No More Incumbents Presidential Race

As we approach this critical election, we are being fiendishly fed the same disingenuous, fear-mongering BS that was so sinuously shoveled onto us by Dick Cheney in October of 2004: vote for McCain or become radioactive dust! Realizing that not even the ghost of Reagan can save him now, John McCain is resorting to the very mud-slinging, vituperative malice in which he once promised never to engage in. And the Keating 5 video was fair game as it demonstrated McCain’s role-albeit minor-in the lead up to the crises we are facing now. It should be noted, though, that there were four other democrats involved in this scandal.

So forget the crumbling economy, broken health care system, dilapidated infrastructure, environmental apocalypse, the two wars, a resurgent Russia, and an ascendent Iran because Barack Obama once sat on the same committee with a reformed former member of the Weather Underground–a group that most Palin supporters think is a bunch of independent meteorologists.

Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future, or you’re not ready to articulate it.” ~Ariana Huffington

To view Olbermann video, click here

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

If there’s any indication that we are marred in chaos indefinitely, or as I put it ” up Shiite creek with no paddle,” it is in John McCain’s ludicrous statements from the stump (”A Hundred Years”). These startling statements reveal a man so detached from reality and so utterly afraid to confront Hilary and Obama on the economy, an issue he readily admits little knowledge of, that the so called maverick has no other choice but to tout the surge. Scary enough, a lot of Americans are still miserably uninformed when it comes to Iraq. For example, more Americans than ever before - 42 percent - say the troop surge in Iraq has made things better, the percentage of Americans who say the war is going well is now ten points higher than it was in September of last year and, worse yet, twenty-eight percent of Americans still believe Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

This radical and seemingly inconceivable disconnect implies that Americans aren’t paying attention, and why should they? The coverage of the war has dropped precipitously — down to 3 percent of available news space and air time this year, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Indeed, war coverage did make a comeback last week ( no Govs Gone Wild?) because of the American death toll reaching 4000, which I suppose reflects the media’s affinity for round,easy numbers (3,557 is fluff; bring out the horny governors!)

Enter Barack and Hillary (she still in it?)

In order to demystify the belief that the surge is working, Messrs. Barack and Hillary are going to have to do more than call for vague timetables. Rather, the candidates will have to constantly remind Americans of the astronomical costs for this monumental foreign policy blunder, link it to the crumbling domestic economy, and offer real and imaginative solutions in the face of a war hero while simultaneously highlighting McCain’s gaffes (the Iran/Sunni connection) on the issue. In short, they will have to demonstrate that gravitas and war hero status, although admirable and noteworthy, do not equate to sound and reasoned judgement.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

Illegal immigration is a deeply divisive issue in the United States. For the past two years, Congress under Republican and now Democratic control, has been emphatically (albeit unavailingly) trying to carry out a comprehensive overhaul of immigration law.

Reform efforts stalled last year against a background of protests by pro-immigration groups and calls by opponents for a toughening of the rules. Renewed attempts this year to pass legislation have so far failed.

How pressing is the problem?

There are thought to be about 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and each year some 500,000 to a million more enter the country, mostly through the 2,000-mile porous border with Mexico. In the time it took me to write that, America just gained 1 million more illegal immigrants.Many of these people are poorly educated, unskilled workers, yet in their thousands they fill the sort of jobs that most native-born Americans will not take, at least not for the same price. Much of California’s agriculture relies on migrant labor, for example. But some argue these jobs could be filled even without illegal immigrants.

Why is the debate so contentious?

Polls suggest that a majority of Americans see illegal immigration as a serious problem for the US. However, many immigrants already in the country, both legally and illegally, have voiced opposition to moves to restrict immigrants’ rights or prevent a “path to citizenship”. Strength of feeling on the issue was illustrated in 2006, when more than a million people boycotted work and turned out at May Day protest rallies across the country. This year’s rallies attracted fewer people, which organizers said was partly because recent crackdowns on illegal immigrants had made some people wary of taking part. Opposition to illegal immigration has been reflected in the emergence of Minutemen groups - citizens who have taken it upon themselves to patrol the US borders and to confront illegal workers in cities around the US.

The issue is also particularly politically awkward for President George W Bush’s Republican party, because it brings into direct conflict two of its core constituencies - social conservatives and the business lobby. It has also exposed rifts within Democratic ranks with some arguing along with their trade union allies that guest worker programmes would depress wages and threaten American employees and those that believe it creates a permanent underclass of exploitable labor. Several players in the immigration debate are contenders for the White House in 2008. Neither political party wants to alienate the growing Latino electorate, or at least the more serious contenders don’t.

The political debate over immigration reform is crystallised around several key issues. These include the enforcement of the country’s land borders and existing laws on immigration, changes in the law to deal with people already in the country illegally, and how to offer a regulated route into the US for what the business community says are much-needed workers. Some advocate greatly expanding physical barriers, like fencing, that already exist along some 100 miles of the US-Mexican border near cities - and bringing in tougher penalties for businesses caught employing illegal migrants.

In 2006, Mr Bush signed into law plans for a 700-mile (1,125km) fence along the border despite strong objections from the Mexican government. Plans for various guest worker programmes, and provisions allowing the millions of illegal immigrants already in the US to remain legally, have been the subject of hot debate.

What does it all mean?

