this area.

Democrats will strengthen environmental protection laws and impose stringent sanctions on polluters.

Democrats aim to provide low-cost publicly funded college education with low tuition fees and increase availability of grants and scholarships.

Democratic Party is in support of a progressive tax structure and has vowed to adjust the Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) to give permanent AMT relief for those tax payers who were never meant to pay it.

2. Social Issues:

Democratic Party supports equal opportunity for all Americans and favors affirmative action as a way to redress past discrimination.

Democratic believes that discrimination against persons because of their sexual orientation is wrong, support adoption rights for same-sex couples and opposes the military's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy.

Democratic Party supports easy access to women for birth control and public funding of contraception for poor women.

Democratic Party strongly supports all stem cell research.

3. Foreign Policy Issues:

Democrats believe in use of military force against those responsible for attacks against the United States and a majority voted for invasion of Afghanistan, while being divided (29 for and 21 against) on attacking Iraq.

Democrats usually oppose the doctrine of unilateralism and believe that the United States should act in the international arena through strong alliances and international support.

4. Legal Issues:

Democrats oppose the use of torture as an instrument of interrogation of military prisoners.

Democratic Party supports the right to individual privacy and supports legal restrictions on monitoring by law enforcement agencies.

Democrats believe in preventive methods of crime control and emphasize improved community policing.

Democratic Party favors gun control measures and introduced Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Bill of 1993 and Crime Control Act of 1994.

Now you know the Democrats position on various issues of national importance affecting the common citizen's life. Did that help you make-up your mind? Hope so.

I love politics.
My Texan Democrat Blog I want to get out there and support the democratic party.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eric_Schultz
http://EzineArticles.com/?Democratic-Partys-Position-On-Major-Issues-In-Elections-2008&id=938661

Will Texas Democrats Protect Your Right To Vote?

2008-02-25T18:41:00.000-08:00

Your right to vote is a fundamental right. The importance of your vote can be gaged by the quotations below of two well-known Texas Democrats. "Su voto es su voz... Your vote is your voice. The people who vote make decisions in this nation; and the more people that vote ... the better this democracy can be." - Congressman Solomon Ortiz "A man without a vote is man without protection." President Lyndon B. Johnson

A successful democracy depends on open, accountable and ethical government, secure and verifiable elections, and fair and enforceable campaign laws. Unfortunately, in the case of Texas, as quoted by Texas Democrat Chris Bell, "the problem with Texas ethics isn't what is illegal so much as what is perfectly legal. The culture of corruption is so entrenched in Texas politics that it is now a radical notion to apply common sense to something as basic as right & wrong" Texas Democrats believe existing state laws must be enforced and strengthened and new laws must be enacted to protect our democracy and restore the public trust. To protect the fundamental right of voters to cast their ballots in a system that is free from intimidation, discrimination, or abuse by partisans or state and local officials; Texas Democrats support:

extension and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the right of all Texans to participate in the political process, including improving access to accurate instruction for using voting systems to ensure no voter is denied their right to vote due to language barriers or new and confusing voting systems

securing the integrity and outcome of election results by requiring that electronic voting systems provide a paper printout to allow votes to be verified, counted accurately, certified, and recounted, including a requirement that a voter verifiable paper ballot serve as the official ballot in recounts

a constitutional prohibition against mid-decade redistricting unless a court order determines that a redistricting plan violates legal or constitutional standards

a certification and selection process for voting systems is open to public review, testing and analysis, including rigorous oversight by a non-partisan commission consisting of qualified computer experts and programmers who would perform logic and accuracy tests prior to deploying machines for elections, as well as parallel testing during the election

a requirement that the TDP State Chair be allowed to obtain "read and write" access permission to all Texas Election Administration Management (TEAM) database tables and fields with complete documentation and appoint two liaison persons who are required to attend all meetings called by the Secretary of State on TEAM matters and report findings on data security to the TDP State Chair; and

reform of the electoral college.

Yes, rest assured, your Texas Democrats will protect your right to vote. Your voting choice will decide your quality of life.

I love politics.
My Texan Democrat Blog I want to get out there and support the democratic party.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eric_Schultz
http://EzineArticles.com/?Will-Texas-Democrats-Protect-Your-Right-To-Vote?&id=938630

Court Suit May Determine Nevada Outcome

2008-02-25T18:34:00.000-08:00

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

A court suit initiated by Hillary Clinton's supporters may change the outcome of the Democratic presidential caucuses on January 19, 2008. Three leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are tied in a close battle before the caucuses to be held in Nevada.

Nevada is known for its diverse electorate. It has a good population of Hispanic voters, as also union and urban voters. The results in the caucuses would therefore provide a pointer to the race up ahead. It may be noted that, Republican candidates have chosen to remain away from the caucuses.

In fact, no leading Republican leader has been known to visit the state for the last couple of months. There is, however, some speculation that Ron Paul may turn up for a first-place showing. The Texas Representative is, incidentally, the only one from the Republican candidates who has aired ads on TV in Nevada.

The issue in a court hearing is about whether the Democratic caucuses would be conducted in nine casinos located on the Las Vegas Strip. These locations were specially chosen to enable employees such as waiters and bellhops, employed in the casinos, to participate in the caucus at midday close to their workplace. These rules had the sanction of the state Democratic party and were later ratified by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

However, on January 11, six Democrats and a teachers union, which has been linked to Hillary Clinton, went to court to shut the sites. The law suit alleged that they were allocated to too many delegates from one group. From 10,000 delegates to Nevada's presidential nominating convention, over 700 could be chosen at the casino caucuses. This would mean that the casino sites would be more valuable than other Nevada counties that were thinly populated. Four of the plaintiffs are serving on the committee that agreed on the casino sites. The DNC also petitioned to support the suit in favor of state party.

While Clinton's campaign refused to acknowledge that it was involved, Barack Obama pointed out that the suit was initiated only two days before his endorsement from Culinary Workers Union Local 226. The Union, which has a strong presence in the region, is the largest in Nevada. Over 40 percent of its 60,000 strong membership is reportedly Hispanic. Obama raised the issue of timing of the opposition to the casino sites. No one objected to the rules, he pointed out, until the union decided to "support the guy who's standing with the working people instead of the big shots."

The Culinary Union sent out fliers to their members that said, "Backers of Hillary Clinton are suing in court to take away our right to vote in the caucus". A similar message was also broadcast in ads on Spanish-language radio. Former President Bill Clinton, however, supported the decision to institute the lawsuit, saying, "I think the rules ought to be the same for everybody."

Meanwhile Democratic campaign offices are busy preparing for the caucuses. The first to arrive here, Clinton immediately made for the Culinary Union, where she seemed to find support. Democrat Party officers are estimating up to 40,000 people to attend; this would make it about 10 percent of the Democrats from the state, considerably higher than the turnout in previous years.

Obama too has increased his TV advertising and is especially emphasizing his union endorsement. Paul however is the only Republican who has TV ads in the state and may even find some support from libertarian groups in Nevada. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is targeting the Mormon community in some radio ads.

Author is an expert in politics related topics.
To know more information about us presidential elections 2008 articles please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Court-Suit-May-Determine-Nevada-Outcome&id=939173

And the Score Is - Machine 2, Human 0

2008-02-25T18:31:00.000-08:00

By Patricia L Johnson

Beep, beep, beep...

Over and over again the electronic ballot box rejected Mike's ballot. After the 5th rejection the election judge provided him with a new ballot to complete and upon completion we once again heard:

Beep, beep, beep...

As a former election judge I accompanied Mike to the early polling place this afternoon just to take a look see at what procedures were in place and see how much action our newly implemented early voting was getting.

When the second ballot was rejected I advised the person working with Mike that the screen on the optical scanner should provide him with information on why the ballot wasn't accepted. Since the election worker wasn't familiar with the information indicated on the screen he telephoned the election office to be advised that the machine was telling him the ballot was being placed in the wrong ballot bin.

During an election ballots are coded for each precinct. The early voting polling location covers several precincts so there were many optical scanning ballot boxes in place. Even though the election judge told Mike to place his ballot in the second machine, after the machine scanned the ballot it knew it was in the wrong bin and rejected it.

Score - Machine 1 - Human 0

Upon arriving home I was bombarded with newspaper headlines reading "NH Recount Finds Irregularities" - "NH Recount Finds Vote Count Errors" as well as a blog headline that I won't repeat because that would encourage the nonsense. As you might guess the blog article is extremely popular and had a count of 179 on Digg.

What is so ridiculous about the blog article is the fact they were claiming huge errors were made by Diebold in counting the votes. All ballots cast in New Hampshire are paper ballots, with some counted by electronic scanning devices.

The recount is being done by hand and minor discrepancies found were due to human error. Some voters did not follow instructions resulting in improperly marked ballots that could not be read by the scanning devices.

The exception to the minor errors found were in the Manchester Ward 5 where larger errors were found. Clinton's total dropped from 683 to 619 and Obama's total went from 404 to 365. Other candidates totals dropped as well. However, once again, the error was made by a human, not an electronic counting device.

New Hampshire voters may vote for a Vice-Presidential candidate on their ballot and some voters wrote their choice for president in the Vice-Presidential space. The clerk posting the totals erroneously added in the Vice-Presidential votes to the totals for the Presidential candidates resulting in overcounts.

Humans make errors on a regular basis, machines seldom do.

Score - Machine 2 - Human 0

What is incredible about this whole mess is we have 291 more days until the actual election.

Voting irregularities have made all of us more conscious of what is going on at our polling place, which is good for the country as a whole, but all of us must remember that humans are far more error prone than machines.

According to the New Hampshire WMUR article Human Error, Not Machine, Found During Recount hundreds of people have e-mailed New Hampshire Secretary of State, Bill Gardner, calling him a "liar", calling the election process a "sham" or threatening to have him arrested for "rigging the election".

