Apparently offended by John McCain having the moniker “George Bush’s third term” that some liberals give him, a website proposes actually giving the President a third term.

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God’s Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God’s candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God’s president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

Good luck getting around the 22nd amendment!  They also propose its repeal.

Posted by by Michael in Politics at 8: 44 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »
Tags: Politics, term limits

Over at Poligazette, I try and make the case for divided government over unified government in the executive and legislative branches.

Check it out.

Posted by by Michael in Politics at 11: 37 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »
Tags: Politics

Everyone’s reporting on John McCain’s lack of knowledge of current gas prices.  I’ll let Joe Gandelman over at TMV take that one.

Yet, McCain’s interview with OC Register Martin Wisckol included more than a revelation of a possible disconnect with the American public.  I have my own issues with one of his other responses:

Wiskol: Under your presidency, can you offer any ideas on what we’ll be paying for gas in two years?

McCain: It’ll be less because we will have been moving forward with measures to become oil independent – independent of foreign oil. I’m very confident that the American people can do it. We didn’t get into this situation we’re in yesterday. So we’re not going to get out of it tomorrow. But Americans want a little relief. That’s why I support a gas-tax holiday. And if you don’t think it’s important to some people, ask someone who owns a couple of trucks and is paying 24½ cents tax on every gallon of gas.

The point is that we need to have clear plan of action and we will have a clear plan of action. We will become energy independent.

Now, I understand McCain is doing this interview quite literally as he’s walking through an airport, but he needs to think before he speaks.  The question is asking if gas prices will be lower in two years, and though McCain initially seems to agree, later he says it won’t happen “tomorrow.”  I think he really means that no, gas prices won’t be lower in two years.

Continue reading »

Posted by by Michael in Politics, Society at 2: 26 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »
Tags: gas, mcain, oil

Libertarian Presidential nominee Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia, is getting a lot of flack from his former party for daring to run.  According to this New York Times article, party officials are trying to tell him, “Don’t do it, Bob!”:

“‘Well, gee, you might take votes from Senator McCain,’” Mr. Barr said this week, mimicking one of the complainers, as he sat sipping Coca-Cola in his plush corner office, 12 stories above Atlanta. “They all said, ‘Look, we understand why you’re doing this. We agree with why you’re doing it. But please don’t do it.’”

The argument seems to be that if Barr gets enough votes, particularly from Republicans, that John McCain’s chances of winning will be diminished that much.

Gee, you think?

Continue reading »

Posted by by Michael in Election 2008, Politics at 1: 22 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »
Tags: barr, election2008, mcain, Politics, republicans

Now, I’m all for everybody having their own opinions on something.  I’m more for those opinions when they at least have some good research behind them.  Do you own research, I say, and then your opinion is educated.

So, it’s a laugh when I see an inane comment at some forum, blog, or other medium of communication.  To that extent, I’m an avid reader of Michelle Malkin’s blog, because I like to see a range of opinions from the far left to the far right.

I’ve agreed with Malkin once before, and now I find myself agreeing with her co-blogger, “see-dubya.”  See-dubya writes about some research (I guess it’s research) done by one Dr. Danielle Allen on the origin of web-based rumors.  They focus on one of her findings, the supposed originator of the “Obama is a Muslim” rumor: a man named Ted Sampley.  Here’s the money quote:

For some people, people in the core Sampley target zone, politics can never be bad enough. McCain need not merely be an abrasive centrist who panders to Hispanic race-baiters and despises movement conservatives, he has to be a traitor commie spy. Obama isn’t just a callow far-left machine politician caught up in the cult of his own personality, he has to be Al-Qaeda’s secret sleeper trained from birth.

Note: I’m not necessarily agreeing with see-dubya’s descriptions of the candidates, but he (she?) is spot on with the snark toward Sampley.

While the main post is all right, the couple comments that are there are insane.  Now, Malkin tends to attract a pretty far-right crowd, with a few liberals tossed in to the mix.  I was going to just post there, but registration seems to be disabled, so I decided to do it here.  Below are the dissenting comments as of this entry.  Says “malkin_fan”:

Forget the rumor tha Obama is a Muslim.

He IS a muslim:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12918.htm

And then there’s the doozy from “Gabe”:

I definitely agree with Malkin_Fan. Perhaps so many people believe that Obama is a Muslim because he is a Muslim. . .at least culturally.

In the Israeli Insider article, there are many facts that have never been refuted by the Obama camp. For example, why was he registered as a Muslim in his Indonesian Catholic school?

