Ok, so it is Halloween again, another year, another round. Tonight is going to be pretty nuts for the some; hopefully it won’t get to rowdy in my neck of the woods. Before this glorious night must come, I would like to tell you folks about an article I found today on the Drudge Report concerning Hilary Clinton, and what she had to say concerning the war in her debate on Tuesday. This great article titled, “Obama criticizes Clinton” by: Amy Lorentzen concludes to me, that Clinton is far from being close to the “office”.
In Tuesday’s debate, when Clinton was asked several questions concerning the war, her answers were very vague, and left everyone guessing where she stood. This article is mainly Obama’s point of view on how Clinton responded to these questions, and he is quite concerned for the American people that she is perhaps misleading. According to the article, Obama was especially concerned when Hilary was asked about her papers from her years as first Lady. He was concerned because Hilary is running on her record as first lady, just as much as her record as Senator; but how are the people to judge that record if documents are kept locked away? This debate was not good for Hilary, because up to this point she was gaining in the polls. This debate could very well leave her out of the election.
Obama pointing out all of these less-than-straightforward answers from Hilary caused a response from the Clinton campaign. It said that, “Obama is abandoning his pledge to run a positive campaign, or as he described it, the politics of hope. The campaign also posted a Web video arguing that her rivals had been piling on.” Obama responded with, “The politics of hope does not mean hoping that your opponents aren't going to point out the differences between you and them.” Obama continued to draw clear differences between himself and Hilary. Obama feels very confident that he will be elected over Hilary because, “he has put forward probably the toughest set of ethics rules for how an Obama administration would operate compared to any other candidate.”
I was at work during this debate, therefore I did not get to see it, but from what I have heard, and read, Hilary did not make herself look like President Material. Here is a direct link to this article for your enjoyment..
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071031/D8SKF5M81.html
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Stage Four
I am back in Austin, Texas; and am back to work and school. My second day being back in town I read an article in “The New York Sun” titled, “End of a Movement”, by: Eli Lake. The opening statement in this article is, “The People. United. Can in fact be defeated.” When I first saw this opening sentence, or I should say fragment, I thought about James Madison, and his discussion about factions.
This article is about a faction called, “Code Pink” which is an association of senior citizen women who dress up and shout slogans at Congressional war hearings. Lake tells me that this peace group of women some who has a direct influence on the decisions made by congress. The author also says that a youtube ad was made featuring women in pink jockey outfits riding Democratic leaders of Congress like they were horses. In this ad, the narrator tells the spectator, "With your help we can dominate Congress with peacemakers and finally end this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation." At first, I was very interested thinking that there is possible corruption in our government. Is it possible that factions are not being maintained? Is it possible that factions are actually controlling our nation? I read further into this article to find that this Code Pink organization has not even managed to get any of the big three Democrats running for president to embrace their goal of an immediate withdrawal. When I say immediate withdrawal, I mean the movement that Code Pink is trying to push right now hence why this article was published. Code Pink is trying to end the war by 2008. Another movement arisen also called, “Iraq Summer”, which was an initiative aimed at getting 50 Republicans to break with the president on the war. This goal apparently almost seemed plausible when a chairman of the Senate was threatening to vote with Democrats on withdrawal dates.
My criticism is not with the author of this article since it was mainly just an informing article about a movement attempt by a faction. My criticism is with the politicians that could actually be allowing interests groups influence their decisions on very important issues. I realize that they are influence by someone, or something at all times whether it be the nation as a whole, media, party identification; but, a specific group is frightening. I think I fall into the stereo typed American political ignorance group, however, being apart of this course is causing me to take initiative in political issues. In the short amount of time getting myself into the loop of things, I can come to the conclusion that this Code Pink group, and the influence it has on Congress, and possibly the Senate too, is not good for the United States.
Here is a link to this article if this interests you....http://www.nysun.com/article/65135
This article is about a faction called, “Code Pink” which is an association of senior citizen women who dress up and shout slogans at Congressional war hearings. Lake tells me that this peace group of women some who has a direct influence on the decisions made by congress. The author also says that a youtube ad was made featuring women in pink jockey outfits riding Democratic leaders of Congress like they were horses. In this ad, the narrator tells the spectator, "With your help we can dominate Congress with peacemakers and finally end this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation." At first, I was very interested thinking that there is possible corruption in our government. Is it possible that factions are not being maintained? Is it possible that factions are actually controlling our nation? I read further into this article to find that this Code Pink organization has not even managed to get any of the big three Democrats running for president to embrace their goal of an immediate withdrawal. When I say immediate withdrawal, I mean the movement that Code Pink is trying to push right now hence why this article was published. Code Pink is trying to end the war by 2008. Another movement arisen also called, “Iraq Summer”, which was an initiative aimed at getting 50 Republicans to break with the president on the war. This goal apparently almost seemed plausible when a chairman of the Senate was threatening to vote with Democrats on withdrawal dates.
