No More Incumbents Presidential Race

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

So much has happened in the realm of politics in the past couple of weeks that to absorb it all without leading to an early coronary mishap is next to impossible. It would take a years supply of Ipecac just to digest this week. John Edwards, the way too good looking to be a politician who fights split ends more than poverty, officially ended his neutral reticence when he officially endorsed Obama as the candidate to hand John McCain his cut up and blendered political meat. Now does this seemingly carefully crafted endorsement imply that Obama will choose the cutesy southerner to once again use his geographical significance to balance the ticket? While North Carolina may prove to be a critical electoral grab, you can count on Barack choosing Edwards in as much as Edwards choosing to run with Obama. In other wards, the chances of that happening are about as likely as Hillary Clinton sharing the presidential bedroom with Bill. On the contrary, if Obama is going to be able to match McCain’s foreign policy experience, maddeningly illogical though it may be, he is going to have to pick the dude with the most gravitas and sharpest voice on foreign policy in the gang of 535. Joe Biden, of course being that man.

Now, many of you may be thinking, “why on earth would Obama choose the guy that thinks he’s clean and articulate?” The answer is simple. Joe Biden is a elder statesman with a gusto, wit and diplomatic prowess that goes unmatched. Moreover, choosing Joe Biden will allow him to stay to true to his ‘message of hope’ and ‘politics of civility,’ while Joe can excoriate McCain’s complete and utter lack of worldly vision. Shit – have you heard the man speak? The dude’s criticisms of bush’s failures and the fear-monger posturing of the neocons is so fucking poetic that it is only a mater of time when Hallmark catches up.

Some quotes from the man that inspired me to blog for him:

“Rudy Giuliani, probably the most under qualified man since George Bush to run for president…Rudy Giuliani?? I mean, think about it, There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence…a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” ~Joe Biden

On Bush comparing Barack Obama’s foreign policy to those who wished to appease the Nazis before World War II, Biden said “This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement. If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?”

I don’t know about you, but this is the type of backbone that the Democratic nominee is going to need should he overcome the myriad of 527 attack ads (a.k.a “The Wright Express”). Hell, he might even convince the DNC to give the Donkey a spine.

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

Please do not regard the title of this blog as some subtle inference to Ron Paul as the only candidate to take on the frigid Hillary Clinton. On the contrary, my point is to illustrate how the subject of Ron Paul in the MSM is just as tangential as Global Warming. Forget he’s the only republican candidate with the smarts and intestinal fortitude to challenge the conventional wisdom of his party; forget he’s belying his second-tier status by rasing funds at incredible speed (Ron Paul raised $5 million on a single day); and forget he’s the only republican candidate to have not only openly called for a withdrawal from Iraq, but explained the historic consequences of intervention commonly known as ‘blowback’.

Ron Paul shot to prominence at the Republican debate in South Carolina when he brilliantly cited the reasons as to the rise of Al-Queda. In response to a question on terrorism Ron Paul said, “Have you ever read about the reasons why they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there . . . we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Ron Paul furthered his assertion on the dangers that lie in unchecked interference by citing the CIA-backed overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran.

Boring, Mr. Paul! The MSM needs to know what you think of Brittany shaving her head!

Ron Paul’s ardent desire to focus on the issues and our political history is utter balderdash! He should be focusing on inventing new and improved ways of forming sentences that contain 9/11 if he ever wants to break through the hype. That Rudy is getting wall-to-wall coverage on Fox news, the network that makes Joseph Goebbels look like the BBC, isn’t the least bit shocking when he’s banging the Iran war drum like his second wife and drooling at the prospect of torture like a rabid pit bull. After all, he does have quite the relationship with Fox News president Roger Ailes, which, if I’m not mistaken, is deeper than one of his marriages. But how come the unusually scant coverage on the other networks? It’s time for the talking heads of MSM to stop fawning over the majority candidates and start giving equal coverage to lower-tier candidates with great ideas such as Ron Paul and Joe Biden. Although they belong to different parties and undoubtedly have diametrically opposed views on the issues, particularly on Foreign Policy, they both have what seems to be the vision, experience, and guts to lead our nation out of the crapper.

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

As tensions between Iran and the United States continue to rise over Iran’s alleged role in supplying sophisticated military weaponry to its proxy Shia fighters in Iraq, a diplomatic solution to Iran’s quest for nuclear power looks out of sight. In the past the Bush administration has assured us that while they’re not ruling out a military option, they have no intentions of invading or sending in planes to destroy its nuclear sites. It’s safe to say that their word means rubbish, as distrust from the Middle East–and to a lesser extent Europe–is at an all time high. Despite tangential threats emanating out of Washington as well as UN sanctions, Iran is speeding up the process of nuclear enrichment. So with a nuclear Iran ever the more likely, it’s time to consider some potential scenarios as a result of a nuclear Iran.

Consider this nightmarish scenario: The Saudis have gone nuclear. So have the Egyptians. Both countries had been signatories to the NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty), but that accord has now disintegrated. Riyadh and Cairo acquired their nuclear weapons from Pakistan, a Sunni ally, in response to the nuclear threat poised by Iran–a new MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) in the era of religious fundamentalism. At the same time, Iraq continues to explode, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far from settled, and Iranian proxies remain ensconced within Lebanon’s incendiary sectarian mix–a mix that pits Sunni against Shia and just so happens to exist along the Israeli border. A rested and renergized Al-queda–thanks to Bush pursuing a petty vendetta in Iraq– now have a new breeding ground within which to launch its terrorist operations. In short, all the key players in the Middle East–Sunni, Shia, Israeli–now has nuclear weapons at a moment when the simmering and, and in some cases, quite open conflicts between regions’ states, sects, and ethnicities are too innumerable to count.

The grim hypothetical just presented is intended not to give the Bush Administration casus belli–as many neocons owlishly looming the halls of the Pentagon so desperately want. Rather, it’s meant to demonstrate what very well could happen if Iran does succeed in acquiring nuclear weapons. Acting aggressively only seems to embolden Iran and scare its neighbors. Perhaps aggressive diplomacy, not of the EU kind, could play out better. With our military stretched beyond its limits in Iraq, an invasion would be sheer madness.

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

Five years after the United States internationally led effort to topple the Taleban, Afghanistan is paralyzed by an active insurgency and drug trafficking. Though thought to have been on the right track following the elections, Hamad Karzai’s freely elected government remains anything but that. Mr. Karzai is plagued daily with reports of suicide bombers killing innocent civilians and security personnel–a tactic growing more and more sophisticated. The security situation in the tribal regions of Afghanistan–the Helmund Provence especially– is a far cry from being stable. Because of the dire situation in Iraq, it’s becoming more and more difficult to send American army personnel, leaving the country with little hope of ever becoming fully stabilized.

With the 2008 election well off the ground, presidential contenders must tailor their foreign policy goals to include not only Iraq, the issue on all our minds, but also Afghanistan.

Enter Joe Biden.

Joe Biden has shown his in several speeches demonstrated his commitment to ending the war in Iraq the right way by offering his plan Iraq: A Way Forward–a plan designed to make Iraq a Republic. But he doesn’t stop there. In addition to outlining a clear-cut strategy to ending our involvement in Iraq, Joe Biden is also demanding that there are actions in Afghanistan, the real war.

“ That country is not lost says. It is on the brink of a major comeback by the Taliban, Al Queda, warlords and drug traffickers. Our necessary investment in blood and treasure risks being squandered — we need an infusion of military and economic assistance and a plan to wean that country away from drugs,” says the Delaware Senator.

In some way our foreign policy in Afghanistan during the 1979 Soviet invasion had serious consequences on future events, particularly the horrific events that took place on September 11th. It is therefore in our best national interest to choose someone, with the will and intellectual curiosity, to make sure that we never allow al-queda, or something like it, the breathing room to plan and mount an operation like 9/11. For that to happen we mustn’t allow the Taleban or Al-queda to once again take control of that country, and we certainly cannot do this with a leader who isn’t willing to listen.

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

 A great many of fellow democrats have expressed a lot of dismay over the Democrat’s decision to support a bill allocating $100bn (£50bn) of new funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of September. The bill is a compromise measure between Republicans and Democrats, after the Democrats dropped demands for a timetable for a US troop withdrawal. Now I would wholeheartedly agree with my fellow Dems if they had enough bipartisan support to overturn a presidential veto, but alas that simply wasn’t the case. If this were indeed true then I would be the first one to criticize them for ignoring Americans demands of ending this war at the polls back in November. As far as the classic Republican platitude of “not supporting the troops,” I would argue that by continuing to support a hopeless quagmire we are endangering the lives of every one of our fighting men and women, serving in a country in the midst of a full-blown civil war.

A total of 14 senators voted against the bill , including Senators Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Chris Dodd (if anyone even cares). Senator Joe Biden, the democratic candidate whom I have supported in previous columns, voted in favor of the bill for the same reasons I described in the previous paragraph.

While I agree with the assertion that the Democrats have failed miserably at showing gumption in the face of Republican bullying, I believe that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was off to a good start when he declared the war ‘lost’. What troubled me, however, was the total lack of debate that followed. The Democrats should’ve followed up with a heavy-handed explanation as to why the war was never winnable to begin with; thus, reframing the debate. Yet although the Saddam/Bin Laden theory has long been debunked, President Bush continues to justify his bloody quagmire as necessary in the war on terror-a phrase so vague as to be incomprehensible. Now, let’s pretend that we all have the memory of Alberto Gonzalez and forget that our invasion precipitated an al-queada presence in Iraq. Moreover, lets take it up a notch and forget that we have brainstems and pretend that Iraq poised a immanent danger to us and that it didn’t rank second in oil production…you follow? So Iraq is a cauldron of arab frustration, a supporter and breeder of terrorism with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden pulling the strings. Now do we assume that by invading Iraq and deposing its autocratic leader we are winning or have won the War on terror? Morever, do we think that the war on terror can be won in the first place?

What I’ve learned from reading experts and scholars on terrorism is that it isn’t a war at all, but rather a conflict with no decided outcome. Terrorism, in their view, can only be attenuated and lessened. Though if the primary objection of countering terrorism is the protection of democratic institutions, the rule of law, and uprooting undemocratic regimes, then it’s utter hypocrisy that we haven’t taken any action against Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and to a lesser a degree, Lukashenko of Belarus.

As someone who only worked as a field manager on a few national and senatorial campaigns, I obviously lack the power to influence the debate in Washington. It’s up to Democrats in control of capitol hill to start flexing a little muscle instead of always cowering in the heat of the moment.

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

Thomas Friedman, author of “The World is Flat” and Eminent Foreign Affairs Columnist for the New Yoirk Times, told Wold Blitzer that he feels Biden, as of now, appears to be the only candidate with a real vision for Iraq. While not officially endorsing Joe Biden, as it’s not allowed, Thomas Friedman clearly thinks highly of Senator Biden.  

Read excerpts below:

WOLF: Which candidate, Democrat or Republican, do you think has the most credibility when it comes about talking about what to do in Iraq?

FRIEDMAN: You know, I really would have a hard time rating any of them frankly, not up or down. We’re not allowed to endorse candidates as columnists.

WOLF: Don’t endorse any. But does Hillary Clinton, a Joe Biden, a John McCain…who really understands the issues there and comes to the table with a lot of knowledge?

FRIEDMAN: If you’re asking like right today, Wolf, the person I think who has been where I’ve been from the very beginning, seeing the potential, you know, that this could have for a positive outcome but really, really cautious and worried all the time, that if we weren’t doing it right is, Joe Biden.

I think Joe Biden has been on top of this from the very beginning. He was on top of the opportunity. He was on top of what stakes we needed or what we needed to do to get some chance of realizing that opportunity and he’s been on top of saying this isn’t working. So, if there’s anybody I felt in sync with since the very beginning I would say it’s Joe Biden.

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

Four years after the United States invaded Iraq, Iran is ascendant– partially due to high gas prices and regional hegemony, many in the region view the Americans in retreat, and Arab countries, their own feelings of impotence punctuated, are awash in sharpening sectarian currents that many blame the United States for exacerbating.

Iran has deepened its relationship with Palestinian Islamic groups, assuming a financial role once filled by Iraq, in moves it sees as defensive and the United States views as aggressive. In  Lebanon and Iraq, Iran is fighting proxy battles against the United States with funds, arms and ideology. And in the vacuum created by the U.S. overthrow of Iranian foes in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is powerfully exerting a prestige reminiscent of the heady days of the 1979 Islamic revolution, when Iranian clerics led the toppling of a U.S.-backed government. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s messianic and fiery leader, isn’t all that favorable at home however. Many Iranians, particularly its well-educated members, are increasingly troubled by his braggadocio and foreign extravagances.

It’s painstakingly obvious that the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has given rise to Shiite supremacy. At the core of the Shia resurgence lies a fiesty firebrand in Muquta Al Sadr, viewed by many as the legitimate ruler of Iraq. Prior to the invasion Mr. Muqtada’s Mahdi army was a but a small nuisance–with Sunni power well in tact. Now, the capricious cleric is perhaps the most influential person, with a large supply of adorning followers that routinely practice his militant anti-American message. Muquata is doing to Iraq what Hassan Nasrallah did to Lebanon more than twenty years ago when he formed Hezbollah following the Israeli invasion–a militant group that employs terrorism to resist Israel, which, not surprisingly, is on the State Department’s list of groups that sponsor and/or engage in terrorism. Like his predecessor in Iraq his fiery sermons drew the admiration of the uneducated and dispossessed. The only difference between the two is Mr. Nasrallah carved out a reputation on his own while Mr. Al Sadr came to prominence by riding the coattails of his father Mohammed Al Sadr.

After going into hiding in neighboring Iran so as to avoid being targeted in the Baghdad security drive–President George Bush’s vaunted “surge– that was just starting, he appears to have returned to vamp up his anti-American message. Many argue that the fervent leader is exploiting the cult-like dedication he inspires among his legion of mainly poor and uneducated Shia believers to evoke the image of the Shias’ “hidden imam” whose reappearance on earth is assumed to foretell an era of peace and justice, which is analogous in respects to premillenialism–in Christian eschatology is the belief that Christ will literally reign on the earth for 1,000 years after his second coming. Not surprisingly, in order for this occur conditions in the temporal must worsen; hence, politics is futile. This radical ideology is supported and entertained in America by such irrational madmen as Jerry Fallwell. This very radical and unthinking belief is the cornerstone of the ruling mullahs in Iran, so the very notion of appearing in Iraq is worrisome but inevitable.

So the question is will his return to Iraq sabotage American objectives and instigate a full-blown theocracy, or will it be quashed by American and Iraqi security forces. I’m afraid with Iraqi forces so helplessly inadequate and American forces overstretched and enervated, the former seems more likely.

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