I teach in a Catholic school in Northern Virginia. Believe me, nearly every teacher has qualms about Barack Hussein Obama and has suspicions that Obama is a closet Muslim. Why? Because we know our Catholic faith and know something is just not right about Obama and his “Christian” faith.

From the Israeli Insider article:

Obama describes his new found “Christian” faith as: (1) Suspicious of dogma (2) Without any monopoly on the truth (3) Nontransferable to others (4) Infused with a big healthy dose of doubt, and (5) Indulgent of and compatible with all other religions.

On February 27th, speaking to Kristof of The New York Times, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, published in The New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, “with a first-class [Arabic] accent.”

Sure seems like a Muslim to me.

Gee Gabe, according to the first paragraph of your quote, Martin Luther must have been a Muslim too.  Sticking those 95 theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg; arguing that Catholicism wasn’t the only way; that others should be able to make their own interpretations of the bible and not follow the Pope’s dogma.  Definitely a Muslim, that Martin Luther.  According to your own argument, Gabe, 800 million Protestants are actually sooper sekrit Muslims.

Not that there’s anything wrong with being a Muslim.  If a Muslim was running for President - and it’s not going to happen for a long time given the tolerance level of this country - I wouldn’t think less of it, unless they were proven to support some bad apples.  Same would apply to a Christian or any other person of faith running for President.  Heck, same test goes for atheists and agnostics, too.

See-dubya has the best reaction toward these comments:

[bangs head on desk]

Amen.

Posted by by Michael in Politics, Religion at 9: 12 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »
Tags: blogs, christians, malkin, muslims, obama

Geeze, this guy is starting to have a lot of “problems,” isn’t he?  First it was “the Appalachain problem” and now it’s his “Muslim problem.”

For those hiding under pebbles, his campaign seems to be actively trying to dispel that age old rumor that Barack Obama is a sooper-sekret Muslim.  Anybody who’s actually paying attention knows by now that this is simply not true.  Anybody who’s been geeking out on election issues for the past 17 months (like me), knows that Obama made a speech some months ago that I argued would not seem out of place at a church that’s a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.

However, they seem to be a little paranoid about the issue.  The campaign seems to be doing anything they can to stop the Republicans from associating Obama with terrorists.  This would seem to include barring a couple of Muslim women wearing headscarfs from sitting behing Obama at one of his speeches.  Obama later personally apologized to the women, and I have read that they are content at his apology.  Obama’s campaigned also told Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, that he shouldn’t make a speech promoting Obama at a mosque.

Whoever is handling Obama’s religious outreach ought to be fired, since they’re not doing outreach toward Muslims, and I think it’s important that they do so.  Just as important as reaching out to Christians or Jews.  Face it, Obama campaign.  Islam is still a major religion in this country, even if not the biggest.  You need their support, and ignoring them is just as dangerous as being perceived as a terrorist symphaphizer.

I can see why they’re doing it.  All those endorsements from Hamas and Iran certainly are not helping him.  Yet, I’d argue Obama can reach out to Muslims without being perceived as a friend of terrorists the world over.  I think he needs to meet with Muslim groups, and quickly.  Perhaps even call a religious summit, including leaders from various denominations from around the U.S.  Then, and this is important, he needs to make a speech about his support for Muslims.  Such a speech should also emphasize his Christian faith, and maybe a comparison to the strong faith of many Muslims around the U.S.  Finally, it should include his willingness to work with the Muslim community to root out terrorism.

The last part of such a speech would also show he’s continuing goal of dimplomacy over military action, while also showing committment to ridding the world of terrorism.

These things are important because the man who has been called a uniter is quickly losing this title.  I think quick and effective outrich to the Muslim community would help repair both rifts.

Posted by by Michael in Election 2008, Politics at 2: 25 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

There’s been a lot of hoo haa recently in Congress and on some of the cable news networks about going after the speculators on the futures market.  Some say that trading oil on this market is a large contributor to the recent spike in petroleum prices, and thus, gas prices.

I’m going to be the first to admit that I don’t know a lot about the futures market myself.  I think it’s often misperceived as “this guy says oil will be $200 in four months, so watch out.”  At least, until I started doing some actual research, that was my perception.  Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than that.  Some libertarians think that Congress is frankly foolish to go after the speculators, arguing it won’t do a lot.  Tarran over at The Liberty Papers has an excellent post that should give anyone a primer on the futures market and how it affects oil prices.

I enjoyed receiving a bit of an education on the futures market, but I did notice one flaw with his post.  I’ll just cross post what I put in his comments section:

I think in the case of oil, you’re making it far too simplistic. The problem that I see is you argue that the speculators keep oil off the market to encourage more production.