My criticism is not with the author of this article since it was mainly just an informing article about a movement attempt by a faction. My criticism is with the politicians that could actually be allowing interests groups influence their decisions on very important issues. I realize that they are influence by someone, or something at all times whether it be the nation as a whole, media, party identification; but, a specific group is frightening. I think I fall into the stereo typed American political ignorance group, however, being apart of this course is causing me to take initiative in political issues. In the short amount of time getting myself into the loop of things, I can come to the conclusion that this Code Pink group, and the influence it has on Congress, and possibly the Senate too, is not good for the United States.
Here is a link to this article if this interests you....http://www.nysun.com/article/65135
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Stage Three
The article I have just finished reading on the Washington Post by Michael Fletcher, titled, "Bush Vetoes Children's Health Bill" is pretty self explanatory. Hours ago, in Lancaster, Pa, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have renewed and expanded the state-federal health insurance program for low-income children. President Bush’s reasoning behind this was to block a measure he has said is too costly and could lead to excessive government control of the health-care system.
Bush is apparently trying to hold a line on federal spending, and say’s, “the expansion of the program approved by Congress would extend our spending far beyond its original intent of covering poor children.” Bush, being politically isolated in his decision on this bill, in many views, is endangering the party's political prospects in 2008. The veto does not mean the program will end immediately. Bush and Congress have agreed to extend the current program though Nov. 16 while they try to work on a new version. A senator from Massachusetts said, “today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children.” Bush also said in his speech today that he was not going to raise any taxes during the remaining sixteen months of his term.
I cannot say that I disagree with the President’s decision on this veto. I believe we need to edit the bill to where its main focus is enrolling more low-income children. I agree that the bill should be passed. I also believe that it will be passed, but it is not perfect, and there is no reason why we cannot work harder on making it better. I agree that the measure would push millions of children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care. I think that no matter what decision the President would have made, people would still have negative feedback. The best decision was made. Congress will have more time to spend with the bill on improving it, and in time, it will be best for the country. If you recall back in 1996, under President Bill Clintons term, there was a welfare bill that was vetoed twice, and ended up being very successful. This example is actually discussed in the second article link.
I agree with the Presidents argument, and his decision to veto the bill. Like an English teacher, he has simply sent it back for an “edit”. Congress will turn it back into him once they are polishing out the flaws, and it will be passed. Here is a link to the article, so you can come to your own opinion on the matter…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03cnd-veto.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
the second post takes you to the washington post. The article should be titled, "Bush vetoes children's health bill". It would not let me go to the article link after I read it for some reason, hopefully it will work for you after you find it.
Bush is apparently trying to hold a line on federal spending, and say’s, “the expansion of the program approved by Congress would extend our spending far beyond its original intent of covering poor children.” Bush, being politically isolated in his decision on this bill, in many views, is endangering the party's political prospects in 2008. The veto does not mean the program will end immediately. Bush and Congress have agreed to extend the current program though Nov. 16 while they try to work on a new version. A senator from Massachusetts said, “today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children.” Bush also said in his speech today that he was not going to raise any taxes during the remaining sixteen months of his term.
I cannot say that I disagree with the President’s decision on this veto. I believe we need to edit the bill to where its main focus is enrolling more low-income children. I agree that the bill should be passed. I also believe that it will be passed, but it is not perfect, and there is no reason why we cannot work harder on making it better. I agree that the measure would push millions of children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care. I think that no matter what decision the President would have made, people would still have negative feedback. The best decision was made. Congress will have more time to spend with the bill on improving it, and in time, it will be best for the country. If you recall back in 1996, under President Bill Clintons term, there was a welfare bill that was vetoed twice, and ended up being very successful. This example is actually discussed in the second article link.
I agree with the Presidents argument, and his decision to veto the bill. Like an English teacher, he has simply sent it back for an “edit”. Congress will turn it back into him once they are polishing out the flaws, and it will be passed. Here is a link to the article, so you can come to your own opinion on the matter…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03cnd-veto.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
the second post takes you to the washington post. The article should be titled, "Bush vetoes children's health bill". It would not let me go to the article link after I read it for some reason, hopefully it will work for you after you find it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
