Obama Fires Up Iowa

Today in Iowa...

Mitt Romney Claims Iraq had a hand in 9/11 attacks

Our favorite screwy wacko Mormon Mitt Romney last week tried to make the false claim that Iraq was part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It amazes me how slick this guy really is. Personally I think they guy is on crack for making those kinds of claims.

Romney is showing the same kind of "compassionate conservative" dance that George W. Bush put on in the 2000 election. And that makes him VERY dangerous!

McCain: The Republican's Butt Boy

Over the few days or so, John McCain has said some pretty nasty things about both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

McCain blamed Cheney and Rumsfeld for what he said was, "a terribly mishandled" war.

A few days later, McCain apologized to Cheney claiming he was misquoted (yeah right).

In addition, McCain has called Rumsfeld one of the worst Secretary of Defence in the countries history. We shall wait and see if he apologizes to Rumsfeld as well.

So this begs the question: Is McCain Cheney and Rumsfeld's butt boy or is he his own candidate?

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.

Gordon Smith: The Flip Flopper

Many people remember the attacks on Kerry during the 2004 for his flip flop on the war in Iraq. Now Smith too is flip flopping after his sudden change of heart against the war. You'll remember that Smith gave a speech on the floor of the US Senate after his party got their ass kicked in the November election.

In an article that was in todays Oregonian, Smith tells the Eugene Register-Guard this:

"I don't have enough information to say I'm against the (troop) surge."

So are you against sending more troops Gordo?

Who knows? He says he's against the war, but not sure how he would vote in terms of a troop surge.

In terms of spending, Smith has said he's oppose to cuts.

So let me get this straight, he's against the war, not sure about a troop surge and oppose to any cuts to the war.

Typical Gordo spin.

Dean's Convention Conundrum

Should it make you nervous that a city has not been selected for the Democratic Convention in 2008. Yes, it should. My feeling is this could be the first of many blunders which will spell doom for the Democrats next year. (See link to Yahoo article)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_convention_dilemma

The two finalists in the race to host the convention are New York and Denver. Normally I'd say it would be a slam dunk for New York, but times are changing. In the last few years, Democrats have picked up many governorships and congressional seats in the Midwest which were Republican strongholds.

Denver has several things other things going for them including being centrally located in the middle of the US and having a new airport. At the same time, several factors are working against them, including having a limited number of hotels that would be available and close to the convention site.

But it's the labor unions that are putting up the big stink. Since the Pepsi Center is a non-union work place, they have threatened to strike if the convention is held there. This poses a problem for the Democrats because if they stand up and say this is the choice we have made, labor could effectively cost them the election. If the party gives into their demands or decides against Denver all together because of the thread of a strike, the Democrats look weak.

Now I don't hold myself up as either pro-union or anti-union. I do think holding a convention hostage ridiculous. Maybe the unions would like another four years of Bush-like policies to help screw them and the rest of the nation. I sure as hell don't.

In terms of holding the convention in New York (which I have nothing against the city) I feel it would be a bad idea. Mayor Bloomberg will likely make it as tough as possible to hold a convention there. My second concern is that the Democrats will do the same thing the Republicans did in 2004 which is to use 9/11 as a political tool to manipulate the public. It's not like New York won't have a chance to host another convention in 2012. In fact, I'm positive it will be on both parties short list no matter what happens this time around.

It's time for Dean to put his foot down and settle this quickly.

Gingrich Posturing for 2008 Run

"Newt, he isn't just a reptile anymore" could be his campaign slogan. Recently Gingrich has been hinting at a run for the presidency in 2008. The field is beginning to look crowded for both Republicans and Democrats alike.

If Newt were really a reptile, he'd be a chameleon. Why? Because he likes to change colors. As of lately, he's glowing bright red. His rhetoric as of lately has been Orwellian to say the least. Recently Gingrich has stated he believes free speech should be censored to fight against the war on terror.

This clearly goes against what the framers of our constitution intended. It also takes a page from Carl Rove 101: Scare people into believing something that isn't true. Maybe Gingrich could hire Rove to run his campaign. I don't even think the devil himself could help Newt win the presidency.

Newsflash: Newt, give it up. You don't have a chance in hell!

Westlund Conspiracy Theory

Over at the NW Republican Blog, Teddy P and gang have been pushing their Westlund conspiracy theory. Their story supposedly goes like this: Westlund dropped out of the race for governor and made a deal with Ted Kulongoski to get a political appointment at some future date, so that Kulongoski would be assured re-election last November.

Hmm...and they lefty's conspiracy nuts?

Recently, Westlund announced he has changed his party affiliation from Independent to Democrat. Westlund was a Republican until earlier this year when he switch to Independent status to run for governor. In August, Westlund dropped out of the race despite having collected the signatures he needed to file as a candidate for the governor's race.

But here is the jaw dropper: Now Bill Sizemore (of all people) is calling for a recall of Westlund because he changed his party affiliation to Democrat. In his post, he specifically repeats the same conspiracy theory that has been repeated on many right wing blogs:

"Ben was elected as a Republican in a Republican district in Central Oregon. Switching parties breaks faith with the voters who elected him. I think an enthusiastic, energized recall drive might take a little wind out of Mr. Westlund's sails. Let's see how self-righteous he sounds when he has to sell Central Oregon voters on all of those left wing positions he has now embraced. He might have to go to Ted a little sooner than expected for that appointment for which he has been hoping and Republicans would have one more seat in their caucus. This time it might even be a real Republican. "-Bill Sizemore

Wow, Sizemore has a lot of nerve calling for a recall of Westlund on a basis of ethics? Is this the same guy who's political foundation was found guilty of fraudulent signature gathering?

The only thing Westlund has done is change his party affiliation, nothing wrong with that. Why the right wants to make a capital offense out of this is beyond me. Especially given the many scandals that have been uncovered among members of their own party.

Gordo The War Monger

Well Slick Gordo is at it again. You really have to hand it to him, he's a real snake charmer. It seems the blogs are a buzz with people taking a swipe at Gordo. The biggest question is why did he wait until after the election, after his party failed miserably, to finally come out and say the war is immoral.

My feeling is that it's not necessarily that he's against the war per say, but against losing the war. It's funny sometimes how he'll make it look like he's taking more then one side. I have to question the timing (as so may others are doing) of his "coming out" party. He makes a speech on the US Senate floor in the closing days of Congress after his party has had a "thumpin" in the last election. What are his motives?

With 2008 coming around the corner, I have to wonder if this is simply a reelection ploy to once again paint himself as a moderate. As I pointed out over at BlueOregon recently, he's got two things going against him: 1) His party is in the minority and 2) His voting record.

The Oregonian has done pretty good in term of sucking Gordo's big toe and printing stories that use the term "moderate" to describe him. Unfortunately, the only way to describe Smith is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

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.”