The problem is that it’s not happening in this case. And until either domestic production gets ramping up again (with drilling on the continental shelf, ANWR, or whatnot), foreign producers increase their production, or both, this theory is hard to apply. I think everybody knows there’s a political aspect of it that you haven’t considered here, whether it’s the unwillingness of Congress to allow more domestic production, the war, or strained relations in the Middle East.

I think what is written here would work for a commodity not so politically embroiled. It’d be perfect in a true laissez-faire society, but in reality, it’s a lot more complicated.

Yet, after reading his explanation, and watching Jim Cramer talk about it on MSNBC’s Hardball today, I’m now very skeptical that an attack on the speculators will actually do much about the problem.

So, back to the drawing board. One that obviously needs a combination of increased domestic production of oil, advances in synthetic oil, as well as research and production of renewable fuels. Then just the consumer decide. Like I said on another blog the other day, if drilling in ANWR or on the continental shelf really does take 10 years to yield results, consumers will probably grow sick of the wait, and then be clamoring for ethanol or something else.

Speaking of ethanol, hope we see that highly touted switchgrass on the scene soon.  I’ve got a feeling Bush is getting a kickback out of suggesting it as the source, but at this point, I really don’t care.  Better than corn, and most everything else, from what I’ve been reading.

Posted by by Michael in Politics, Society at 11: 06 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

Evoking fear as an emotion is apparently not a tactic reserved for Republicans in this election cycle.  Why, you ask?

Well, today the House passed an amendment to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence (FISA) Act of 1975.  Among the bills big points are an end to the warrantless wiretapping that has been such a scandal for the Bush administration for the past couple of years.  All requests must go through the FISA court.  However, the controversial section of the bill calls for retroactive immunity for telecom companies that cooperated with the administration since 2001.  The bill also gives investigators the ability to pursue broader warrants, so that they won’t have to request one per target.

I think overall the bill is probably the best either side is ever going to get.  I’m a little torn on the immunity for the telecoms.  I don’t think that they were acting with the nefarious intentions some liberals would have you believe.  Yet, do I feel my privacy had the ability to be targeted unnecessarily?  Anyone really should, given the past revelations about instances of wiretapping U.S. citizens.  My concern does not come from having anything to hide, because I don’t.  Yet, I expect a certain level of privacy and non-invasion from my government, and knowing that it could have been at risk is a little alarming, given the “all for the best” attitude coming from this administration.

So, I support this bill pretty full heartily.  Yet, there are some that won’t be happy until there is never any wiretapping.  Take this poster that smacks more of Rovian fear mongering rather than concern about civil liberties from a group of liberals.

The ad is, frankly speaking, despicable.  In a time the same group would tear apart the Bush administration for using similar tactics, doing so themselves is pretty low.  I definitely think it will only serve to discredit Democrats (even if that’s not necessarily their target) and has the potential to harm Obama, who is already being smeared as a far-left socialist by the Republicans (even though he’s turning that perception around).

To the groups behind this ad: wise up.  Didn’t you notice the attempts at fear by the Bush admin. are part of what got your party elected in 2006?  Don’t stoop to the same tactics because you want to spite Rep. Hoyer.

Posted by by Michael in Politics, Uncategorized at 11: 20 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

As I noted a few articles ago, I’ve kinda been ignoring John McCain in favor of covering the end of the Democratic primaries.  But, with those over, and things somewhat quiet elsewhere, the time seems ripe to go back to him.

John McCain, who I’ve always respected and liked a lot more than some other Republican candidates, is frankly starting to disappoint me.  He’s been increasingly shedding his maverick image, at least on the issues of the Iraq war and detainee treatment.

The John McCain of old bucked the Bush administration on detainee treatment.  But, apparently not John McCain, Republican nominee.  He has this thing wrapped up, and he is pandering to the far right on these issues.  Of course, it’s not entirely surprising.  He was one of the cheerleaders of the Military Commissions Act.  He also has to look tough on terrorism toward the base.

Yet, I’d argue that he can still look tough without pandering to the far right.  He can still call for negotiations on our own tough terms (with which I’d agree), and even a presence in Iraq until the Iraqis can effectively take control of military operations themselves (which they are starting to do very well) without compromising his positions on detainee treatment.

I think it looks bad to Independents and conservative Democrats when a candidate who seemed to enshrine human rights for our detainees is seemingly backtracking on this by the day.  The same guy who says our military shouldn’t torture is willing to reserve this right for organizations like the CIA, which I think sends mixed messages to voters.

