Uh Oh! The third party candidates are at it again. This time it’s Bob Barr, former conservative congressman from Georgia. Now he is running for president under the Libertarian Party banner.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080526/D90T730G0.html.
Mr. Barr is a conservative who believes spending and civil rights intrusions by the Republican Party justify his entry into the presidential race. If Mr. Barr’s candidacy results in siphoning contributions from Senator John McCain, the Democrats will have an even better opportunity to win the White House.
No third party candidate has ever won. What they have done is reduced the chances for either a Republican or Democrat to win an election. Ralph Nader ran for president under the Green Party banner in 1996 and 2000. Many blame Al Gore’s loss in 2000 to Nader’s siphoning of votes cast in Florida.
Dixiecrats organized in response to President Harry S. Truman’s proposed 1948 civil rights package, understood by many whites as the greatest threatened federal intrusion into the South since Reconstruction. The package consisted of four primary pieces of legislation: abolition of the poll tax, a federal anti-lynching law, desegregation legislation, and a permanent Federal Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent racial discrimination in jobs funded by federal dollars. Despite the splintering of the Democratic party, Mr. Truman did win the election. Many Southerners – 1,169,021 popular votes and 39 electoral votes were drawn from the Democratic party to cast their ballots for South Carolina Governor J. Strom Thurmond and Mississippi Governor J. Fielding Wright (president and vice-president).
May 24, 2008
Healthy Enough to be President
John McCain would be 72 years old at his inauguration ceremony if he is elected to the presidency. Even if he is an energetic person age does impact everyone’s mental and physical well being. Since I am 69, I can speak to some knowledge on the subject. I am energetic but I do not have the energy I had when I was younger and neither does Senator McCain.
The New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24mccain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th&adxnnlx=1211649075-xtYbz1WmGefOEP7yvozihw about Mr. McCain’s health makes me suspicious. Two items come to my attention. First the medical information was released just before Memorial Day weekend holiday when many people are focused on family events. Second were the limits placed on reporters viewing the medical documents.
“The reporters were permitted three hours to review and take notes on the 1,173 pages of Mr. McCain’s medical documents, spanning 2000 to 2008, but they were not permitted to remove the documents from the room or photocopy them.
Campaign officials said they imposed the restrictions to prevent the widespread dissemination of the actual records and to protect Mr. McCain’s privacy.
In the conference calls, Mr. McCain’s doctors reported that Mr. McCain takes a variety of medications: simvastatin to control his cholesterol levels; hydrochlorothiazide for kidney stone prevention; aspirin for blood clot prevention; Zyrtec, an antihistamine, as necessary for nasal allergies; Ambien CR, as necessary for sleep when traveling; and a multiple vitamin tablet.
According to a pool report based on the review of the records, Mr. McCain’s cholesterol level was recorded as high in 2003, with a total cholesterol of 226 and an LDL, or harmful cholesterol, of 139, and an HDL, or good cholesterol, of 35. Mr. McCain was put on Vytorin, which worked in reducing his cholesterol in subsequent checks, but he was taken off this year after reports that the drug may not work.
Mr. McCain was instead put on simvastatin, which the records said did not reduce his cholesterol by as much but was deemed “acceptable.”
Every person who has been president has been under significant pressure. As you look at the pictures of the presidents at the beginning and end of their tenures you can see the toll this job takes. John McCain will have to select a vice president like Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson. Those were men who easily stepped into the presidency and took command.
May 19, 2008
What is Appeasement?
The dictionary definition of appeasement is “the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace.” When George W. Bush said, “some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals” http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=82477, did he mean to say that no negotiations are acceptable with our apparent enemies? After all what is the alternative to negotiations? It’s war!
All that talking to the U.S.S.R. did enable us to avoid what could have been a nuclear holocaust. Part of those negotiations included the Cuban Missile Crises. Certainly our negotiations were not appeasement. Would George W. Bush have gone to war in that event rather than reach a peaceful solution?
Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon and withdrew its occupation of Gaza. Those appeasements did not result in peace with its Arab neighbors. Proving that George W. Bush is correct in saying that appeasement does not bring peace. However both Libya and North Korea have surrendered their nuclear ambitions through negotiations that did occur while George W. Bush was president. Where was George when those events took place?
May 16, 2008
May 7, 2008
Democratic Party Destruction
The choices for the nomination for president are pathetic. The Democrats are just more focused on destruction.
The Republican Party has settled on a man who will be inaugurated at 72 years old if he is elected. Even worse is his views that are a continuation of the George W. Bush policies.
The Democratic Party is in the midst of tearing itself apart over selection of a nominee. The only way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination is by twisting arms and promising rewards to those super delegated that vote for her. No matter whom the winner of that contest is the hate that the contest has engendered will most likely result in a political party too damaged to bring victory. Neither of the candidates is worth admiring.
Barack Obama could not make a decision about his relationship with his pastor until it became clear to the world that the pastor’s views were incendiary. If Senator Obama could not make a decision about his pastor until the damage was done (to his candidacy) then how can he be relied upon to make decisions that could affect the world?
Hillary Clinton will tell any story to make a point. The Bosnia visit under fire claim supports this impression. She causes a thinking person to wonder if she will say anything to reach her objective including lies. How different is she compared to President George W. Bush?
As an independent I will find voting for president very difficult. Perhaps I will not vote for any candidate.
