Will the Kennedy's Continue to Claim Maria?

It is a well known fact that the first lady of California comes from the well known Democratic Kennedy clan (as in JFK and dear old Teddy). It is also known that her husband is one of the more known leaders of the Republician party as the Governor of California. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall at Thanksgiving? It is going to get more interesting now that Governor Schwarzenegger has now expressed that he is supporting John McCain for president. This comes just on the hills of the Kennedy family declaring support for Barack Obama. And the web gets more tangled........ Governor Schwarzenegger is not having a lot of luck lately. His heath care bill is all but in the trash and the checkbook of California is completely overdrawn. He still has his looks, but most importantly (to John McCain anyway) he has his popularity.

The media, including Hollywood, could never be accused of being conserative. Very much on the liberal side, there is no question that the media has a great deal of input when it comes to elections. So much so that I am asking myself if the media is trying to get John McCain nominated? Just hear me out. A few months ago, little was know (and few cared) about John McCain, especially among Republicians. He is, what I would consider to be, on the far liberal side of republician issues and values. He could be easily beaten however by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Mitt Romney on the other hand, might just give the democrats a run for their money. Romney does have the consertive values and brings out the "traditional" republician ways. Many traditional republicians would have a much easier time voting for Romney rather than McCain. Another plus on Romney's side is the fact that he has pretty much an endless supply of cash, McCain on the other hand is running kind of thin and can use all of the support he can get. So if the liberal media can get rid of Mitt Romney, they know that either Hillary or Barack will be in the White House, thus maintaining liberal America. Crazy? I don't know......

And Another One's Down, Another One's Down, Another One Bites the Dust....

This is our goodbye blog dedicated to Rudy and John, who after loosing again and again have decided to step aside and let the big boys (or girl) continue to fight it out. I have to ask - Rudy, what happened to Florida? John, what about the poor and homeless, what will they do without you? The biggest question has already been answered by Rudy, who has selflessly thrown his support to John McCain, but we are on pins and needles waiting to see who will gain John Edwards supporters. Both Obama and Clinton tried to distance themselves from him earlier, but both are starting to court him with comments about how hard he fights for the poor and what a good race he ran. Since the race is so close, either would gain an advantage by gaining the support of Edward's followers. And talking about close race - there were only 5% points between John McCain and Mitt Romney in Florida. Now both parties will start gearing up for Super Tuesday where there will be elections in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.

"A President Like My Father"

Subtitle: "Don't Worry Dad - This is Not About You! You Are Head and Shoulders Above Any of The Candidates."

Sunday morning in the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy formally endorsed Barack Obama with her article on the Opinion Page entitled "A President Like My Father." This was followed later in the day by Senator Ted Kennedy expressing his support for Obama as well. These acts were a hard blow to Hillary, who counts the Kennedy's as long time friends, but will they make a difference in the election?

I think that they could. Although, my personal opinion for Ted Kennedy is somewhat low, he is the second longest seated senator and he does have the distinction of being the youngest brother of John Kennedy. Many of the older democrats (and others) still consider JFK one of the greatest presidents that ever served. This could be a huge swing for older democrats who have considered Obama to have too little experience - Kennedy does have the experience card. Obama has had a great amount of support with younger voters and this possible gain of older voters could help him greatly in the coming weeks. Caroline's article in the Times also could bring in some undecided voters who, like many today, consider JFK a hero, especially among blacks and minorities. The Kennedy name holds a heavy hand with Hispanic voters too, since one of Robert Kennedy's closest friends was Cesar Chavez.

I do see some similarities between JFK and Obama, one of them being hope. I think that JFK gave a lot of people hope for better times and I know that Obama is doing that. I listened to his speech yesterday after the South Carolina primary and it gave me chills in some points. There is no doubt that he and Kennedy will be known for their motivation and ability to get people excited and caring about something. I see that as a real challenge today - to get people to care about something, anything. When people start caring about things (other than themselves), it really does have the potential to change things.

Why the sudden support from the Kennedy's? Is it because they truly stand behind Obama or is it because Ted Kennedy has become increasing disappointed in the "Hill-Billy" campaign and their dirty tactics? He has been very vocal about his disagreement with the way Bill has campaigned and his opinion has apparently fallen on deaf ears with Hillary's people. Hillary also seems to be loosing some of the female support due to Bill's presence. According to many, women were pleased to see such a strong female character, but Bill's attempts to "take over" the campaign have disappointed many.

We were talking about our "personal voting history" yesterday and we cannot remember a single time we voted for a major democratic candidate. We have voted for some independent candidates before, but not democratic and certainly not in the primaries. (We are young though - we have each only voted in two presidential primaries, three presidential elections.) Could we actually go to the dark side this year?!!?? We laughed, commenting that it will depend on who is running the polls when we go vote - in our small town, some of the ladies from our church tend to preside over elections and I would hate to go to church on Sunday where everyone knew that "the Winter's voted in the Democratic primary!" But change looks good to us. The status quo is not very promising for middle class families, just trying to provide for their families and be comfortable. The health care system is in crisis and the social security system that we have paid into for a combined 30+ years won't help us as it currently works. We are worried not only for our future, but that of our child's as well. There is still a long time to go until the Texas primaries and the tables could be completely different by then. I guess we will see.......