In short, John McCain needs to decide where he stands on these issues.  It’s important to his electoral future.  I’d argue for a return to his maverick positions.  It may anger some of the base and the far right, but McCain needs the widespread support if he wishes to win in November.

More to come on all the nominees, including John McCain.

Posted by by Michael in Election 2006, Election 2008, Politics, Television at 11: 30 AM | Add to del.icio.us | 2 Comments »

And here I thought I was going to return to McCain today!  Though he won’t entirely be off the hook.  See why later.

As most ought to know by now, the Supreme Court today ruled 5-4 that detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba must be allowed to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.  That cherished right of those finding themselves on the wrong side of the law, to challenge the legitimacy of their imprisonment, has for several years been the subject of debate as to whether it can be applied to non-citizens and enemy combatants.

The ruling today basically says that those being held in Guantanamo Bay must be allowed access to habeas corpus rights, because the Military Commissions Act did not provide an alternative for those held to challenge their detention.  Note that it does not say that habeas corpus must be allowed, just that there has to be an alternative.  It also does not end military commissions.

Most conservatives seem to have decried the ruling as a win for the terrorists, while most liberals have lauded it as a win for justice.

Personally, I think it’s a good ruling.  Call me a terrorist sympathizer if you wish, but the idea of holding somebody indefinitely without an ability to challenge their detention just seems…well, there is no other word for it…un-American.

Here in the United States of America, we cherish our right to be able to challenge our detention, to have lawyers, and to expect that we’ll be fairly heard in court.  Yet, while the Bush administration tries to tell us that terrorists are enemies of freedom and democracy, they would seemingly send mixed messages by telling their detainees that they will be held indefinitely?  I thought we were supposed to be telling those in the Middle East that this kind of behavior is wrong.  Behavior only practiced by the likes of dictators and tyrants.

No, I’m not calling the government a tyrant or a dictatorship.  I believe that many of the people held at Guantanamo Bay probably have a good reason to be there.  Then again, like in the civilian justice system, some simply should not be there.  They might be innocent; caught up in the midst of a war going on around them, or the charges against them simply are not enough to have them held at Guantanamo.  Then again, those that do need to be there need to be charged and sentenced.  Yet, as of today, only three of the trials have gotten anywhere, and among them, two people were acquitted, and one was sent back to his native Australia to serve out a reduced sentence.

So, the detainees deserve the right to challenge their detention, and if the DoD is not going to provide an alternative to habeas corpus, they need something.  Given that the administration is on its last months, and given the they already have an opposition to this kind of thing, I don’t think they’d have time or will to set up an alternative, though I’m sure they’ll try.  I’m guessing Republicans in Congress will also make an attempt, though I doubt it’ll get through the Democratic majority.  So, habeas corpus is likely to be the law of detainee challenge from here on out.

So, what’s the political fallout from this for our two major Presidential contenders?  It might impact John McCain’s chances in a slight to moderately negative way, since he was a pretty vocal proponent of the Military Commissions Act.  People might see this ruling as a rebuff to his attempts to get it passed, and view him as not knowing the right ways to conduct the detention of detainees.  I don’t say it’ll impact him in a big way since I think a lot of people have already made up their mind on whether or not he’s been right on the conduct of detainee treatment.  Then again, those of who’ve been following McCain know he’s been swapping back and forth in his positions on this subject quicker than John Kerry can flip-flop on voting for war funding.

On the opposite side, it’ll also impact Obama’s chances slightly to moderately, given that most of the negative from McCain will probably become a positive for Obama.  He’s always been against the banning of habeas rights for detainees, so it might serve as a slight bump to him.

As for the Bush administration, this is a pretty big blow for them.  Their entire argument for detainees not allowing access to civilian courts has just been destroyed, and I think it will be a signal to future presidents to not hold enemy combatants in this way again.  I don’t think we’ll see future terrorists being held as POws, as that would severely limit how they could be questioned.  I suspect we could see the normal extradition process being used, after which they could be tried in a U.S. court.  Of course, this might not work if the country in question were unfriendly to us.  So, I have no certain answer of how enemy combatant situations might be done in the future.

All in all, I think the ruling is for the best of the U.S.  Freedom to question your detention is a paramount tenet of the U.S. judicial system, and it is hypocritical to deny it to someone just because they’re an enemy combatant.  Though there is good reason to charge a lot of the people in Guantanamo, holding them indefinitely without having a way to find out who should actually be there is wrong.

Posted by by Michael in Politics at 2: 32 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »