Republicans Presidential Candidates Will Drop Like Flies Today

Since today is the day that the Iowa straw poll happens, I predict some of the pretenders will drop out of the race after poor showing. The Washington Post reported that Tommy Thompson will drop out of the race if he doesn't finish first or second, which seems unlikely.

The results of the straw poll will be announced at 5pm Pacific time Saturday.

My bet is that Ron Paul, who seems to be the most sane of all the Republicans, is in it for the long haul. Which leaves Brownback, Hunter, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee and Tancredo. McCain has long rumored to be in trouble both financially and in the polls due to his undying support for GW's war in Iraq. McCain outright skipped the event knowing that he will not finish second or third even.

Don't be surprised if one or two other's (in addition to Tommy Thompson) drop out after today due to a poor showing. The race to the White House starts today and the field is narrowing. How long can some of these fringe candidates survive?

Hillary Clinton is slime!

First, let me say that I voted for Bill Clinton both in 1992 and 1996. Back then, I admired his wife. But as of lately, I have become anti-Hillary.

One of the problems that I have with her is that she has become cozy with corporate types including right wing nut job Rupert Murdoch. Yet another, is that she has and still does support the war in Iraq. She refuses to apologize for her vote in 2003.

Recently one of her supporters to said something nasty about Obama, but God forbid someone that supports Obama saying something about poor Hillary.

This reeks of a double standard.

Someone needs to drug the poor woman as she's delusional. As you may know, Hillary Clinton flipped over Dreamworks founder, David Geffen's comments about her. Geffen stated to Maureen Dowd, "Everybody in politics lies," the former president and his wife "do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Recently, Clinton was endorsed by South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford. Ford who is also working for the Clinton campaign stated, "Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose — because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything."

Personally, I think Ford has been sniffing some really strong glue. To say that Democrats would lose everything, is not only reckless, it's ridiculous.

I hope another candidate pummels Clinton in the primary and kicks the the queen bitch off her royal throne. We may yet end up with her as our president. God help us all because she's going to just as bad as George W. Bush.

Hillary takes responsiblity for war, but is that enough?

I'm glad to finally see Hillary Clinton take responsibility for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. It is certainly a start toward reconciliation with Democrats who are leery of supporting her. I think she also needs to explain why she's been in bed with the right. Earlier this year, Rupert Murdoch held a fund raiser as well as endorsing Clinton in her Senate reelection bid.

Before I continue, I want to state that I supported Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I personally believe he was a great Presidents and helped our country in many different ways. I also admired Hillary Clinton for her work as First Lady and have read her book Living History. These days, I have some severe doubts about her motivations, especially when it comes to her running for President. I believe now is the time to question her candidacy before it's too late.

In May of 2006, Richard Cohen wrote a column that asks the question that is on many people's mind lately, "Just who are you Hillary?" Cohen asks some hard nosed questions about Hillary Clinton's relationship with Murdoch:

"The latest reason for my perplexity is Clinton’s agreement to have Rupert Murdoch host a fundraiser for her this summer. Murdoch is the very personification of the contemporary conservative movement. He is the proprietor of both the New York Post and Fox News, both of which are ideologically biased, sometimes blatantly so. No doubt Murdoch can raise lots of money. That’s not the question. The question is: What will it buy?"

I too have to wonder what Hillary had to do to get Murdoch to agree to do a fundraiser. Are we to believe he did it out of the kindness of his heart? I don't buy this for a minute. There is some ulterior motive being pushed by Murdoch and/or Clinton.

In addition, I find Clinton's support of a law making flag burning a crime (specifically it makes burning a flag to intimidate someone a crime) quite unsettling. While I wouldn't personally burn a flag, I believe the right do so would be a violation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

We all know Hillary Clinton carries some severe baggage whether we want to admit it or not. The scandals that happened in the White House during her husband's Presidency including his impeachment (even though he wasn't convicted). Much like George W. Bush, Hillary is a divisive figure in politics. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she will in fact motivate the right to donate and campaign in droves to defeat her.

Has Hillary Clinton given enough thought to some of these issues to be able to give honest and sincere answers? I think the answer is clear. Clinton needs to do a better job taking responsibility for her voting record on Iraq as well as disclose her connections with Murdoch. Many Democrats (including myself) would rather sit out the election (if she is nominated) rather then vote for her.

This election is far from over. If Hillary wants the nomination, then she had better start by taking a better look at her own record and make amends with the hardcore Democrats who supported her husband.

Is Pat Buchanan Crazy?

Sure, some of the suggestions Buchanan made as a presidential candidate were pretty far out there. But as I listen to him and read his books, I’m convinced he’s actually pretty sane. I’d like to tell you why someone like me might think that.

First, Buchanan has opposed the US invasion of Iraq from the beginning. In a column published just prior to the invasion, Buchanan said:

“Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the United States is about to invade and occupy that country. If we do, it will be the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to reshape the domestic politics and foreign policy of another nation to conform to our own.”

I for one, happen to agree with Buchanan 100% that this war has reshaped our domestic and foreign policy. Our strategy of pushing democracy, our own values and beliefs is wrong. Do we intend to make a habit of starting wars for the purpose to promoting democracy?

Yet it is these words that Buchanan wrote in his column on February 3rd of 2003 that ring eerily true, “Rarely do wars, once begun, work out as anticipated.” Now, three and a half years into the Iraq war, over 2900 American’s have lost their lives. So much for “mission accomplished.”

Buchanan has stated in his latest column, as well as on MSNBC, that the Republican party may be headed for a civil war over what to do in Iraq. Many conservatives, like Chuck Hagel, have begun to state their doubts about our involvement in Iraq. The war in Iraq caused the Republicans to be defeated in the 2006 Midterm Election and landed them in the minority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

Some think if fighting in the Republican Party becomes worse, due to differing opinions about what our involvement in Iraq should be, so much so that it could spark a civil war within the party. Such a civil war could lead the Republicans to lose any hope of regaining control of Congress races in 2008, but also the keeping a hold on the presidency.

Now, being a Democrat, I have to salivate at the idea of this happening. The Republican Party imploding? Are you kidding? That would be the next best thing to one of my favorite football teams winning the Superbowl. Yet, also I have to wonder if ole’ Pat is whispering to the neocons, “I told you so.”