A Perspective on Tragedy

The press has suffocated us during the past week with the "tragic" death of the young actor, Heath Ledger. From reports, Ledger was a young man who had a limitless future. He, according to neighbors, was a doting dad to his two year old daughter, and did not live the "Hollywood" lifesyle, preferring a quite, private life. Sensational journalism abounds, with speculation about the prescription medications found in his apartment and this morning the lack of details about his families decision to have a private memorial service and to bury him in his native Australia. Try as they may the press cannot seem to crack the private life and ultimately private death of this young man. One word continues to be thrown about and that is "tragic". Other actors have said that this is such a "tragedy". While I am sorry for the loss to his family, especially to his toddler daughter, and I am not unsympathetic to their loss, this is not a tragedy.

Webster defines tragedy as a disastrous event and tragic as a calamitous or disastrous. When you read the definition and then reflect on true tragic events, even the untimely death of a young talented actor is small by comparison. Lets talk about a tragic event that has been on my mind lately.

As I mentioned in my first post, I am kind of a military history buff. As the daughter of a Vietnam Veteran, I am especially interested in reading books about that time period. I am currently reading a book called Homecoming. It is an older book, written in the early 80's and contains letters by literally hundreds of Veterans and their families about their experiences coming back to the US from their tours in Vietnam. I am absolutely horrified to read of the stories of these brave men who had spent a year or more away from their families, returning to airports full of protesters who aimed their anger and frustration at these men returning from war. These men were called all kinds of vulgar names and many were spit on as they entered the airports. The anger and spit from these "Americans" was not reserved for those Veterans who walked into airports, it was also done to injured Veteran's who were taken off of ambulances and transported to hospitals. These men, risked their lives, many coming back injured and returned to an ungrateful nation. This is a tragedy.

There is no excuse for the behavior of these so-called "Peace-loving" individuals and I can only hope that they are haunted everyday for their actions. It doesn't matter why we were there, if we should have been there, or what the war was about. The hero's that left their homes and families were treated as the enemy upon their return. One Veteran described it very well when he said, "It was very ironic that these people were spitting on me - my willingness to fight gave them the right to spit."

I believe myself to be pretty balanced, I can read stuff and not really get too emotional. I am not the dramatic kind, but I have had to put this book down several times while reading it because my eyes were too filled with tears to see, because I was too angry to continue reading, and because I was literally sick to my stomach at the events. Any country that treats returning troops as the enemy, has gone beyond tragic.

I am so thankful to the men and women who have risked their lives for 200 years to make this the country it is today. It would never even cross my mind to say anything but praises and encouragement to those men and women and I cannot even imagine the deep anger someone would have to have to spit on them. I hope those men who came back from Vietnam know that they are hero's and that what was done to them by those ungrateful cowards is almost unforgivable.

Say a prayer right now for those men and women who have served and are currently serving our country and pray that a tragic even such as this never, never happens again.

And The Winner Is....The One With The Most Cash

There is no question that to campaign for president (or any other office) it takes a huge amount of money. Campaign fund raisers are part of the process and it is not uncommon for candidates to host $1000 a plate dinners or other events. Self-funding has also been something that has come to light more recently due to the huge fortune of Mitt Romney and the great deal of his own money he has put into the campaign. This is in strong contrast to Mike Huckabee's campaign where some of the team is refusing paychecks to help the strained finances there.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the candidate who has access to the most money has a much higher advantage of winning. With plenty of financial support, candidates can put out more radio and TV ads, they can travel more, they can travel faster, and they can hire more people to help with the campaign. The candidate that has access to the most money is not necessarily the one who will make the best person in office.

The recent reports of the millions of dollars spent by the campaigns leaves a sour feeling in my stomach. As part of the middle class, I really don't even know what $1 million would feel like, much less the $40 million that it is estimated some candidates have spent so far. I do know however how far we stretch our budget of much, much, much less than that and I know the value of even a single dollar. On the subject of finances, lets pit me up against any candidate. Who do you think would know how much a gallon of milk cost, a well child doctor visit, a well puppy visit (more than the well child visit!!!!), home owners insurance, car insurance, medications, the list could go on. Don't the majority of Americans feel their wallet crunch at the grocery store, the drug store, and the gas station? I can't be the only one, who could feed my family for nearly 20 years on $1 million dollars. It is the waste that breaks my heart and the amount of good that all this money could go for.

Campaign finance reform needs to do much more than just limit what individuals can donate to campaigns, it should limit spending.

Please, Just Tell Me The Truth

I can take any statement out of context and make it say anything I want it to say. The 2008 presidential candidates seem to have made a science out of twisting the truth and turning statements into something totally different than they were intended. I was looking for something else today on line when I stumbled upon a wed site that strives to separate the facts from the fiction : www.factcheck.org . You can look at some of the statements that some of the candidates have made and find out what the truth is behind them. It was really interesting to read some of the stuff that was listed and just how far some have taken statements to serve their purpose. I was however slightly disappointed (although not surprised) to find out that they are all guilty of stretching the truth to get ahead.