If it can survive rigorous debate, immigration reform should provide an industrious people with the opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of us, while simultaneously punishing those who perennially skirt the law. Whatever is left off in the Congress will surely be picked up in the presidential race. Each and every candidate vying for the highest office in the land owes it not only to him or herself to address this problem with the utmost sensitivity, but also to the millions of Americans lacking clarity and understanding of the issue.       

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

Earlier tonite, the first installment of the Republican debates took place. How befitting that the candidates debated in the shadow of Reagan’s Air Force One, the aircraft hanging suspended in the library’s pavilion. After all, it’s every Republicans’ wet dream to be near the cockpit of something named after Ronald Reagan.

From the very begining the candidates appeared to have their heads so far up the GOPs ass that they were finding Mark Foley’s Blackberry. With transparent bravado the group of painfully sexually frustrated men trumpeted their bellicosity, desperately compensating for the utter lack of vision and war credentials–excepting McCain. From the major contenders to virtual unknowns, each and every one of them nebulously spoke of the “City on the Hill” passage–one of the most exploited speeches among campianging conservatives–in their description of America. The phrase was first invoked by Puritan leader John Winthrop who used it in a sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colonists. Its merits can be found in American Exceptionalism: the idea that Americans are extordinary people born of exceptional circumstances, unless, of course, they happen to be a Native American. As you can imagine this idea had virtually no effect on future american presidents, especially Ronald Reagan. While seemingly innocous in theory, it is minatory in application. For this theory to prevail in foreign policy it must be executed with the upmost caution, so as to avoid such disasters as Manacheaism which then leads to “clash of civilizations.” The biggest misuse of this theory, without question, was the invasion of Iraq.

When it came to proverbial “hot button” issues such as abortion the responses were virtually unanimous, with Guiliani obfucasting just enough to appease civil libertarians while not alienating conservatives.  

“It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent,” said the former New York city mayor, who has a record of supporting abortion rights.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, the xenophobic blowhard and right wingiest of the right-wingers, went so far as to cite dead fetuses. He’s certainly not fishing for Planned Parenthood endorsements. Happy Cinco De Mayo! Oops, I mean May 5th. He’s about as popular in Miami as Janet Reno.

When asked if whether they didn’t believe in evolution, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands like good brainwashed catholic schoolchildren. Not a good night to be enlightened.

Not surprisingly, when it came to Iraq there wasn’t an iota of dissent. One by one each of the ductile sycophants continues paying lipservice to the Bush Adminsitartion. It should be noted, however, that potential Republican candidate Sen. Chuck Hagel has vehemently opposed the troop surge and in fact voted in support of withdrawl in the now vetoed war legislation. Naturally, he was missing. On a lighter note, you’re probably to sloshed to do the math but Ronald Reagan was invoked a total of 19 times, which is slightly less the amount of times he’s invoked by Mitt Romney during sexual intercourse.

In summation, with the exception of a few protests regarding pork barrel legislation the Republican Presidential Candidates proved that they are nothing more than “politics as usual,” eternally married to the staus quo.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

Two weeks ago presidential candidate Joe Biden (D-DE) appeared on the Tonight Show to shoot the breeze, do a little crowd work, and, oh yeah, articulate his solution to the bloody quagmire in Iraq. Before delving into the esoteric nature of this plan, Joe Biden played along with Jay with apparent ease, much to the pleasure the audience (although I’m sure his spring break crowd was still high from the Ferrel appearance). Once again, the foreign policy guru demonstrated his remarkable expertise on the subject by reiterating some of the finer points of his Iraq Plan. Biden’s transition into to talking seriously about Iraq, however, was more awkward than catching your parents ‘doing the nasty’, given the flippant mood of the audience following the absurdist Ferell appearance. Kudos to Biden!

Now, onto the GOP Bloodbath!

Watching this year’s republican candidates jockey for GOP support is going to be like watching hemophiliacs juggle chainsaws. In any highly contested Republican presidential primary, the opposing campaigns will ineluctably go besmirching each other as closet-fags, fetus-haters, or gun hating nancies. Interestingly enough, they really won’t be lying. If one thing is for sure, it’s that you’ll be seeing Guiliani and Romney flip-flops selling like swift boats. Guiliani leads the pack with two: partial-birth abortion and gun control. However, I’m absolutely positive that a certain Kerik will be his ultimate demise.

McCain, although minimal in ideological importance, once denounced the Bush tax cuts only to now pledge to uphold them. Let’s not forget the little touchy-feely on his part of one time ‘agent of intolerance’ Jerry Fallwell. As far as party loyalty, both Romney and Guiliani broke their party ranks at one time to support democratic candidates (Guiliani with Mario Cuomo and Romney with Paul Tsongas). McCain is a much harder case, as he’s more bipartisan than Anne Heche. Over the years McCain has pursued an agenda that at times stands in direct opposition to the core beliefs of his party. For example, McCain cosponsored a bill on campaign finance reform, legislation to allow imported prescriptions, higher automotive emissions standards (Kyoto-friendly), and a piece that is surely to eliminate the gun show loophole. In 2001 he went so far as to consider a party switch, after meeting with Tom Daschle and other top democratic lawmakers. So the question for the GOP is how far are they willing to go to beat Hillary. I wouldn’t be surprised if they choose McCain.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org