Most of the irregularities found in voting tabulations over the past several years have been due to human error of some sort, but you generally don't hear that because it doesn't sell newspapers. What sells newspapers and what gets peoples attention on the Internet are the articles that claim there is a conspiracy going on to steal your vote, or there is some sort of fraud.

This country needs a voting system that is standard from one county to the next, one state to the next, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We need election officials that are well trained in procedures and can concentrate their efforts on helping the voter get in and out of the polling place as quickly as possible. And the one thing we need more than anything else is electronic voting machines that allow the blind, the disabled and the non-English speaking public to vote without assistance.

The reason HAVA was passed was due to the extraordinary number of votes that were lost in prior elections. Standard voting procedures, standard voting machines and trained personnel limit the number of lost votes.

Patricia L Johnson is a former special assignment writer/photographer and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites. You may read more by this author at http://www.articlesandanswers.com or http://articles2007.spaces.live.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Patricia_L_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?And-the-Score-Is---Machine-2,-Human-0&id=936577

Celebrity Index: U.S. Consumers Find Obama More Appealing, Trustworthy Than Clinton, McCain

2008-02-24T21:15:00.000-08:00

DALLAS, Feb. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- U.S. consumers rate Barack Obama as more appealing, trustworthy, and influential than other presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, according to data released today by the Davie Brown Celebrity Index (DBI).

According to the DBI, an independent index typically used by brand marketers to determine a celebrity's ability to influence consumer purchase intent, Obama's scores in "appeal" are 15 points higher than those of Clinton and 12 points higher than McCain.

The Illinois Senator also scored 12 points better in the DBI's "trust" attribute than Clinton and McCain.

"In terms of appeal and trust, in the minds of U.S. consumers, comparing Obama to Clinton is like comparing Tom Hanks to Martha Stewart," said Jeff Chown, president of Davie Brown Talent, a Dallas-based agency that works with major brands to identify and sign celebrities for endorsement deals. "There's a big drop-off between how they're perceived when it comes to likeability and trustworthiness."

Of the DBI's eight key attributes, Clinton tops Obama in just one: Awareness. But just barely. According to the DBI, Clinton is known by more than 99 percent of U.S. consumers, while just less than 99 percent of consumers know Obama.

"That one's essentially a draw," said Chown.

But Obama outscores Clinton -- as well as Republican frontrunner McCain -- in the DBI's influence, endorsement, aspiration, trendsetter, and breakthrough categories.

"Barack's influence scores on the DBI are on par with celebrities such as Jay Leno, Jack Nicholson, and Vince Vaughn," said Chown. "At the same time, in terms of influence, Hillary is in the same neighborhood as Willie Nelson, Candice Bergen, and Billy Joel."

Of the more than 1600 celebrities in the DBI database, Obama currently ranks third overall. Clinton is eighth overall, while Republicans McCain and Mike Huckabee come in at 20 and 74, respectively.
Oprah Winfrey, a strong Obama supporter, currently ranks first in the DBI.

Contact: Chris Anderson
The Marketing Arm
214-259-3290
214-450-6471
canderson@themarketingarm.com

Source: Davie Brown Talent

CONTACT: Chris Anderson, +1-214-259-3290, +1-214-450-6471,
canderson@themarketingarm.com, for Davie Brown Talent

Web site: http://www.themarketingarm.com/

McCain Campaign Intentionally Distorts Truth by Misrepresenting the Facts from 2004 Campaign

2008-02-24T18:31:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The DNC announced today that it will file a complaint with the FEC against John McCain's campaign Monday, calling on the FEC to investigate whether the McCain campaign violated or is about to violate the law by ignoring the spending limit agreement and other conditions Senator McCain agreed to when he became eligible to receive federal matching funds. According to McCain's latest campaign filing, he has already spent $49.6 million and given that a month has passed, he has exceeded or is about to exceed the approximately $56.8 million spending limit.

"The crucial issue here is John McCain's integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He used taxpayer money to guarantee a loan so he could raise money from lobbyists and special interests - it's the height of hypocrisy. This is just the latest example of his do as I say, not as I do double standard, and it's unlikely to be the last. McCain financially benefited from this legally binding contract - he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million line of credit to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should follow the law."

The McCain campaign has incorrectly stated that McCain is doing what Dean did when he withdrew from public financing in his presidential bid, but they have the facts wrong. Dean did not use the promise of matching funds as collateral for a loan. As required, Dean obtained permission from the Commission to withdraw from matching funds before any funds were disbursed. Also, Dean spent resources to get his name on the ballot after withdrawing, unlike McCain who had free ballot access in some states because he pledged to accept matching funds.

In order to receive matching funds, John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC to accept spending limits and to abide by the conditions of receiving those funds. The FEC makes clear that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be granted by the FEC. In other words, McCain can't just unilaterally withdraw. FEC Chairman David Mason made this clear in a letter to McCain advising him that the law requires the FEC to approve his request to withdraw from his contract.

According to past Commission rulings, the McCain campaign would not be allowed to withdraw from matching funds because it has already violated a key condition for being let out of the program - pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan. McCain obtained a $4 million line of credit -- drew $2,971,697 from it - and documents make clear that the promise of public financing was used to secure his loan.

In the complaint, the DNC says "the Commission should (1) find reason to believe, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(2), that Senator John McCain and the McCain Campaign have committed, or are about to commit, a violation of Chapter 96 of Title 26 and of the Commission's rules, and should conduct an investigation; and (2) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 9040(c), petition the appropriate U.S. District Court for injunctive relief to implement and enforce the provisions of Chapter 96 against Senator McCain and the McCain Campaign."

A copy of the DNC's complaint will be available Monday once it's filed.

Source: Democratic National Committee

CONTACT: Stacie Paxton, +1-202-863-8148

Web site: http://www.democrats.org/

Voting And Non-Voting Behaviors In 2004 US Presidential Election

2008-02-23T23:27:00.000-08:00

By Elaheh Jarrahi

The USA presidential election is conducted every 4 years in November. It uses a system of "first-past-the-post" or "winner-takes-all" which means the candidate who gets the majority of popular votes does not necessarily win; what is more important is getting the majority of electoral votes. In such a system an individual might feel that his vote can not make a difference in the outcome of the election and therefore may choose not to vote at all. That is why some scholars believe about 50 per cent of people who are eligible to vote prefer to stay at home and not to show up in the Election Day.

In this paper, the theories of voting and non-voting behavior in 2004 presidential election are discussed. In other words, we are going to see whether party identification model or issue voting played an important role in individuals' opinions who voted and if they did not vote, what was the reason behind that?

The United States presidential election of 2004 was between the Republican candidate, George Walker Bush, the President of the United States and the defeated Democratic candidate, John Kerry, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts.

Bush received about 51 percent of the votes cast (62 million votes), while Kerry received about 48 percent (59 million votes). Bush could get 286 electoral votes and Kerry 251. The counting of the votes in the state of Ohio was controversial and many believed that if voting in Ohio had proceeded fairly, Kerry would have become the US president.

There was only a slight difference between the states which voted for Democrats and the ones which voted for Republicans in comparison to the 2000 presidential election. The difference is to do with only three states. Bush took Iowa and New Mexico (combined 12 electoral votes), both won by Al Gore in 2000, while Kerry took New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), which Bush had previously won. Bush got a net gain of 8 electoral votes from these switches.

This result is to do with party identification model. That is to say the Southern states generally voted for George W Bush, while the Northern states supported the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. But this is just a mere generalization if one says that in the 2004 presidential election, party identification model was the most important factor. Nevertheless, its importance is not questionable.

The most important factor in voting theories of the 2004 was about issue voting. In other words, voters paid a lot of attention to the issues that were supported by candidates. Above all people's concern was the issue of national security including terrorism and moral values which was advocated by Bush. On the other hand, Kerry's slogan was "stronger at home, respected in the world." And he also paid more attention to economic issues like jobs and health care. One should bear in mind that the 2004 election was the first presidential election after Sep. 11, 2001 and very logically if one felt threatened, the best candidate to vote for would be a Republican. And very basically that was the reason why individuals voted for George W Bush.

The percentage of voting-age citizens taking part in the 2004 presidential election was higher than the previous one in 2000. 64 percent of voter turnout (126 million) in the 2004 election was a record number for a presidential election. Among 72.1 percent of the people registered, 63.8 voted, that is to say 16 million registered voters did not cast a ballot. Well, there were different reasons why these registered nonvoters did not show up: 20 percent said that they were too busy on the Election Day, 15 percent said that they were ill or had a family emergency, and 11 percent said that they felt their votes would not make a difference in the outcome. Other reasons included being out of town, not liking the candidates, confusing about voting or registration, etc.

All in all, the element which was of great importance in the 2004 presidential election was about issue voting and the issue which most people were concerned about was national security. People chose their future president retrospectively, as the Republican Party is known for being a better leader when it comes to foreign policy and therefore national security.

1. McKay D., Houghton D. & Wroe A. (2005) Controversies in American Politics and Society, United Kingdom, Blackwell Publishing

3. http://www.census.gov/population/pop-profile/dynamic/Voting.pdf

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Elaheh_Jarrahi
http://EzineArticles.com/?Voting-And-Non-Voting-Behaviors-In-2004-US-Presidential-Election&id=928909

Will You Be Defended In The Presidential Election 2008?

2008-02-23T23:21:00.000-08:00

Texas forms part of the Southern United States. Due to the region's unique cultural and historic heritage, the American South has witnessed and influenced numerous political issues faced by the United States as a whole, including state's rights, slavery, the American Civil War and the American Civil Rights Movement. The region has not only given birth to several political movements (like George C. Wallace' American Independence Party) but also contributed many President's to the United States.

The historical significance of a number of such contributions from this region underlines its importance in the political arena. Texan Democrats have been at the forefront of the civil rights movement. To quote well-known Texas Democrat, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1973-1979, "We believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief that each American regardless of background has equal standing in the public forum, all of us. Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come." - Congresswoman Barbara Jordan All Texan Democrats adhere to the following principles of human rights :

To provide equal opportunity to all and ensure a level playing field.

To guarantee equal protection before the law.

To provide for and enforce full protection of civil and human rights.

To guarantee non-interference in the private life and personal decisions of people as long as they are within the scope of law.

To guarantee freedom of religion.

To protect against all forms of discriminations and sexual harassment.

To assure confidentiality and privacy of all personal records, irrespective of media of storage (like paper, electronics records, etc.)

To protect and enforce all state and federal disability rights and laws, particularly the Americans with Disability Act.

To provide full access to governmental records and information on matters of public interest.

To repeal provisions of the Patriot Act which are incompatible with the Bill of Rights.

To ensure all legal formalities are fulfilled before infringing on personal freedom, for instance, when needing surveillance, wire-tapping, etc.

To adopt a constitutional amendment to provide all eligible voters an absolute right to vote in all public elections.

To guarantee open access to the court system as guaranteed by the Texas constitution.

To provide affordable and efficient access to justice for all Texans.

To nominate and appoint qualified competent persons where required.

Texan Democrats exploit every platform available to them to spread this message of equality to all Texans.

I love politics.

My Texan Democrat Blog
I want to get out there and support the democratic party.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eric_Schultz
http://EzineArticles.com/?Will-You-Be-Defended-In-The-Presidential-Election-2008?&id=938561

Clinton, Obama Promise To End Debate

2008-02-23T23:16:00.000-08:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Giorgio_Germont
http://EzineArticles.com/?Barack-Obama,-Jasper,-Texas-and-the-United-States-of-America,-Stream-of-Consciousness-Concepts&id=932647

For some time now, both candidates have indulged in an exchange of comments perceived as sexist or racist. Clinton's supporters have complained about the sexist overtones in remarks aimed at her. Similarly, the Obama camp had issues regarding racial comments about his middle name Hussein having a Muslim association as well as the drug abuse story from his past. Their sparring has even spurred a national debate on what constitutes an acceptable form of a public verbal dual.

Both leaders explained the war of words on their supporters, who, they said, sometimes exacerbated the tension in their competition for presidential nomination. Obama referred to "supporters or staff who get overzealous. "They start saying things that I would not say," he said. "We both have exuberant and sometimes uncontrollable supporters," Clinton also acknowledged during the debate aired on MSNBC.

Clinton, Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards participated in the debate in Las Vegas, even as Clinton won the Michigan presidential primary - held in violation of party rules.

Obama said, "not only in hindsight, but going forward," in response to a question about whether he regretted his campaign's pushing the issue of race.Clinton evaded a question on whether she would stop businessman Robert Johnson from participating in her campaign. Johnson, it may be remembered, had referred to Obama's drug use while as a young man during a public appearance. She did however admit that his comments were inappropriate.

Hillary Clinton was the only major candidate in the Michigan primary, which was an election only in name only. Her competition mainly came from the "uncommitted" line on the ballot. The results from around 25 percent of the state left her with 61 percent of the vote, with the uncommitted gaining about a third.

The debate took place days the caucuses in Nevada. While the Iowa caucuses saw Osama win the lead position, Clinton had subsequently made up by winning the New Hampshire primary. Reportedly, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich wished to have a seat in the debate, but following the Nevada Supreme Court ruling that MSNBC could legally debar him, it did.

Author is an expert in politics related topics.
To know more information about us presidential elections 2008 articles please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Clinton,-Obama-Promise-To-End-Debate&id=936873

Capturing The Boomer Vote

2008-02-23T23:13:00.000-08:00

By Gary Skole

Unlike their parents before them, boomers vote less along party lines and more based on the issues. Why does this happen and how can the candidates take advantage of this?

In the households of many boomers, their parents were typically democrats or republicans and usually voted strictly along party lines. Their children were obviously influenced by this; however, these same children have broken away from that type of behavior. A few reasons could be:

Boomers have heard so many lies from politicians that they no longer believe or trust a politician just because he or she represents the party they support. Instead, boomers tend to find a candidate they can believe in who also represents what their interests are.

Political parties tend to be dominated by the left or right, which does not necessarily represent the majority of boomers. Instead, boomers are again looking for a candidate that representshe way they look at things.

Boomer vote with more self-interest in mind than their parents did. They tend to view entitlements and obligations on their terms. For example, they do not believe they owe the country certain obligations such as military service and paying more taxes. The candidates that address the issues that affect boomers directly are more likely to capture their vote.

Obviously, the war is a major issue. Other issues will be the economy, alternative fuel development, health care and immigration.

As boomers begin to see their parents growing older, they continue to show more interest in how to pay for the care they will need. A recent article showed that boomers are going to have to account for the possibility of using a certain percentage of their retirement funds to help pay for the needs of their parents. Obviously, any politician who can address this issue will not only capture the interest of the boomers, but of their parents as well. This is going to be a growing issue in future elections that needs to be addressed.

The recent turnout of young voters has made all the headlines lately. Candidates are clamoring for the youth vote, using the internet sites such as myspace, youtube and facebook to try and connect with them. While the youth vote can be important, candidates should not forget that boomers make up a much larger and more influential segment of the population. The message for younger voters differs from that of the boomers. Younger voters are not as concerned with health care issues such as paying for long term care like assisted living and home health care, Medicare cuts and saving social security. Since boomers tend to vote on issues and not parties, the candidates need to walk a thin line to appease the younger voter and still stay in touch with the boomers.

People have been voting along party lines since the days of the revolution. It is refreshing to see people vote on the issues instead. The politicians will address all the issues, now it depends on who the boomers feel addresses them to their liking.

For more information about senior related services and issues, go to http://www.caregrade.com where you can find unbiased reviews and helpful information on senior service providers.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gary_Skole
http://EzineArticles.com/?Capturing-The-Boomer-Vote&id=917340

Barack Obama, Jasper, Texas and the United States of America, Stream of Consciousness Concepts

2008-02-17T21:08:00.000-08:00

By Giorgio Germont

Early in 2001 while George Bush was saying that 'the business of America is business', and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a centenary foreign problem' our country walked away from the peace summit while Oussama Ben-Ladin was putting the final touches on the most horrific crime since the Jewish and the Black Slavery Trade Holocausts. My children's future will be so much bleaker than mine was as a child. I don't even have the heart to tell them just how blissful it was to grow-up in Mexico in the 1960's, sleeping with the doors open and walking home late at night as a teenager from parties and other innocent late pursuits without a care in the world.

Nowadays I do not read the newspapers anymore, not even my beloved New York Times, why? I'll tell you why. Do you want to know the news of tomorrow, save your dollar I'll tell you tomorrow's news myself, it'll read like this:

Somebody beheaded someone in the middle east, someone blew himself up and killed twenty innocent bystanders, some government official was caught red handed embezzling tax-payer funds, we all ate yesterday the food intended for consumption by our grandchildren and gained two pounds too many, we squandered so much energy and wasted so much water that our grandchildren will have to desalinize the oceans and read braille in order to stay alive, some wretched mother or father murdered his/her children and turned the gun on him/her self for no apparent reason, some shameless lobbyist sold National Resources to Industry and made a killing, the islands of the Norwegian Atlantic Coast have been drowned by the rising sea-levels, the City of Venice must close-off the lagoon to keep the floods of St. Mark's square to less than one hundred this year, some border official was bribed to allow foreigners, prostitutes or drugs to cross the borders and meet the demands of those within the continental forty-eight who have use for these commodities, the buying power of the dollar continues to slide, Japanese children will have to teach Americans who attend public schools how to speak English,

Should I continue or have you heard enough about tomorrow's news?

I am utterly amazed about Obama's rise to the lead in politics on the other hand this world is in such chaos we need fundamental changes and the genetic richness of every race must be tapped in order to look for big solutions to big problems. A small town in the forest, Jasper, Texas is the most unbelievable laboratory of race relations of the twenty first century. Jasper County was typically the site for conscientious objectors to the outcome of the civil war who decided that emancipation didn't really occur and thus it remains as one of the last havens of respite of the KKK. Jasper is at the same time a tribute to how the races can and must coexist peacefully (it is almost ten years since the unspeakable dragging-murder of James Byrd Jr. on June 8th, 1998 by three white supremacists )

In Jasper, blacks and whites go out of their way to respect each other in public. Yesir, nosir, good mornin', good evenin' when a public greeting is made a respectful response always follows. In restaurants, buses, stores, houses of worship, businesses, everyone is treated the same. There has been little race-related violence between blacks and whites in the past ten years. In their hearts in the comfort of their homes the races disdain and suspect each other. They try not to mix and try to keep to their own kind. Not surprising when you realize that foreign of any kind is alien and thus it may be dangerous to self and offspring. The ideals of the Constitution however are such that the law and the opportunities should treat everyone alike in this country. The tenet that no one is above the law is perhaps the greatest principle that makes me want to recite the pledge of allegiance to the stars and stripes until I am out of breath. We have many problems to solve together if Obama will lead us there, Godspeed to him, he will need everyone's support.

Republic vs Democracy - Rule by Law vs Rule by Majority

2008-02-17T21:06:00.000-08:00

By Jeff Bush

I want to open this blog with an understanding of what our forefathers intended for our country. I believe that this understanding is essential in preserving our gun owner rights, hunting rights, concealed carry rights, etc.. Furthermore, the more we use the "D" word in ignorance, the more we become the very thing our forefathers took great care to avoid:

Republic vs. Democracy

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Supreme Court and individual jurors (jury-nullification). Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums. A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob. A more recent example was the failure of the US Senate to uphold their oath "to do impartial justice" and remove bill clinton from office. Those Senators should be removed themselves, for failure to uphold their oath and for aiding and abetting a known criminal.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

- A government of the masses.

- Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

- Results in mobocracy.

- Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.

- Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

- Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

- Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

- Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

- A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

- Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.

- Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

- Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".

http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm

Posted by Jeff Bush Pres/CEO BushCo LLC

Jeff Bush

Pres/CEO

BushCo LLC

http://www.CheapAsCanBe.com

Your Hunting, Camping, and Outdoor Recreational Gear & Equipment Discounter!

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jeff_Bush
http://EzineArticles.com/?Republic-vs-Democracy---Rule-by-Law-vs-Rule-by-Majority&id=933599

John McCain - Enter The Opportunist & Mixed Martial Arts Biggest Enemy

2008-02-17T21:01:00.000-08:00

By Andrew Bimbo

From the beginning, there was going to be some establishment resistance to mixed martial arts. The sport, with its absence of structured rules, did not fit into the regulations that were laid out by the athletic commissions across the country. In fact, most of the regulatory people didn't understand it, and therefore had no idea how to classify it. It certainly wasn't boxing, which used hands only, or kick boxing, which allowed for kicks and which was sanctioned in some states. And it most definitely was not a "worked" sport like professional wrestling, which also fell under the jurisdiction of some of the athletic commissions.

Plus, there was not really enough mixed martial arts activity going on for the states to take the time out to draft rules and regulations for it. If there was the possibility of only a couple of events per year, why would they go through the process of engaging commission attorneys to draw up a new set of rules, or approach the state legislature with a bill to be passed, in order to accommodate it?

Besides, there was a growing - and influential - constituency of people who looked upon mixed martial arts as "barbarism" and "bloodsport." Many of these people used an expression that became a standard for cheap shots as time progressed - "human cock fighting."

When you have pervading mainstream attitudes like this, the atmosphere is ripe for political opportunity. And sure enough, out of the rubble emerged one of the great political opportunists of recent years.

John McCain, a United States Senator from Arizona, had gotten a lot of mileage out of his five-year internment in a Vietnamese prisoner of war (POW) camp; rather than the more realistic portrayal of him as a pure victim, the slick public relations machine he had cultivated was able to spin him into a full-blown hero. More often than not, McCain was successful in co-opting the press in what was a somewhat blind pursuit of political glory. His critics opined that he never met a camera he didn't like or headline-grabbing issue he was not willing to sell himself out to. But he had a following, particularly among the media, that was willing to ignore the fact that despite his public stance for campaign finance reform, McCain was one of the great abusers of the process; in fact, he was one of the disgraced members of the "Keating Five," which doled out political influence in exchange for hefty contributions and financial favors.

Though he had been labeled a "maverick" by most of the press corps, McCain was hardly that; rather, he was he was a very calculating political animal who often saw which way the wind was blowing and hurled himself - with sycophantic media grasping on to his boots - in that direction.

McCain purported to be a lifelong boxing fan, and claimed to be a boxer of some note at the Naval Academy, where he gained admission as a "legacy" (his father was an alumnus) and graduated near the bottom of his class. He favored legislation to bring about some federal control of boxing and would later spearhead efforts to pass more extensive bills in that quest. He was quite fond of accepting free tickets from the very promoters his legislation would have regulatory authority over. Coincidentally, these gifts and gratuities often landed him ringside, right in camera view, during an HBO or Showtime telecast.

It was only natural that McCain would jump on an anti-UFC bandwagon that already existed.

And in doing so, he became a major thorn in their collective side.

McCAIN BECOMES THE SPORT'S BIGGEST ENEMY

The leading purveyors of mixed martial arts had, in a sense, dug their own graves, promoting the sport as a no rules bloodsport that - at least in the case of the publicity surrounding one UFC card - could even end in death. Whatever the severity of the hype, there was always the atmosphere of impending danger hanging over the events, and the promoters didn't do too much to tone it down. Lack of safety had, in fact, become a selling point.

Senator John McCain, smelling an opportunity the way a pitbull smells fear, made his big grab at anti-MMA airtime in 1995, right before the "Ultimate Ultimate" event was to take place. He made an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" with Marc Ratner, then the executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, as his main support. Ratner was a big critic of the UFC as well; his interests at the time, of course, were tied up in boxing, and ironically he would join the UFC as a lobbyist years later.

McCain may have been influenced a great deal by those in boxing; his wife, Cindy, had inherited one of the biggest Budweiser distributorships in the country from her father, Jim Hensley, and Budweiser had a long-time relationship with boxing, where it had pumped a lot of money into sponsoring the sport. Then there were the numerous gratuities McCain had taken from boxing promoters. Whatever the motivation, he already had an agenda laid out, and that agenda was to bust up the sport of mixed martial arts any way he possibly could.

He famously made the comment that MMA "appeals to the lowest common denominator in our society," an expression that is often misused by opportunists. Of course what he was basically saying by using the term "lowest common denominator" was that "a lot of people seem to like this stuff, and they're all pretty much scumbags."

Bob Meyrowitz was on hand to defend the UFC, along with Ken Shamrock, but this was one confrontation where, like so many wrestling matches, the outcome was decided well in advance. The former POW's instincts were correct in this case; that the political correctness of his pitch was going to resonate with members of the general public, and the media, who were predisposed to thinking that mixed martial arts was little more than a sideshow.

McCain was hardly the maverick here; indeed, he was taking what would have been considered the "politically correct" road, and King offered little resistance to him. After what had to be termed a success on CNN, he sought to build on his momentum. He tried to solicit a lot of support from state governments, whether they did or did not have a boxing commission. What these governments should have told him was to shut up and mind his own business. Perhaps some of them did just that.

Just not enough, evidently.

MMAMemories.com - Exclusive MMA Articles, UFC History, Almanac, Hall of Fame, Memoriblia, Schedule and more!

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andrew_Bimbo
http://EzineArticles.com/?John-McCain---Enter-The-Opportunist-and-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Biggest-Enemy&id=930530

Santorum Warns McCain Presidency Is Dangerous For Republicans

2008-02-17T21:00:00.000-08:00

During the interview, Levin said that McCain was recasting himself as more conservative in order to win the Party's presidential nomination. Santorum responded to this by saying, "It's amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side."

Santorum referred to the McCain-Feingold Act, sponsored by McCain, which limits campaign contributions. Detractors have dubbed the bill as an 'incumbent protection act.' Santorum attacked the act as "an affront to personal freedom and liberty in this country, and what we've seen as a result of this misguided attempt to placate the New York Times and to help his stature within that community ... is that special interests have absolutely taken over the political process, and individual candidates, unless you're a billionaire, and parties have very little voice in the process.

"It's a shame," Santorum said, "but he was obviously out front on that."

Santorum was also critical about McCain's decision to vote against the Bush Tax cuts; McCain, incidentally, was one of only two Republicans who did so. Santorum said, "The reduction in rates and lowering the rates on capital gains and dividends ... did so much to get this economy up and going." However, he said, "We would have had a much bigger tax cut if it were not for John McCain"

Santorum also drew attention to McCain's hostile attitude towards the conservative position on issues such as drug re-importation, embryonic stem cell research, immigration, trial of terror detainees, and other issues.

Santorum expressed "big fear" regarding McCain's presidency, saying it would lead to a huge rift in the GOP. "I think he's been solid in the war on terror ... but on domestic policy, he's very, very dangerous for Republicans," he said, adding, "There's nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives."

Santorum also said that McCain was a leader of Senate moderates who prevented the Republicans from implementing pro-life legislation. While he said, he had not decided on which candidate he would vote for, Santorum ruled out McCain.

Author is an expert in politics related topics.

To know information about us presidential elections 2008 articles please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Santorum-Warns-McCain-Presidency-Is-Dangerous-For-Republicans&id=932915

Primaries Should Go South Earlier

2008-02-17T20:58:00.000-08:00

By John K. Press

As you know, Huckabee won Iowa and McCain won New Hampshire. To a culturist this is very bad news. That is because both of these candidates are pro-Amnesty. That means that they are likely to naturalize illegals in terrorist cells and further erode our national sovereignty.

Perhaps, this indicates that culturists are out of touch with the American people. Polls show, however, that immigration is a top issue of concern with voters. It has been a focus of the debates. Huckabee even brought Jim Gilchrist, a founder of the minutemen, aboard to get an immigration enforcement image. I do not think that Americans are unconcerned about immigration.

So what gives? This culturist's theory has to do with geography. Our system allows people from Northern cities to winnow down the candidates. Iowa is one state away from Canada and three states away from our southern border. New Hampshire actually touches Canada. Other than Maine, it is our Northernmost state. These states are less likely that Southern states to have fully encountered and understand the impact of immigration. And, between these primaries and the next round we get Wyoming and Michigan!

Our primary season should be more geographically representative of the nation. Early inclusion of at least one state from the South or Southwest would make the process more likely to reflect the concerns of most Americans. It would be fair to start off with Iowa, then go to Arizona, then go to New Hampshire and then go to South Carolina. Not all regions of the country see the world the way the Northernern most states do.

If this culturist is correct, when we get to states further South we will see very different results. Immigration will be a deciding factor in states that do not border Canada. In the long run, we should work to get the nomination process changes so that it does not only ask the Northernmost states which candidate reflects their concerns.

John Press is the author of Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. He is also a doctoral student and adjunct professor of education at New York University. http://www.culturism.us has more information about culturism.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_K._Press
http://EzineArticles.com/?Primaries-Should-Go-South-Earlier&id=923448

Americans Voting Behaviors In 2004 Presidential Election

2008-02-17T05:45:00.000-08:00

By Fatemeh Azimzadeh

The importance of active civic participation is obvious for the future of a nation and a healthy democracy. In 2004 Presidential election, the republican candidate George Walker Bush won against John Kerry the democrat one. 50.8 percent of the voting ballots were devoted to Bush and 48.3 percent were devoted to Kerry. Also, Ralph Nader won less than 0.4 percent of the votes.
Bush and Kerry had close competitions and at the end Bush was chosen to be the president of the United States. Americans voting behaviors is the subject of this article. The first part of this article discusses people's behaviors generally and the second part will be devoted to youth voting, specifically.

Different theories and models described Americans voting behaviors in 2004 presidential election. Following you will read about some reasons and models explaining Americans voting behaviors.

1. Party identification model indicates party identification alongside with socialization. Americans are democrats, republicans or independent and party identifications are important in voting behaviors based on race, gender, education and income. In 2004 election men voted more for republicans and women voted for democrats. African Americans and other minorities also supported democrats. Those with less income voted for democrats as well. People who were less educated voted for republicans. These were based on party identifications, but there were people who voted for a certain candidate rather than the certain party.

2. Issue model which focuses on certain issues which effect on voting behaviors of people. Issues are different either domestic or universal. War, economy, health care, terrorism, security, moral values were important on people's decisions. Statistics indicate the most important elements as war in Iraq, terrorism and homeland security, jobs and unemployment, health care, federal budget and taxes. These were important issues in Americans decision making process.

3. Moral issues and voters' decision Making process in the 2004 Presidential election were important. For example:" President Bush's victory, the approval of every anti-gay marriage amendment on statewide ballots and an emphasis on 'moral values' among voters showed the power of churchgoing Americans in this election and threw the nation's religious divide into stark relief." Associated Press, November 4, 2004

4. Economic conditions, influence consumer confidence, also they influence both political evaluations and votes. But there is little sense of the origins of consumer confidence itself. Consumers are those who vote. Nation's level of consumer confidence responds to objective economic conditions. Candidates who pay more attention to economic conditions can take measures to satisfy the voters. Politics is important for understanding consumer sentiment beyond what is known from economic conditions. It demonstrates a direct effect of political evaluations of the president's management of the economy, the party of the president, extraordinary political events, and monetary policy; it also affects media coverage of the economy and consumer sentiment, after controlling for economic conditions. When news is positive, citizens give favorable evaluations; this happens naturally, it causes more positive sentiment. Understanding the political economy needs an emphasis on the causal effect of politics as well as economics. All these create different behaviors by the participants in the Presidential election as it happened in 2004.

5. Impact of personality must be considered in cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes, too. One to talk about is the effects of the need to evaluate that is a personality trait and reflects a person's proclivity to create and hold attitudes; people high in that are likely to make attitudes toward all sorts of objects and events. The data from the 1998 National Election Survey Pilot and the 2000 National Election Survey was shown to predict a variety of important attitude-relevant cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes beyond holding attitudes, it could predict how many evaluative beliefs about candidates one held, the likelihood that a person would use party identification and issue stances to determine candidate preferences. It is important to know that the extent to which a person took part in political activism , the likelihood he voted or intended to vote would change and another thing, the extent to which a person used the news media for gathering information, and the intensity of emotional reactions that felt toward political candidates were effective as well. So the need to evaluate seems to play a significant role in shaping important political behavior, emotion, and cognition.

6. The effect of a subtle reminder of death on voting intentions for the 2004 U.S. presidential election has been considered. It is on the basis of terror management theory which was hypothesized that a mortality salience induction would increase support for President George W. Bush and decrease support for Senator John Kerry. It was late September 2004 and after a mortality salience or control induction; registered voters were asked which candidate they had intended to vote for. According the predictions, Senator John Kerry could receive substantially more votes than George Bush in the control condition, but Bush was favored over Kerry following a reminder of death, suggesting that President Bush's re-election may have been facilitated by non-conscious concerns about mortality in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

7. New studies express a powerful empirical relationship between political discussion and political knowledge. And, there has been no clear discussion or demonstration of how political discussion translates into increased political knowledge. A study proposed three explanations on this matter; first, exposure, second anticipatory elaboration that creates links between work on uses, gratifications and news information processing, and third discussion-generated elaboration that focuses on how discussion itself can influence information processing. Some data from 2000 and a local community survey during the 1996 presidential election were used to test these three. The results suggest that the direct relationship between discussion and knowledge may be mediated through motivations and information processing behaviors. They also support the anticipatory elaboration and discussion-generated elaboration explanations while posing questions on the exposure explanation.

8. There was a model by the name of Jobs Model which was well done in 2004.It could predict the Presidential election well. The model was based on data available in August 2004 and its error was only 1.3 percentage points predicting the incumbent share of the two-party popular vote (Lewis-Beck and Tien 2004). On the other hand the median forecast from seven teams of statistical modelers was off 2.6 percentage points (Campbell 2004, 734). It is believed that the Jobs Model was more correct since it broadened measurement of economic performance that is a conceptual variable lying at the core of most of these efforts. It argues that the changing nature of the American economy required attention to a hitherto neglected variable which is job creation.

9. It is the early years of new millennium in politics so the machinery of the "old politics" that was centered on a party-orientation is being replaced by computers of the "new politics" which is centered on an image manufacturing-orientation. It goes with highly integrated marketing strategy that is driven by a candidate's inner circle of advisors who now control the money and message of both the party and candidate organization. It leads to a very easy transition from election to governing and it happens that the top advisors during the campaign become top advisors to the winners and the key architects of the party administration. All of the developed marketing techniques and means that have been used in politics over the past several years are becoming more sharply focused on one central theme, and that is to produce a winning image for the leader and his/her party.

Youth voting

There are reports that in 1971, 18- to 20- year olds gained the right to vote, and 50 percent of young adults aged 18 to 24 voted in the 1972 presidential election. But voting among young adults has dropped significantly, causing concern among lawmakers and other policy makers.
"The percentage of youth ages 18 to 24 who reported voting and registering to vote was higher in the 2004 presidential election year than in 1996 or 2000 (42 percent reported voting in 2004, compared with 32 percent in both 1996 and 2000)."But, the percentage was lower than when 18- to 20- year olds first gained the right to vote in 1972. Fifty-nine percent of youth had registered to vote in 1972, and only 52 percent registered to vote in 2004. In 1972, 50 percent of youth voted, compared with 42 percent in 2004.

The reasons for declines in voting express that many youth feel uninformed about politics and the electoral process. A study found that one third of high school seniors lack a basic understanding of how the American government operates.

Another report by the National Association of Secretaries of State also got that youth believe that government and elections are not relevant to things about which they care. It has been suggested that this belief elaborates why many prefer to engage in community service, which is actually developing more and more.

Differences by the type of elections, ages, gender, race/ethnicity of voters:

There are differences by type of elections, too.

Fewer youth vote in non-presidential election years, comparing presidential election years. For example seventeen percent of youth voted in the 2002, non-presidential election year, whereas 42 percent voted in the 2004 presidential election year.

Females are more likely than males to report both registering to vote and voting. It is not a lot different, anyhow. In the 2004 election, 55 percent of females aged 18 to 24 registered to vote, compared with 48 percent of males the same age. That was similar to 45 percent of females who actually voted according the reports, compared with 39 percent of males.

Young Hispanics are the least likely to report registering to vote and actually voting in both presidential and non-presidential election years. In 2004, 44 percent of black youth and 43 of white youth reported voting, comparing 20 percent of Hispanic youth. Of course Hispanics may be of any race.

References:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2004.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=296252

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00288.x

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentId=853745&contentType=Article

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Fatemeh_Azimzadeh
http://EzineArticles.com/?Americans-Voting-Behaviors-In-2004-Presidential-Election&id=926931

How Hillary Clinton Came Back Stole New Hampshire

2008-02-17T05:36:00.001-08:00

By Ki Gray

As Election Day approaches, one of the most publicized presidential races of the past several decades has captivated the minds of people around the world and set records for participation in the US democratic primary system. As the first woman to run as a mainstream candidate for president, New York Senator Hillary Clinton has quite a race in front of her by anyone's standards.

Even though equal rights for women have existed in the United States for almost a century, it has been a long time coming for a presidential race between Clinton and her fiercest competitor, Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Although she had led polls initially for several weeks, as the Iowa caucus started to get underway, Obama had the lead. After her third-place finish in Iowa, things were looking a little desperate for Mrs. Clinton, whose campaigning in recent weeks has been relentless. As Obama picked up the pace to match, it seemed inevitable. With the opposition taking double-digit leads in most polls in the days and hours leading up to the New Hampshire Democratic primary, the Clinton camp seemed somewhat resigned. But with an unusual combination of a record voter turnout, the first truly web-capable election, and a newfound global interest in US politics all contributed to Hillary's comeback.

The New Hampshire primary had more people voting in it than ever before by a large margin, with a half million strong coming out in the unseasonably warm weather to cast their vote. While Obama took the independent voters and many young Americans, the biggest bloc of Hillary supporters were- surprise!- women, as well as the diehard Democrats, who seemed to take Hillary more seriously.

While the "electability" of either major candidate has been questioned, a race that comes down to a black man or a woman for the highest civilian office in the US is certainly not to be overlooked in terms of progress. Yet this factor may have helped win Hillary undue support. While the Iowa caucuses were held openly, the ballots cast in the New Hampshire primary were cast in private, thus begging the question: What other factors besides racism could give one candidate a clear lead in polls, yet give the other candidate the nomination?

Well, the power of the web has been somewhat underestimated in recent months, as the first presidential webcast debates have been published-er-uploaded and received millions of hits. A video reposted on Youtube of Hillary speaking to a coffeeshop audience nearly in tears went viral hours before the election, in a brief but rare emotional outpouring that just may have set her apart from the competition in an unexpected way. As often as she has tried to be sincere and make connections to people, Hillary has come off as cold and calculating, a politician to the core. Yet this moment of candidness, combined with the power of new technology that can let any potential viewer (or voter) into her perspective, helped turn the tables in her favor and catapulted her firmly back into the race overnight.

Ki and Dane work for Escapeso a company which helps buyers interested in Austin real estate. They have a search which pulls in homes from the href="http://www.escapesomewhere.com/realestate_searchthemls.html">Austin MLS. Their Austin real estate blog also provides insights on the Austin market.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ki_Gray
http://EzineArticles.com/?How-Hillary-Clinton-Came-Back-Stole-New-Hampshire&id=919603

How Hillary Clinton Came Back Stole New Hampshire

2008-02-17T05:36:00.000-08:00

By Ki Gray

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ki_Gray
http://EzineArticles.com/?How-Hillary-Clinton-Came-Back-Stole-New-Hampshire&id=919603

Did Cell Phones Screw Up New Hampshire Primary Polling?

2008-02-17T05:25:00.000-08:00

By Todd D Epp

One of the things the Democrat national party and state party are stressing this election is a return to more old school personal contact with voters. The theory is based on a couple things. First, people are more likely to listen to their friends and neighbors about candidates than paid shills, college kids, or robocalls.

Second, going old school is being necessitated because while people use technology to be more connected, it's to be more connected with people they already know and like. Conversely, technology also makes it possible to thwart those who want to contact you who don't personally know you.

Exhibit A is the cell phone. In fact, another blogger-Media Nation-projected this "problem" for Barack Obama back in October.

Cell phones display the number calling you. If you don't know the number or it says "unknown," you won't pick up. Many people, particularly those under 30 no longer have a land line but only a cell phone. And guess what, cell phones aren't listed in phone directories. The numbers are difficult to obtain as far as I know.

So, I was thinking...

Besides Hillary Clinton obviously working like a maniac and finally starting to act like a real human being during the New Hampshire Primary campaign, did pollsters get flummoxed by the move away from land lines and towards cell phones? If you can't use cell phone numbers to find likely voters and those likely voters, who probably skew younger aren't measured, I'd think your final results would be screwed up.

I'm no pollster or statistics expert. I went to law school largely because there was little math involved.

I'd be interested in hearing from the mathematics, polling, and statistical experts out there to test my theory-or at least comment on it. Even you political scientists and operatives can comment but what I'd like to hear about is whether cell phones are taken into account as a variable in polling and how this variable is handled.

Todd D. Epp, South Dakota Watch, http://www.southdakotawatch.net

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Todd_D_Epp
http://EzineArticles.com/?Did-Cell-Phones-Screw-Up-New-Hampshire-Primary-Polling?&id=924142

Grading the New Hampshire Primary Speeches

2008-02-05T20:42:00.000-08:00

By Todd D Epp

Plunked down on the couch tonight watching the New Hampshire Presidential Primary results like it was Super Bowl-with remote and pizza at the ready.

Hillary Clinton's surprise victory confounding all the polls reminded me of Mike Rounds out of nowhere victory in the 2002 South Dakota Republican Gubernatorial Primary. In fact, in some ways, it was more amazing as at least Hillary Clinton was on the NH radar and Smilin' Mke was the asterisk in the Mark Barnett v. Steve Kirby Battle of the Titans.

But I digress.

I was watching my favorite news channel-MSNBC-but decided I must be from another planet. All the MSNBC pundits-to a man and woman, hated Republican John McCain's victory speech. In fact, they were laughing about how bad it was.

Granted, McCain reads note cards like the grumpy 71 year old that he is. But I was LISTENING to what he said and I liked what I heard. He talked about actual sacrifice in time of war. Of Americans not really being all that different from each other. Of working together. Of admiring all the men and women-Republicans and Democrats-in the primary and their service to a cause.

I came away thinking that if John McCain were elected, this bleeding heart liberal would be ok with it. I felt like a good and decent man-an actual adult as compared to the adolescent smirking frat boy we have in the White House-would be in charge of the USA. But what do I know?

My grade? Delivery: C-; Content: B+

About an hour or two later (time has no meaning when you're zoned out on pizza and politics), Barack Obama gave his concession speech. Here, the MSNBC pundits and I agreed. It was a magnificent speech about hope and the inexorable arc of history toward liberty and justice. He evoked touches of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. The refrain of "Yes we can!" echoed of the old spiritual, "We Shall Overcome."

This is a speech school kids will study if my new man-crush gets elected.

My grade? Delivery: A; Content A

Then another hour later or so, Democratic winner Hillary Clinton spoke. Obviously the past week has been a meat grinder. She lost Iowa, got piled on in the debate, nearly cried, and was left for dead. Her victory is one of the great upsets in modern American politics, where nothing is seemingly a surprise anymore.

I detected a slightly softer Hillary, but her rhetoric was still very "I" and "me" oriented, particularly compared to the "we're all in this together" speeches of McCain and Obama. I also thought she was just a touch above McCain in the reading-my-speech department.

She did have one exceedingly good line, however, "I came to New Hampshire to listen to you and found my own voice." Not bad.

My grade? Delivery: B-; Content C, with a special commendation for the above line.

Todd D. Epp, South Dakota Watch, http://www.southdakotawatch.net

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Todd_D_Epp
http://EzineArticles.com/?Grading-the-New-Hampshire-Primary-Speeches&id=924132

McCain And Obama Are Leading

2008-02-05T20:00:00.000-08:00

http://politicians-uncovered.blogspot.com/2007/12/researching-your-politician.html

An ABC News/ Washington Post poll showed that McCain is now at the top of Republicans. From the Democrats, Obama has caught up with Hillary Clinton and recovered his earlier lead position, which he gained during the Iowa caucuses.

Obama's gain is, in great part, due to the support he has received from the African-Americans. They now back Obama by a 60 - 32 percent margin, while only a little earlier, they supported Clinton by a margin of 52 - 39 percent.

Below are some of the major changes over the last month:

* McCain's popularity within the Republican Party as the most electable contender has almost tripled. His rating as the strongest leader within the party has doubled. He has won double-digit gains in trust to resolve the Iraq problem and terrorism.

* Mike Huckabee's favorability rating has also risen by 21 points, to 42 percent.

* On the other hand, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani favorability rating has dropped by 4 points and is now 46 percent.

* Fred Thompson's favorability rating too has dropped by 3 points, to 30 percent.

* Mitt Romney's personal favorability rating has shot up by 6 points, to 34 percent.

* Obama's favorability rating has shot up by 12 points, to 63 percent. He now leads male voters, 9 points over Clinton.

* Hillary Clinton has gone up by 8 points in her favorability rating, which is now about 58 percent. She now leads women voters by 11 percent over Obama.

* John Edward's favorability rating has similarly risen by 8 points to 57 percent.

While 29 percent voters say that the economy in the US is the most crucial issue facing the country, 20 percent voters believe it is the war in Iraq. Ten percent voters hold health care as the most important issue.

View us presidential election videos and news.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?McCain-And-Obama-Are-Leading&id=928720

We Have Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself - Or Do We?

2008-02-05T19:33:00.001-08:00

By Robert Sprackland

Seattle-Times, as we are so often told, have changed. We are once again seeing the American political masses racing to select a chosen few around who the voters, obediently, will coagulate. Then, we are told, the nation will be led away from eight years of toxic anemia and back to healthy circulation among the other nations of the planet. What we need, we are told, is change. Change is good, but the status quo is bad. Even the Republicans who march lockstep with the Bush administration loudly proclaim change while they simultaneously perpetuate the policies of that administration.

If any words can firmly be associated with the 2008 presidential fiasco they must be "change" and "fear." Fear is a powerful motivator. U.S. General George Patton, upon assuming command of armored forces in North Africa in 1942, told his staff that he wanted his soldiers to fear him more than they feared the Germans. Fear of the right things, but not all things, has often been used to help fortify people against difficult circumstances. But sometimes a leader feels quite differently.

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke these words at his first inauguration in January 1933, and though he was talking about the economic travails of the midst of the great depression, his sentiments have resonated with innumerable people in the following years. FDR was not telling people that they didn't have reason for fear, but that they could not afford to let fear control them. Every soldier who faces combat, every EMT who encounters their first auto wreck victim, and every mother who thinks here child is drowning in a swimming pool know fear. If they give in to those fears they greatly increase the chances of fulfilling the fears, but if they push fear aside and react appropriately, they may very well "convert retreat into advance."

Ever since that day, September 9th, 2001 - "a date which will live in infamy" when "the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by" terrorists, our leadership has not urged us to fight fear, but rather to see fearful things in every shadow and in every neighbor's house. We were told to fear anthrax attacks in our mail, to report suspicious persons to the authorities, to grant the administration unprecedented powers to ignore treaties and Constitutional guidelines. We are told that suspension of habeas corpus is alright because Lincoln did it-but we are not told that Lincoln did it during the Civil War and that shortly after the war the Supreme Court ruled that the action was unconstitutional. In other words, no one should do it again. We are told that voting for a Democrat, or even a "moderate" Republican is to aid our enemies, so be afraid of voting incorrectly! It is also said to aid the enemy if Americans question, let alone criticize, the Bush administration, object to torture and secret prisons on foreign soil, or even ask why the U.S. led an attack against Iraq based on completely false premises. The people are told to go shopping, protect your homes with duct tape and plastic sheeting, and vote far-right wing Republican or face dire, fearful consequences. In contrast to President Roosevelt, Mr. Bush would tell us that "we have everything to fear," and we'd better be very afraid right now.

Then there is the matter of change. Every candidate seems to be using the word, pointing accusatory fingers at the Washington insiders who have led us over the brink towards social and international Apocalypse. They depend on the citizens forgetting that they are, in fact, all Washington insiders. Anyone whose first name is Senator (Thompson, Obama, Clinton, etc.), or has worked for the administration in some capacity (Giulianni, Huckabee, etc.) is an insider. Voting for one of them will create change of party in the Executive Branch, or change of the names of the people extending the influence of the Bush administration, but none of them can really "change Washington" or they way government does business. The best the citizenry can hope for is a government that actually protects, supports, and adheres to the Constitution, puts checks and balances back into place, assures accountability of the government to the people, and enforces what pass for ethical rules in government. Frankly, accomplishing any one of those items would call for massive change, but none would really "change Washington."

It would also be satisfying to see a government that thought lying to Congress about an oral sex incident in the White House was really far, far less consequential or criminal than lying to Congress about doctored intelligence that presents a false case for invading a sovereign nation; revealing the name of a CIA operative and, by extension, everyone who was working covertly through that agent; disassociating from the Geneva Convention (is there a World War II movie that features a POW sequence and doesn't have a scene where the Nazi or Japanese officer tears and tosses away the American or British officer's copy of the Geneva Convention?); establishing secret prisons off U.S. soil for the express purpose of torturing foreign nationals; or for providing non-bid contracts to cronies in war zones and natural disaster areas.

But, hey, I'm still a wee bit idealistic. This election will be more of the same as earlier elections, but if issues come into play it will also be quite different. Yes, there will be race and gender questions (if the GOP had decided to run Condi Rice, they could have one candidate that represented race AND gender questions), but also questions of senility, experience, idealism, and, most important, electability. Because, by golly, we can't have a president who doesn't look good on TV.

Dr. Sprackland is a biologist, former anatomy and physiology instructor, and long-time student of human ecology. As a result, he is applying for membership in a different species. His blogs present a view of human nature as might be observed by a visitor from another world, or by a very observant dog.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robert_Sprackland
http://EzineArticles.com/?We-Have-Nothing-To-Fear-But-Fear-Itself---Or-Do-We?&id=926211

About the Iowa Caucus

2008-01-30T08:18:00.000-08:00

By Dennis Seeley

How is Iowa used in electing future presidents? The political Parties use the caucus to measure their status among mainstream America. This is the beginning of how presidential candidates will represent themselves among politics, as well as local and party line politics.

Deciphering the Iowa caucus.

The caucus is predominately a closed group of people or more pointedly a political party coming together in a closed meeting to select their party line candidates or to decide on policy. However the Iowa caucus should not be confused with the Primary where the candidate is actually selected to represent their party. The Iowa caucus is considered the first step in the presidential nomination for both mainstream parties. This is not because Iowa is really important, it's because Iowa is first in the series of caucuses.

Why is Iowa considered Important by the media and potential presidential candidates? Iowa is deemed as important because it's the first state in the union to conduct a caucus and it's considered the first real challenges candidates will face. Iowa is also considered a state that equally represents American on a majority of the views on both sides' of political lines. Additionally, Iowa is the first state to start the caucus. Thus, Iowa receives most of the attention. This is also considered a preliminary view of who the individual parties will select to represent them in running for president. So, Hence, January 3rd brings a lot of interests for prior speculations among media and political consultants.

Democratic Process when in Caucus for Iowa

In the Democratic caucuses party officials in each county split the county into groups by either precinct or legislative districts. There are currently 99 counties in Iowa. These groups can be hosted at schools fire stations, or even an individuals home. The whole point is to create a group where the attendants have a minimum of 15%-25 of attendees if another group is present and has less than 15% they must either join another group or stand out. Iowa always holds their caucus on January 3rd. During the democratic caucus supporters write their names and the names of the candidates they have chosen to support on the cards. Next, the cards will be added to the number of people supporting a candidate in the first round. If that candidate doesn't get the 15 percent of votes to be considered viable, the cards won't be used further. Individual supports not in the 15% percentile may reallocate their support to another candidate or group. Hence, candidates vie for support of people that are not in a particular group in hopes of increasing their margin or percentage of people supporting their run for presidency.

Republican Process when in Caucus for Iowa

In the Republican caucuses, each voter casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are given sheets of paper without the candidate names printed on them. Voters begin by listening to other people campaigning for a particular candidate. This again is done by caucus participants, after the voters have made their choice they write it down and the information is provided to the Republican Party. Iowa republicans total the results at all 99 precincts then in turn they notify people of the media of the results. The results are calculated and reported to the state party which provides the results to the media.

A Delegate from each precinct caucus is sent on to the county convention. In turn, the county convention chooses delegates to the District Convention, which makes the selection of delegates to the State Convention. So, in actuality it is the Republican state convention, not the precinct caucuses, which ultimately selects delegates to the Republicans National Convention in Iowa. The media usually allocates delegates by estimating county convention results. However, delegates are officially unbound from the precinct caucus. It should be noted as a part of the democratic caucus there is no way to vote anonymously. Voters may request what could be considered as a sort of absentee ballot, which is commonly referred to as a preference card. A preference card may be issued if the voter has to work or can't attend because of a disability or health reasons or other legitimate reasons. To be a responsible voter we must research and understand the game of the partyline politics

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dennis_Seeley
http://EzineArticles.com/?About-the-Iowa-Caucus&id=917619

Paul's Non-Inclusion In The Polls

2008-01-30T08:12:00.000-08:00

Fox News Channel, last week, restricted the number of presidential candidates who were invited to the debates before the New Hampshire primary. Among those left out was Ron Paul- a fact that has angered supporters of the Republican candidate. Fox News cited a space crunch in its studio as the reason for not including Paul in the debate.

Fox has called upon five presidential candidates from the GOP to a forum with Chris Wallace, to be held in New Hampshire, on Sunday. They include Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Paul, and Republican Duncan Hunter of California, was amongst those who were not invited.

Fox cited limited room in its studio as the reason for not including Paul. The news channel explained that the candidates were chosen on the basis of who had won double-digit support in the recent polls.

A national poll conducted on December 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, showed Thompson as having the support of 11 percent of GOP voters. In comparison, Paul lagged behind at a mere 3 percent. A CNN/Opinion Research poll, conducted earlier in December, put Paul at 6 percent.

However, in a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in New Hampshire, Paul shared the fifth place with Thompson, with support of four percent of likely voters. Among New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, though it came within the poll's margin of error.

Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman, called Paul's non-inclusion in the polls a "big mistake". He also said that Fox News had not responded to the campaign's call for an explanation. "Ron brings up some topics that aren't very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq, " Benton said, adding, "...that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate."

Livid Paul supporters of Paul have, meanwhile, started sending out e-mails calling for a boycott of Fox advertisers.

For more information about republican candidates, please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Pauls-Non-Inclusion-In-The-Polls&id=926860

In Favor Of Flip-Flopping Politicians

2008-01-30T08:06:00.000-08:00

By Steven Gillman

Flip flopping refers to changing ones position on an issue. The public generally dislikes politicians who flip flop on their positions, in part because they assume that it is done dishonestly for political reasons alone, and in part because they simple like to know what a candidate for public office stands for. We, the voters, are left wondering if the politician has any true beliefs, or any integrity.

The problem is that the flip flopping label is applied indiscriminately. If a candidate changes his or her mind for any reason, it is considered a lack of integrity and consistency. But is it always bad when politicians change their positions on the issues? Certainly not. Actually, presidential candidate John McCain just made a statement that was worse than even a disingenuous flip flop on a position.

"I've never changed any of my positions," he proudly told an interviewer. I suppose this was to differentiate himself from other candidates who had changed their minds, but what a terrible thing to be proud of! After several decades on the political scene he boasts because he has learned nothing to change his mind on any issue? Apparently he is convinced that he figured out the whole truth in the seventies.

Think about this. Think about all your opinions from decades back. Do you agree with them all still? Mentally healthy humans grow and mature. Changing one's mind and opinions according what is learned and experienced is a part of this. Sure, some consistency in ones ideas and opinions is normal in a rational person, at least short-term. But never changing one's mind almost certainly indicates a closed mind, and/or an unwillingness to learn.

Consider it as a matter of probabilities. It isn't too likely that there has been nothing new learned or experienced in thirty years that would affect a person's thinking, right? But even if true in the case of McCain, his obvious pride in staying the same is still a problem. Suppose he discovers something new that should make him change a position? In order to keep his "non-flip-flopping" status, will he just ignore it?

By the way, this is not a diatribe against McCain. In fact, early in his career he was one of the most honest men in Washington. Also anyone who has read about his experience of being tortured for five years in a Vietnamese prison - and then forgiving his captors - knows not only how courageous he was, but how intelligent and open-minded he was as well. But he is also the one who made it a point of pride to have never changed his positions.

I Changed My Mind!

When there is a better policy, or an idea that is more in accord with the truth, any person, including a politician, should choose it right? One's opinions and positions should change once in a while then, if we are capable of learning. Unfortunately, the changing positions we see during election time are usually not honest reassessments, but politically calculated moves.

In the case of honest change, though, there is a scenario I would love to see. Some honest politician (I'm feeling optimistic) is accused of flip flopping on an issue. He had good and honest reasons for the change for good reasons, so instead of defending himself in the usual way, with a tortured logic showing how his position hadn't really change, he says the following:

"It is true that I have changed my position. I looked closely at the issue and I see that there is a better way. Furthermore, I promise to always change my position when this happens. I promise not to stubbornly cling to my opinions or my positions for pride or political points when I see a position that is better for the country or an opinion that more closely follows the facts."

It won't happen any time soon, of course. Such a speech would require an honest politician, and one who is courageous - not a likely combination in our politicians. But maybe the political climate will evolve just enough to allow some honest "flip-flopping" to be acceptable to the voters.

Copyright Steve Gillman. Have New Thoughts And Radical Ideas, with the techniques in the free Radical Thinking Course at: http://www.RadicalNewThoughts.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steven_Gillman
http://EzineArticles.com/?In-Favor-Of-Flip-Flopping-Politicians&id=927290

Lack of Consensus and the 2008 Election

2008-01-30T08:01:00.000-08:00

By Philip Harris

Americans lack consensus. A society is whole when its people share values, ideals and purpose. It is obvious from the political campaigning that such a consensus is lacking in the U.S. And, while the job of a good politician is to build consensus, all of the candidates are facing one hell of a job.

Once upon a time there was a nation that was formed because its people shared a common vision. They wanted to build a country based upon freedom, liberty and justice for all. At least that was the common wisdom even though the reality greatly lagged behind the dream. That nation, with its people sharing a common goal, became one of the greatest and most powerful nations on earth. It has had its moments. When values were in conflict, the nation experienced internal conflict. It suffered a civil war, fought in the streets for true freedom, equality and justice. But it managed to stay together. It battled throughout the world to help others gain or keep their freedoms. Because of its resolve, it almost always prevailed.

This nation welcomed diversity. It opened it arms and its heart to those of foreign lands to come and share in its vision. People helped people and the mix of cultures and the freedom of expression enabled this nation to grow, prosper and to lead. One of its great leaders said that a "nation divided cannot stand" and over time itself held together and stood proud in the gathering of nations. Its people demanded excellence of its leaders and if the leaders did not represent their will. They "threw the rascals out."

To an extent, this nation has been somewhat of a myth. It was not perfect, newcomers were not always welcomed, freedoms were not really for all and its motives in dealing with others were certainly suspect. However, regardless of its imperfections, everyone still believed in its basic founding principles.

What has changed? Do we still believe in basic freedoms? Have we not allowed massive government intrusion into our lives? Do we still welcome the weak, the poor and the hungry? Do we still accept new cultures and seek out their strengths to add to our own. Instead of helping others do we now look to government to solve all of our problems? Are we one voice on the economy, health care, the environment, justice, foreign policy, education and basic rights and liberties for all?

We have come to believe that "others" will solve our problems and we have given others the responsibility to do so. In that process, we have lost freedoms and our basic values. In the upcoming elections we look to the candidates to see who have the best "programs" to alleviate our suffering. We look for the quick fix while failing to see that only we can fix ourselves. Obama, Clinton, McCain and others cannot solve our problems. Every time we look to others to do so, we end up disappointed. If we really wanted universal health care; if we really wanted to lead the world in saving the environment; if we really wanted our children to be able to read, write and think; if we really wanted to feed and house the poor, there is no force on this planet that would stop us. Our politicians have debated and promised resolve on these issues for decades and yet they still persist.

It is our lack of consensus and unity of thought and purpose that prevents the resolution of the issues that concern us. One merely has to look at recent events to see that simply changing politicians and political party domination does not result in the solution and resolution of the issues that confront this country. While the inner chambers of our system bicker and while we, as the people, lack a shared dream, the world is moving past us. Regardless of what you read, it is not President Bush that is getting us into all kinds of trouble. And, regardless of what they say, it will not be Clinton, Obama, McCain or Romney that will change our standing in the world. It is we, the people, who must make those tough decisions to once again lead the world into a new era. It is we, the people who must find a common dream and present that dream to the world. While is may be convenient to blame our politicians for all that ails us, it is really each of us who must take the responsibility for the ways we interact with each other and the rest of the world.
Regardless of who wins in 2008, do not expect miracles unless we all decide the kinds of miracles we would like to see manifest.

Mr. Harris was born in Massachusetts. He attended The American University in Washington, D.C. and received his degree in Political Science. His graduate work was done at the University of Northern Colorado and Howard University. While in D.C., he spent several years working for local and regional government agencies. Upon moving to Maine he worked with three governors and served as the Assistant Director of the Maine State Planning Office. He worked on a White House Task Force for the development of a National Rural Policy and later served as Rural Policy Coordinator at the Federal Regional Council of New England. He has worked on gubernatorial and senatorial political campaigns and currently works in Special Education.

Mr. Harris is co-author of the novel WAKING GOD and is a nationally syndicated / featured writer for The American Chronicle. He is working on Book II of the Waking God trilogy. His second novel, A MAINE CHRISTMAS CAROL was released by Cambridge Books, his third book, JESUS TAUGHT IT, TOO: THE EARLY ROOTS OF THE LAW OF ATRRACTION was released by Avatar Publication.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Philip_Harris
http://EzineArticles.com/?Lack-of-Consensus-and-the-2008-Election&id=925841

Another Perfect Storm

2008-01-30T07:55:00.000-08:00

By Richard Walrath

It looks like another Perfect Storm to me.

I'm talking about the NH Primary results which left egg all over the pollsters and the political pundits and the media.

Ever since the book and the movie, by the same name, came out, things that go wrong are called a perfect storm.

For opera lovers, it was the Una Furtiva Lagrima that escaped from Hillary Clinton as she bravely faced the cameras and voters on the fateful final day before the election. That's what swayed the election, say they.

Not so, says Andrew Kohut, President Pew Research Center, who brings you the Pew Polls. It was the po' white folks, the poor women voters, to be exact, who turned out in record numbers to vote for Senator Clinton.

Kohut, in his NYT Op-Ed piece today, probably has summed up the results best.

Pollsters, pundits and the media saw what they wanted to see, not what was really there.

Now they will have to face the possibility that their dwindling number of readers and viewers will continue to dwindle and diminish. But I would suggest that being wrong isn't something that the pollsters, the political pundits and the media should find so hard to explain.

After all, they've had lots of practice.

It reminds me of one of Clint Eastwood's movies, Pink Cadillac. Somebody named Roy is supposed to be acting as a look-out, but a gang goes right around him unnoticed by Roy. How could they get by Roy, says one character in the movie. People have been getting by Roy for years is Eastwood's answer.

Lots of stuff--people and things--have been getting by the pollsters, political pundits and the media for years--seven going on eight years, at least.

Richard E Walrath is a former budget analyst and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites: Articles and Answers Articles and Answers 2007 and the Alternative Augumenta blog.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Walrath
http://EzineArticles.com/?Another-Perfect-Storm&id=922006

Republicans Call For Tax And Spending Cuts

2008-01-30T07:50:00.000-08:00

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Connie_Ragen_Green
http://EzineArticles.com/?Baby-Boomers-And-The-Presidential-Election---Boomers-Will-Choose-Our-New-Leader&id=922025

Republican presidential candidates seemed to support a combination of tax reductions and spending cuts to make up for an election-year recession. They were arguing in a debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News Channel.

Mitt Romney said during the debate, "We should reduce taxes on middle-income Americans immediately." John McCain, on the other hand, proposed spending cuts to get a grip over the budget deficit. He promised to veto pork barrel spending bills. However, he also stressed that the Bush era tax cuts should continue.

Fred Thompson proposed a cut in corporate taxes, and said that tax cuts brought about in recent years should be extended. Rudy Giuliani also advocated tax cuts. In an advertisement, he promised to send the largest tax cut in history to Congress on his first day in the White House. Of all candidates, only Ron Paul said he believed that there was a recession and that it was only going to get worse.

The debate was part of the run-up to presidential primaries in Michigan and South Carolina. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are expected to be the main contenders in the Michigan primary. A failure here would be critical; the candidate who finishes third is very unlikely to win the race.

Economics were dominant during the first part of the debate and hinted at the concerns regarding the approaching recession. Meanwhile, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has said that he would do everything possible to maintain the expanding economy.

Responding to the recent incident in which the Iranian speed boats were involved in a skirmish with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, all presidential rivals gave a clean chit to the U.S. naval commanders. Some also underlined an intention to be tougher with Iran in the future.

For instance, referring to the incident, Huckabee said that if it occurred again, the Iranians "should be prepared to see the gates of Hell." Echoing Huckabee was Thompson who said, "I think one more step, you know, and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing". Romney said, "I believe Iran represents a very serious threat." He added that the incident was a calculated to test U.S. defensive responses. He said," It points out that we have in Iran a very troubled nation. Also, Romney's criticism of Paul for urging against US involvement in another war met with a mixed response.

Find more about Fred Thompson and other republican candidates for US presidential elections 2008.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Republicans-Call-For-Tax-And-Spending-Cuts&id=924264

Baby Boomers And The Presidential Election - Boomers Will Choose Our New Leader

2008-01-30T07:44:00.000-08:00

By Connie Ragen Green

More than fifty percent of the voters in this year's United States presidential election will be over age fifty. That's about fifteen percent more than the people over age 50 who voted in the 2004 national elections. That means that the baby boomers will be choosing our next president. People over age fifty are expected to vote in large numbers, most likely due to the serious issues that are facing us in this country.

Baby boomers are now moving into the retirement stage of their lives. During this phase of life, people are more likely to get involved with choosing the people who will be at the helm and making decisions that will affect them on a daily basis. With the economy in a downturn and medical care costs rising, older people are coming forth in greater numbers than ever to make political choices.

This year, states like Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia will be swing states that can have a tremendous effect on the outcome of the election. This is due to the fact that a greater than average percentage of the population of these states is made up of people who are older than the national average. You can be sure that the candidates will spend more than their fair share of time making appearance and running ads to ensure that people know exactly who they are and what they stand for.

Another interesting result of this age shift is that older candidates are now much more accepted than in past presidential elections. Senator John McCain is 72 years old and could become the oldest candidate ever elected if he wins the race. That record is currently held by Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when first elected to the presidency.

Connie Ragen Green teaches people how to write, market and sell their ebooks on the internet. Visit http://www.EbookWritingandMarketingSecrets.com where you will receive free tips and a Special Report on writing and marketing your articles and ebooks.

Bradley Endorses Obama's Campaign

2008-01-30T07:40:00.000-08:00