Hillary and Barack have both asked voters the question, "Don't you want a president you can trust? Don't you want someone who will not manipulate the truth or change their stance?"

Yeah, I do. Do we have any Independent candidates yet, because none of the current ones fit the bill.

Obama vs. The Clinton's Round Three

Wow! If you have any compassion in your entire being, you have to be feeling some for Barack Obama right now. He seems to be on the Clinton's hit list and they are not letting up. The Democratic debate last night gave Clinton and Obama another chance to tear each other apart, with John Edwards, the martyr, standing by saying how he represents the "Grown-ups of the Democratic Party" and "all of the bickering will not get children health insurance or help the economy" (One point for him - yes, I am admitting that John Edwards said something intelligent and that I agree with.) The three are buying for last minute undecided voters in the South Carolina democratic primary this Saturday.

I believe that the problems started when the Clinton team realized that Obama had a real chance to gain the nomination. Before him, I think they (along with a lot of other people in the US) thought that Hillary was unstoppable in her push for the White House. When the primaries started and they realized that Obama was really close to her in the polls and actually beat her in some of the early primaries, they got scared that they might loose. The Clinton's don't like to loose. As the gap in the poll numbers has closed in between the front runners, the attacks have gotten more vicious and much more personal, seeming to criticize every word out of Obama's mouth.

One of the latest "Obama Quotes" that has gotten under the Clinton's skin was where Obama was talking about wanting to be a president who makes an impact in the world. He said, "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of American in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did not." Can you believe that he had the audacity to say that the Clinton presidency did not change the world? (If you know me, you would know that the previous sentence was said with sarcasm and the word "audacity" was emphasised in the sentence - there should be a universal symbol for sarcasm.) The truth is it didn't. Bill Clinton was a good president, but he did not do anything spectacular. The waters were relatively calm, he did not rock the boat, he cruised through 8 years in the white house. Congressional hearings and dealings with interns were all his doing and had nothing to do with making a difference on the world. Reagan on the other hand had the Cold War and the Berlin Wall among other events that made true change in the world. Obama said this and he was correct in this. Talk about a bee in the Clinton's bonnet. Not only did Obama "dis" the Clinton presidency, he talked supported about Reagan - ultimate treason for any good Democrat since Reagan continues to be a face for the Republican Party.

Something that makes this whole campaign even dirtier, is the involvement of Bill Clinton in the hateful remarks and personal attacks toward Obama. Eugene Robinson, writer for the Washington Post has dubbed Bill, Hillary's "cold-blooded political hit man." Senator Ted Kennedy, well known for being outspoken himself has joined with Congressman Rahm Emanuel, another leading figure in the democratic party, to tell the Clinton's to "stop attacking Barack Obama." and Representative James Clyburen from South Carolina said that "Bill Clinton needs to chill." Bill's behavior is made even worse by the fact that as a former president, you expect his demeanor to be more reserved and for his main priority to be to unite the party. Right or wrong he is held to a higher standard because of his position. Wait a minute? Don't we hold the president to a higher standard while in office? Isn't Bill Clinton the one making sure interns were taken care of in the Oval Office? I guess we are expecting too much.......

When asked about the former presidents behavior on Good Morning America, Obama said, "He has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a new level that I think is pretty troubling and I promise to directly confront him when he is making statements that are not factually true." I respect Obama for the way he has tried to continue to remain calm and I respect his right to confront Bill about untrue statements, but has he ever heard the one about winning a spitting match with a snake?

Last night during the debate, Hillary was asked about Bill's "new attack dog role" in the campaign, to which she replied that the "campaign is not about spouses. Michelle (Obama) and Elizabeth (Edwards) are staunch advocates for their husbands and I respect that."

Okay, Hillary, first of all Michelle and Elizabeth have been a quiet, strong support from the background with no attempt to overshadow or make the campaign about them. They have never once gotten up at a rally and attacked Hillary's record, professionally or personally (and we all know there is plenty that they could attack), nor have they made themselves the focal point of their husbands campaign. Having a spouse as a former president could be a huge advantage in a campaign, but the Clinton's have shown their true colors the way they have handled what would seem to be an upper hand in the election.

This has been a hard post, I am very disappointed in the Clinton's. I think that their tactics are becoming more and more immature and that if they continue to down slide, it could be a factor in a loss for them. This post was also hard to write because I had to write that I agreed with John Edwards and Ted Kennedy. I don't know which is worse.......

In Memory of Fred Thompson

Today we lay to rest the presidential hope of Fred Thompson. Several hours ago, he announced that he was withdrawing his candidacy for president. He has not won any of the primaries, but his finishes have not been embarrassing either. I guess the big question on the Republican ticket right now is who will Thompson throw his support to? He has in the past supported John McCain, but as far as the issues go, he is much more like Mitt Romney than McCain. Thompson doesn't have a huge support base, but as close as the republican race has been, his supporters could be all someone needed to launch out in front of the pack.

How I Plan on Spending My Tax Rebate Check

President Bush announced today that he wants a nation wide tax rebate to boost the economy or to "give it a shot in the arm" as he put it. The rebate would effect individuals who make under $85,000 a year and couple who make under $110,000. Rebate checks would be between $500 - $1600 and would probably be mailed toward the end of June since the IRS is a little busy right now. This is projected to cost $145 billion. A final decision is expected to be made Tuesday.

I have a couple of questions for the administration along with a few suggestions of my own......

1. Where is the $145 billion going to come from? This money is called "tax relief" and President Bush has cut taxes so I guess it wouldn't come from taxes. We could use the money in the Social Security Reserve, oh wait, we started using that money when President Regan was in office and it is all gone now. We could increase middle class taxes this year since they are the hardest hit anyway, oh wait, we can't do that until 2010 when Bush's tax cuts expire. Let's just pretend we have the money when we don't and increase the national debt. Yeah, that will work....

2. Why are we entering a recession or, excuse me, a "period of slow growth"? The powers that be are blaming a housing slump and a credit crisis for the slow down of the economy. Okay, lets look more into each of those. The housing slump is a direct result of the housing boom of a few years ago. Home buying became like the "your job is your credit" car lots and the end results are looking similar. Anyone who was breathing could get a home loan. I am not against people buying homes, but in the past few years, people who would not have qualified were put into homes with ARM loans, no money down, interest only, and a number of other scam loans that blew up in every one's faces. Congress is now passing laws for the mortgage industry that requires them to only loan money to people who can pay it back. Really, no really, they have to pay it back? What? The credit crisis has basically the same story - banks and lenders were extending credit to people who had no business getting credit - people without jobs, college students, people with poor credit history's, and on and on. It is sad, because the people who are hurting the most are the people who were put into the loans by big companies with deep pockets. We were having a good economy when all these people were spending all their credit........

3. Does the government think that the middle class is stupid? The tax rebate calls for this money to be put in the hands of the consumer as soon as possible. In fact the government has said "putting money into the hands of households and business that would spend it in the near future is a priority." The only way that this tax rebate would help the economy is if everyone went out and cashed their checks and spent them right away. "Spending" that would help the economy does not include paying bills, paying off debt, investing, saving, or paying educational expenses. The government is counting on the middle class and poor going to their local furniture store and buying that king size water bed they have been drooling over or going to Best Buy and taking home that big screen plasma TV. I think that members of the middle class would surprise the government, many are very conservative and movements are going on across the country for people to become debt free (we, personally, are Dave Ramsey converts). The majority of people in this group are not stupid, they are living a quiet life, paying their bills, and saving money for their kids and retirement (because we all know the government will not have the money to take care of us in the future). Of course there are those who will spend every penny of their rebate plus some and will boost the economy that day, but will be back to their broke status the next day. They soon will not be out there spending money.......

........which brings me to.....

4. Is this tax rebate going to solve the economic crisis? Maybe temporarily, but it is not the answer for a soft economy. This will allow Bush to finish his term with a higher approval rating (I love that George Bush, he's gonna send me a check in the mail!), but once the money is spent things will go back to the way they were. What we need is a comprehensive plan to get the economy in shape. We could start with government spending and end with more money in consumer's wallets. Somewhere in the middle we should deal with inflation, getting a handle on credit companies, the national debt, and medical costs. Instead we are going to put another band aid on the problem and hope that it stops the bleeding.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take my check, but I doubt that I will use it to help the economy much. We might go out and eat, but I would imagine that money will fit nicely in our savings account.

Who Is My Perfect Match?

It is really hard to determine who to vote for. I really believe that everyone should study the issues and determine who is running that would be the best fit for the country. It is not necessarily who we like the best, who has the best hair (that would be John Edwards, hands down), or who has the hottest bod (Fred Thompson anyone?). My friend Tammy emailed me this link. It is a quiz that matches your beliefs about 11 of the most current topics with the candidate who is most like you and then rates all the candidates from most to least in common with you. When I did the quiz, the top two who share my beliefs are not necessarily who I think will make the best president, that person was near the bottom of the list. It is pretty interesting and once you take the quiz there are links to all the candidates web pages and stuff like that. Enjoy!

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Who Is The Blackest of Us All?

This morning I was awakened by the Today Show's breaking news: "More political drama as Obama and Clinton campaigns wage race war." It seems that while speaking at a rally, Hillary said that "the Martin Luther King dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Granted, I am not paid to look for things to ruin the chances of another Clinton presidency, but this statement doesn't send up red flags for me. It seems to me that she was saying exactly what she said - that due to the Act of 1964, MLK's dreams came true. The Obama campaign however, saw it as diminishing Kings role in the Civil Rights Act. How exactly did she do that? Her team retorted however by publishing a memo that surfaced from the Obama camp that listed examples of statements by Clinton that could be construed as being "racially insensitive." Can you say "Ugly Campaign Tactics?" Of course John Edwards had to get in his support for Obama (or the man he hopes will pick him up as a running mate) by saying," I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through Rev. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that."

Hillary is not alone in her "racially insensitive" comments. Bill has also been targeted for saying that Obama's Iraq War Strategy is a "fairy tale." The relationship between this statement and racially negative words is not clear to me. Obama's team believes that Bill was insinuating that Obama's dreams of being president (since he is a black man) are a "fairy tale." What?

All of this "strategy" comes a little over a week before the South Carolina primary on January 26 where at least half of all registered voters are African American. That state would be an important win for either Clinton or Obama and would be a good indication of which camp had Black America support in this election.

Historically, the Clinton's have fared well with black voters, and Bill was even dubbed the "first black president" by well known religious leaders in the black community. The Clinton's believed they could count on the black vote, which is becoming increasingly more important to capturing a victory, until Obama made such a showing, gaining support of Oprah and other leaders in the black community as well as much of the white voter support in Iowa. After his Iowa win, while making a speech, Obama's wife Michelle commented that,"some blacks may not think a White America will elect him, but there ain't no black people in Iowa."

I have thought about this and I really don't think think that Hillary Clinton made those remarks as a deliberate charge against Martin Luther King or against Barack Obama. Do I think she is above making remarks that might be derogatory? No, I think she could make very insensitive remarks if she wanted to or thought it would help her. I don't think she did this, because she is too smart to open this can of worms that would look negatively on her right before the SC primaries. Everything that comes out of her mouth is calculated and is part of her bigger plan. This has too much possibility of effecting her negatively and she would not put that out there with that risk. Bill? I don't give him that much credit, but I don't think he was being "insensitive" either.

It sounds too simple, but if all involved would just stick to the facts and how they relate to current issues, the right American might just get elected.

Be Our Guest, Be Our Guest.........

In the children's movie, Beauty and the Beast, all of the house hold items sing a little song when Belle first enters the Beast's castle. The first line of the song goes something like this, "Be our guest, be our guest, put our service to the test......" It is funny that this song comes to mind when I think about the immigration issues the US is currently having. I can just picture Americans standing along the border, arm in arm, with the president right in the middle, singing this very song. Come on over, use our schools, our hospitals, drive on our roads, live in our cities, work, don't pay taxes, don't get proper documentation, don't obey the laws, just be our guests. That is the very image that we seem to be showing to all illegal aliens. If we were not, they would not be coming over by the truck load (literally).

Everyone seems to have a new policy, but the problem is not the policy, it is the enforcement. I applaud the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies, because I know that they are working hard to keep the borders and the border states safe. They are, however a small team, too small and to underfunded to properly keep out all illegal immigrants. We can make new laws, build a fence, and do countless other things, but until we enforce the laws, we will get nowhere.

I am not against LEGAL immigration. I believe that this country is what it is today because of all the different cultures and ideas that have literally come from all over the world. I know that American can offer many things to people from all over the world. There are many people who's dreams can only be realized here. They are welcome, if they go through the proper process to become citizens. There are ways for people to apply for citizenship. There is a lot of paperwork involved and it can take years, but isn't that worth it? Apparently not, when you can just cross the border, work, rent apartments, send your kids to school, have more babies in hospitals, and not have to go through any of the "legal mambo-jumbo."

A common thing seen primarily in border states is to have women in labor, come across the border, go directly to the hospital and have the baby on American soil. That makes the baby an American. Their thinking is that we would not send the parents back because of the child. Maybe we should. The parents could have the option of taking the child or leaving him or her. Cruel? Maybe it would stop this. No where else in the world can you just move to another country and set up housekeeping without going through the proper channels. We have to step up and start enforcing this in American. We are so concerned with hurting feelings, we are being walked all over. What about their rights, liberals cry? What rights, if you are illegal, I didn't know you qualified for rights.

Entertainer-In-Chief?

Last night Mike Hucklebee graced late night viewers for the second time in one week with an appearance on Dave Letterman commenting that it he is running for president because you get to live in a really nice house in Washington D.C. Last Wednesday he appeared on Jay Leno. I admit that I am a Leno fan. I get a really big kick out of his opening monologue (usually that is all I can stay awake for), and sometimes I will watch if there is a guest appearance by someone I really, really, like. I do not however watch Jay Leno, to get my news, find out about current events, or to help me make an educated decision on who to vote for the next president of the United States. When I think about who would better serve our country for the next four years, my decision has never been based on how a candidate can hold his own with the likes of Dave Letterman. "Oh, he can read a punch line from a tele-prompter, check." I find it much more important for someone to hold their own with leaders from other countries, with congress, you know, people like that.

In my eyes, we are continuing to dumb down American (more on the dumbing down of American in a future post), by making a joke or gaining some laughs from a presidential candidate appearing on a late night talk show. Hucklebee's camp would say that he is reaching out to a different group of viewers, he is spreading the word. I would answer by saying what word? If he actually talked about issues, as Barack Obama did on Ellen a few months ago and as Bill Clinton did on MTV's rock the vote (despite the audience's question concerning boxers or briefs, that Monica Lewinsky could have just as easily answered), that would be a different story. I could be wrong, but from what I have read, it is mostly young, educated, informed individuals who watch Late Night TV for comic relief (you would have to be somewhat informed to catch the full humor in a lot of the jokes, especially Jay's opening ones). Those who would be influenced and make their decision based on the fact that a presidential candidate can play the electric guitar or saxophone are probably watching "The Simpson's" reruns during that hour.

Seriously, there are some major issues plaguing our society today. For starters, our country is at war, we have a financial system disaster, and hundreds of babies are being killed everyday who have not even had the chance to live. Millions of people cannot afford basic health care, illegal aliens are crossing the border at an alarming rate with no resistance, and homosexuals are making a mockery out of marriage. I want to hear about those issues; I want to base my decision of who to support based on their views of these things. That's great if you are funny, can play the flute with your nose or can dance hip-hop, but it would not make me vote for you.

Bad News Barack

Several entries ago, when I was talking about the good and bad of each candidate, I had very little negative to say about Barack Obama. I based it on the fact that he was young and had a lot of time left to do some really stupid things. I was actually finding myself drawn to the excitement of the Barack Bandwagon, although as of yet no decision has been made on who I will, without a doubt support. Barack seemed to be one of the contenders. Until today that is. John Kerry announced that he was endorsing Barack Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. Wow! With friends like John Kerry, who needs enemies? One funny thing to come out of this is the fact that Kerry is not endorsing his former running mate for president, John Edwards. Something to think about.....

President Who?

President Clinton, President Obama, President Edwards, President Romney, President Hucklebee, President Thompson, President McCain......One often overlooked way to determine who to vote for in the election - put every one's last name behind "President" and see which one sounds the best. A very simple tactic, used in by junior high girls to determine who they should marry (who's last name sounds best with my first name), it seems to be as good as any in this years election. So far voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, have given no clear clue as to who will hold that title after next November. Hillary, made a comeback (just like her husband did in New Hampshire, we are constantly reminded in the press), but not a landslide as she would have hoped. It could be Obama's turn next, as he seems to be the poor Chihuahua underdog, beaten up by the pit bull Clinton campaign. Many were moved by Hillary's strategic use of tears the other day, but few, very few have been moved by John Edwards, plight of the middle class campaign that seems to have attempted to jump on Obama's coat tails to use some of his excitement and momentum for his own benefit. Could it be in the back of Edwards' mind that he is not going to be president, but maybe if he can get Obama to notice him, he might stand a chance as vice president?

The Republicans had their own "fruit basket turnover" with John McCain coming out of nowhere to claim victory in New Hampshire. Mitt Romney was a close second and Pastor Hucklebee third. Does a war hero make a good president? We have had a few, but I don't think that having been a POW is a clincher on the resume. I am really big on the personally lives of people who want to lead our country, believing that how a person behaves and acts in their personal lives directly effects how they will act and decisions that they will make in leadership positions. After being released (McCain was held in a POW camp for 5 years during the Vietnam War), instead of returning to his wife and children, he met and started dating another woman whom he later married. I don't intend for this to be full of "juicy gossip", but things like this make a difference to me and the choices I will make at the polls.

Any predictions for the Michigan primaries next Tuesday?

A Time for War

In Ecclesiastes 3 we learn that "there is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." More specifically in Ecclesiastes 3:8, we learn that there is "a time for war and a time for peace." I'm am a really simple person - God said it, I believe it and that is that. I don't need the history channel to tell me that there is scientific proof of the Great Flood, I don't need to see the ark, I just believe, Faith is what that is called. So when God said that there would be a time for war, I believe it. I am not "pro war" or excited about the prospect of war, I simply believe that war is something that is part of time and until the end of time there will be periods of history where there is war. Do I wish for "peace on earth?" Of course, but I don't believe that is a reality.

A big part of the campaign has been what the candidates believe about the war in Iraq. Hillary has told us that every soldier would be home within her first 60 days in the White House. Most of the other democrat candidates had said within their first year in office, the troops would be home. They cannot believe that this can be a reality. For five years, our soldiers have worked tirelessly to help the Iraqi people gain freedom. They have helped make the world a safer place by removing some of those in power including Saddam Hussein and some of Osama Bin Ladin's top officials. I think it says a lot for Homeland Security that we have not had another attack on US soil since '01. Nobody can believe that if we remove all of our troops right now, that Iraq would remain in the state that it is in and that the US would remain a safer place.

It doesn't matter if we should have gone in to Iraq or not. It doesn't matter if we should have done things differently, we are there and we have to deal with the present circumstances. If we leave Iraq now, and our successes there are reversed, all of the work our troops have done, would have been in vain. Many people forget that during World War II, we held a US presence in Germany for 10 years after the war, to ensure that it was secure. If we intend to ensure Iraq's security, we will need to be there for longer than another year. I know the past five years have been hard on our military. They are pulled to the limit. That is one problem with a 100% voluntary military. Other countries have mandatory military service for everyone once they reach a certain age. I don't know if this is a good or bad idea, but it solves several problems. One, there would be a constant refreshment of young, healthy troops to relieve some of the stress of the current military and two I believe mandatory service for ones country gives everyone a different attitude about service, pride, and entitlement.

American has become so diluted with individualism and with people who have no idea what it is to sacrifice. We have all forgotten what it was like during WWII when regular American citizens gave up so much for the war effort. People could not have everything they wanted when they wanted it, items such as meat, eggs, and sugar were rationed so there would be enough for the troops. Today, we just spend more money, increasing our national debt to a point where it is a joke. I cannot name one thing that I have personally given up for the "Iraqi war effort." During WWII, every American believed that they played a part and that led to a surge in American pride, people were proud to be Americans and were even more proud of the men serving the country. I see bits of pride here and there, but as a whole, Americans have continued on with their lives, doing whatever they want, whenever they want, not giving much thought to those serving.

I am thankful that unlike those who returned from Vietnam in the 60's and 70's, our troops today are welcomed home, but they deserve more. Can you imagine the outrage in society if we were asked to ration gasoline to help fund the war? Or what about cloth or products made out of metal? What if we would have to be without electricity for 2 hours a day to help with war funding? There would be rioting in the streets. Would I be willing to give up some of these things, it would be hard, but imagine what good it would do. I am glad that society as a whole supports the troops and the military, but we can do so much more.

Suprise! Suprise! Suprise!

I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses last night, for the Democrats. I, like many others, really thought that Hillary would blow away everyone else easily. I'm sure even she was shocked by her 3rd place finish. The way I see it, Obama has done several things really well in his campaign: 1. He has really encouraged people to get excited about the elections and has brought in a whole new team of voters. I heard that an estimated 40% of voters yesterday were first timers. Of course that includes people who have just become eligible to vote, but a majority of people were those who have never cared before. 2. He has not stooped to the level of nastiness of others. He has taken his critics with a grain of salt and let most things simply slide off his back. For example, early on, Hillary, made the comment that she had not made it a life goal to be president (some think that voters will like someone better who has not had political dreams to be in the white house) unlike that of Obama, who has wanted it since grade school. Upon winning yesterday, he told reporters that "It feels good, just like I thought it would when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher about being president." I thought that was clever. And 3. He has Oprah on his team. Enough said.

I don't really know what I expected out of the Republican team, but I was surprised that some made such a good showing, Hucklebee and Thompson, for example. I really expected Romney to do well, but Hucklebee gaining 9% points and Thompson coming in 3rd was unexpected. I find it a little humorous that Giuliani received almost no votes, not visiting Iowa, preferring to put his eggs all in the Florida basket. We will see how that works for him in February.

New Hampshire primaries are next Tuesday so we will see if this surprising trend continues. This is only step one in what I think will prove to be a very interesting election year.

And the race is on.....

Well, it is the official start to the election year! The Iowa Caucus are when everyone can start getting excited about the next presidential election. Oh, wait a minute, all of the campaigning, mud slinging, and promise of change started at least a year ago and that is being conservative. When the results come in we can start narrowing down the field and really decide who will be the next president or as we have said in our house - who out of the choices will do the least amount of damage to our country. I think that it is really sad, that out of all the billions of people in the United States these are the best that we can come up with to run for president. Yes, some are better than others, but where are the really great people who will lead our country? I have been waiting all year for someone to come out of the woodwork and declare their candidacy, but no one did. I did a spread sheet for some of my friends recently that just listed all the candidates and their views on the very basic issues of this years race. I wanted so badly to put in some of the dirt, some of the good stuff that has swayed me to and from each of the candidates, but I wanted it to be just very "non partisan" and just the facts. But that is where the blog comes in...a chance for me to share the way I feel and the "dirt" that I have read about the candidates. I can think of good and bad for each candidate, and some I can think of really ugly. So here it goes, the good, bad, and ugly on the '08 presidential candidates according to me!

Hillary Clinton: The Good: She knows how to get things done, she has the Washington experience, she will fight for what she wants and I have no doubt she will get what she wants if given the chance. Plus, she has already had 8 years in the White House as "President", most people with that experience would get as far away as possible, but she is back. The Bad: No fireside chats. Maybe a couple weeks at charm school could help the cold, dry personality. She has also lived the Washington experience, possibly forgetting the struggle of the "common American" which many believe is desperately needed in the government. The Ugly: People who have gotten in her way have been taken care of - some of them permanently. I'm not saying that she did anything, I am just saying she has plenty of people who take care of her. I certainly would not want to be on her bad side.

John Edwards: The Good: Has the presidential look? The Bad: I can't see him getting much done. He was a great attorney - won a lot of money, but running the country is a different book. You can't pick and choose the things that you can win, like the cases he is famous for. The Ugly: Encourages people to be environmentally and fiscally responsible yet lives in a 26000 sq ft home -yes that is twenty six thousand, hate to see the energy used to heat that sucker! Look at my Carbon Footprint guys!!! He also pays $400 for haircuts. I don't have a problem with people having money; I don't have a problem with people spending money, I do believe that the leader of the United States should have a good track record of moral/fiscal responsibility. His hair cut is almost my mortgage payment, not the most fiscally responsible thing to do.

Rudy Giuliani: The Good: Reduced taxes in New York by billions; could do the same for the country. The Bad: Wants tax payers to foot the bill for abortions for the poor. I can list about a million things that I would rather my tax dollars fund. Funding abortions is just above Ted Kennedy's next raise. The Ugly: Lived with mistress while wife lived in NY governors mansion. He is running on the moral ticket right......? His own daughter has put her support on Brack Obama. I believe that he used 9-11 for his own political benefit. He was in the right place at the right time to get the glory and credit for being the "hero".

Mike Huckabee: The Good: Takes a moral stance on the issues, the "guy next door" image. The Bad: Doesn't seem to really grasp the seriousness of the issues, especially health care, believing that proper diet and exercise for everyone would solve the country's health care crisis. The Ugly: The Baptist preacher has been a little shady during some of his interviews and on his ads. He claims the innocent card, but when something nasty or suspicious is said about another candidate it is out in the open and cannot be taken back. This can be a very good strategy, much like that of a trial lawyer saying something and letting it be "stricken from the record". The statement is still out there, the jury still heard it - that was the point. Plus do we really need someone else from Arkansas or can we even stomach someone else from Arkansas? Side note, he too was born in Hope, birthplace of Bill Clinton.

John McCain: The Good: Decorated war hero and POW survivor - knows what it is truly like to fight for his country. The Bad: Has voted against tax cuts. The Ugly: After returning home from Vietnam to a wife who stood faithful all the years he was held and who was recovering from a serious car accident, he begins dating and living with another woman, whom he later married. This shows me anyway, a lack of integrity. I can have very little if any respect for a man (or a woman) who is not faithful to their spouse.

Barack Obama: The Good: Lots of young energy; does not deny youthful indiscretions, but admits when he has been wrong. Seems to be one of the more moderate of the liberals. The Bad: Not a lot of international experience. The Ugly: I need readers help on this one. The guy hasn't done anything completely and horrifically out of line, then again he is about 20 years younger than the rest of the candidates - they have had more time to screw up.

Bill Richardson: Who is Bill Richardson????

Mitt Romney: The Good: He stands on the moral side of the issues. Did some great things for Heath Care in Massachusetts. The Bad: Seems to have flip-flopped on some of the issues when it served him to do so. His voting record however defends his statements as of now. The Ugly: The Mormon card - Although, I do not believe that his being Mormon makes a difference on how he runs the country. I don't know if everyone could get over that to support him and give him a chance as president.

Fred Thompson: The Good: Says what means and means what he says - no tip toeing around the words here. The Bad: A little energy and excitement please? I get tired every time I hear him talk. The Ugly: I played a president on TV and it was fun - Maybe I could do it in real life. I liked him on TV, he played many roles well, could this be just another acting gig?

What is going to happen tonight? Historically, results from Iowa are a good indicator of how the rest of the country will vote. I still think that it is any one's game at this point. Is anyone above the right one for president? I don't really think so. My vote this year is going to have to be with the one whom I believe will do the least damage to the country and I am really honestly not sure who that is yet. Good thing I have until March.

Welcome to my world

Let me start by saying that this is not going to be a sweet blog with news about my family or funny stories (although I have a wonderful family and plenty of cute stories), but more a forum to share my thoughts and opinions about things in the world. I am using this primarily to get a chance to discuss current events and welcome anyone to discuss or debate the issues. I don't know if anyone will read this (except for my dad!!), but at the very least it will allow me to keep my mind and my writing skills active and I will think I have a voice in the world. With the election year in full swing, I doubt I will be lacking for topics to write about, but we will see how things go. Who am I? I am proud to be a wife and mother - that is the greatest job I have ever or will ever have - but there is much more to me than most people are aware of. I hold a masters degree in human behavior and management and worked in the human resource field for 5 years before becoming "domesticated" and staying home to care for my family. I spent almost 10 years in the field of early childhood education before becoming burnt out and returning to school for my masters in "something else - anything else!" I have always been a non fiction sort of person, liking true stories much more that fiction. I have always liked the story behind the seen - the stories of the people involved. For example, since about the 6th or 7th grade, I have been interested in military history, especially the stories of women's history in the services (No - I am not a raging "Femi-Nazi"), but I am interested in the stories behind the wars, the people involved, who they are, what are their lives like. I skip over the parts in the books that describe battles and war strategies, but devour the stories of the families of the soldiers and the lives that they live. I have a great deal of interest in current events and have strong ideas and opinions about them. I consider myself a moderate conservative, as most of my values fall on that side of the fence, but I do hold some ideas that could be considered by some on the ultra conservative - Laura Ingram, Rush Limbaugh - side of things. I am well read and keep up with the events of the world. I am a christian and that dictates a lot of my values and how I feel about different issues. If you are not bored by now, keep reading my posts and lets start a discussion about the events.