No More Incumbents New Hampshire

Here we are, on the eve of the New Hampshire “First in The Nation” Primary. This is an exciting time to be registered as an Independent in the state. After almost a year of debates, interviews and press coverage, I feel that I’ve made an educated decision that represents my values and beliefs of who my President should be. I have chosen my party affiliation for the primary and a candidate I believe will ride the wave of New Hampshire’s support to his parties nomination.

Tonight at 12:01 a.m., residents across New Hampshire will begin casting their votes in the First In The Nation Primary. As usual, I intend to request the day off from work so that I can monitor the results as they occur, and of course dodge the “rush hour” voting.

As the New Hampshire primary inches closer, registered Independents such as myself (and others) are left with many decisions. Fortunately for Independent voters in this state, we are able to choose which primary we take part in and therein lies the first decision. Having watched almost every debate and countless hours of candidates stumping, I’ve absorbed quite a bit of information and disinformation. I could give you numerous reasons to vote or not vote for any candidate, but that isn’t the purpose of this article.

After an Independent voter in New Hampshire decides which affiliation they care to cast their vote for, they are then left with the decision of who to vote for. I’ve always considered myself as someone who trends libertarian on social issues while supporting a more conservative approach to foreign affairs. I, like many others, am against big government as well as the encroachment of government into my personal affairs, but hey, I’m from New Hampshire…

This primary season, Independent voters in New Hampshire have been the primary (no pun intended) target of candidates across the board.  Many Independents I have spoken to are still uncertain who they will vote for and, to a certain extent, which primary they will participate in. However, a common theme among Independents is a distrust of Giuliani, Clinton and Romney.

From this residents point of view, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if McCain and Obama win their parties support in New Hampshire. Remember John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” and John Kerry’s “Politics of Change” campaigns in New Hampshire in ‘04? I see some similarities there, do you? The real question is, will a victory in New Hampshire matter come February 5th?

As a New Hampshire resident, I’ve had the opportunity to meet almost all of the 2008 presidential candidates from both parties. Unfortunately, due to time constraints I have been unable to attend any town hall meetings or rallies, with the exception of the Obama rally in Concord on July 27^th, which I unwittingly drove through on my way to a commission meeting. According to the Obama campaign, I can be a part of something great if I vote Obama in 08. I, like so many others, am yet to make a decision on a candidate or even a party at this point because the candidates are keeping everything, except catchy sound bites, close to the vest.

I have to admit, seeing Fred Thompson enter the race this week has been an interesting experience for several reasons. The national news media seems to think that New Hampshire wont support a candidate who skips a local debate, I sometimes wonder if it is painful being that ignorant. The national news media also likes to state that Thompson is entering the race “extremely late”, well maybe for this presidential election, but historically most candidates announce their intent after Labor Day anyway. I’m getting off point and I apologize. New Hampshire is a state that relishes traditional values as well as good old-fashioned conservatism. Yes, this state can be considered a swing state in this election cycle, but I would never write off a candidate like Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. This state was built for a candidate like him, especially during such a tight Republican primary, where voters are looking for the conservative alternative to Giuliani and Romney.

Could Thompson have entered the debate this past week? Sure, but he made a decision to announce his candidacy on the world stage not the Whittemore Center in Durham New Hampshire. Besides, why would he want to leap into the frigid water of presidential primary politics with a formal debate when he could dip his toes in the shallow end and survey the arena? Personally, I think he made the correct decision and I look forward to the Republicans having a candidate who actually represents the conservative base instead of placating the party.

One more thing, if you haven’t noticed I’m not a big fan of the national media, I really enjoy how the cable news networks and affiliates claim that Fred Thompson has entered too late and will not be able to secure the nomination of the party when in the same breath the mention that he is currently second in those same polls, what kind of messages are they sending us anyway? I look forward to having the opportunity to accidentally bump into Fred Thompson and/or his campaign in the near future. Lets face it, this is New Hampshire and you can’t go anywhere without bumping into someone with presidential ambition these days.

I would like to begin with an apology to all of my readers who have been so callously neglected these last few months, but in true political spirit, I will place the blame upon circumstances instead of my own shoulders. You see, I have been quite busy building up a clientele for my latest professional venture as well as working with my fiancee to put the finishing touches on our wedding scheduled for Sept. 15th.

Other than an apology, the purpose of this posting is to help reaffirm my commitment to all of my faithful readers out here in the blogosphere. I pledge to blog in a concise manner on a consistent basis, covering a wide range of political issues that affect us all. I look forward to bringing you this New Hampshire residents views of the modern political landscape.

For the first time in nearly 27 years, the United States and Iran held high-level bilateral talks regarding diplomacy in Iraq. Though the details of these talks remain unclear, they offer a glimmer of hope that the fundamentalist regime and the United States can work out their differences through diplomatic means as opposed to full-scale confrontation.

The details of the meeting that were readily available Monday morning, relayed that the high-level envoys spoke only on matters related to Iraq. The U.S. Ambassador, Ryan Crocker insisted that the Iranian government reign in and cease the armament of the insurgency. The Iranian envoy, led by Hassan Kazemi Qomi, proposed a plan to implement a “trilateral security mechanism” that would involve U.S., Iranian and Iraqi contingencies to help secure the destabilized democratic state.

During the businesslike meeting in Baghdad, The Iranians laid out their Iraq policy, which Crocker said is “very similar to our own policy and what the Iraqi government have set out as their own guiding principles.” After the historic meetings, Crocker mentioned that the Iranians wished to hold future sessions. In response Crocker told reporters, “We will consider that when we receive it,” Crocker went further to say, “The purpose of this meeting was not to arrange other meetings.”

According to Hassan Kazemi Qomi, the Iranian envoy, the Iranian government had mentioned that Tehran was ready to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create “a new military and security structure.” The envoy didn’t offer an elaboration on the comment or the response, which the comment undoubtedly elicited, from Crocker.

There is a wide array of issues that these two nations need to discuss in order to solve the crisis in the region. Not only was this meeting a milestone, but also it is a testament to a renewed effort to resolve regional conflict through diplomacy instead of violence. There are many different issues on the table in regards to Iran and there are many more that will require skillful negotiation and moderation to resolve. Today we have taken the first step and tomorrow we must begin the process of finding a common ground in which to resolve our conflicts.

“We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will… The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded.” –Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1792.

Think about this for a minute, read this qoute and reread it if necesary. Obviously our nation was in an infantile state in 1792 and our intentions were pure. What are our intentions now? Someone please tell me the truth. I am familiar with the catch phrases, sloguns and sound bites, but who gave our government the power and knowledge to control other nations? Whose interest is that really in anyway? I believe we should look in the mirror and see to our flaws before we point out the flaws of another.

I watch the news and I saw a 91 year old man, a WW2 Veteran, get beaten and car-jacked while 6 or 7 people stood by watching. Not one of those people stepped in to help this old man, they watched as he was struck in the face over and over again. I suppose you could call this an isolated incident. What about things we see in our own lives? Does anyone hold an elevator for you, does anyone hold a door open anymore, do people go out of their way to avoid eye contact, will people even let you merge onto the highway? We are living in a “what’s in it for me” society. I’m not saying everyone is like this, but a lot of people are. I’m an American and am oftentimes ashamed of what I see on a daily basis. I guess you can call it an erosion of values or a byproduct of the type of society we live in, either way you have to aknowledge it.

It is difficult to accept fault or claim responsibility for our actions sometimes, regardless of the situation. Whether or not we can own up to it, we really have screwed up our image in the eyes of the world. At some point our nation did something to offend folks in the Middle East. Whether it was distasteful foreign policy in the form of interventionist strategy, arming sectarian militias, stationing troops on holy soil or displaying greed on a scale Caeser would have envied, our actions have caused blowback. That blowback goes further back than 9/11 or the original trade center bombing. The blowback is the legacy of intertwining our interests in feuds that have been raging since long before our nation breathed the free air.

We are well beyond the point of return in regards to Thomas Jefferson’s altruistic beliefs. America is a proud nation, so proud in fact that we would continue to fight a losing battle rather than walk away. That is our weakness and that is why we fail. It is so important that this next generation of American’s learn from our predescessors and never repeat the dreadful mistakes their choices wrought. The only special interest need be ours. The time is now, become active in the system, write your representatives, demand action, back up your words with your actions.

After watching the GOP debate on the 3rd as well as the Democratic debate on the 26th of last month, it occurred to me that the “lower tier” candidates received not only the most favorable response, but also had the most practical solutions to the issues. Granted, candidates like Kucinich, Gravel and Paul have been labeled as radicals by their parties and aren’t the smooth polished politicians who rely exclusively on their brand name and the blindness of a nation that believes there are only two parties, and therefore only two choices.

Prior to viewing the debates, I was hard pressed to find a candidate in the field who had the ability to earn my vote. Having read many newspapers and watching the network news just days before the events, there was little to no coverage about anyone except the “top tier” (some of whom don’t even have experience) candidates. I was pleased to see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would be present at the debates because they represent a portion of the country that is beginning to wake up to the business as usual politics that is in place in America.

Some time in the last few decades, the Democrats have drifted away from the left and closer to the right, whereas the GOP has drifted so far to the right that now the Democrats are a “conservative” party. Due to this paradigm shift, folks like Kucinich, Paul and Lieberman have been disenfranchised from their parties and even, to a certain extent, marginalized. What I find interesting is that these candidates (Kucinich and Lieberman) enjoy incumbency at the state level, but are yet to harness national support. I believe their time may be coming. If you examine the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, Democrats claim to have lost the elections due to the Independent candidate stealing a substantial portion of their constituency. Is this Independent threat really just a resurgence of moderate values, ideals?

Since the 2000 elections there has been a significant emphasis on internet campaigning to reach out to an “untapped” constituency. I believe this “untapped” constituency represents an undercurrent in America. This constituency, I believe, will bring the two parties closer to their original mandates due to their Independent views. If the Democratic Party meant what they said in 2000 about the Independent voters, then they will surely try to secure the vote of the aforementioned. It would appear that they are trying to appeal to Independents due to their assault on the internet with cyber campaigns. I don’t believe Independents will surrender their prerogative for mainstream support; they are too educated of a constituency. After being marginalized for so long and only recently gaining legitimacy these voters will likely never support a “top tier” Dem. or GOP candidate, and who can blame them.

With the results and experience of the 2006 elections, it is obvious that America herself is ready for a change. Currently, our government isn’t representing its citizens. Our government has forgotten those whom it represents and instead favors foreign nations, special interest groups and artificial entities a.k.a. big business. We need to reeducate ourselves and take our government back.

How do we do this? First, we make our candidates earn our vote. You do an incredible disservice to your country by casting your vote blindly or by voting based on public perception. Would you let random people in your city hold dominion over you? Second, encourage everyone you meet to become active in the election process. By active I mean, registered and ready to make an educated decision. Don’t let MSNBC or FOX or the New York Times make the decision for you. You know as well as I do they are all big corporations who will stop at nothing to push their agenda, don’t be guided by propaganda.

In my travels this week, I have talked with a number of college students who aren’t registered to vote. What I came to find was that this “untapped” constituency felt disenfranchised and grossly apathetic. What is worse is that many of these students didn’t even know how to register to vote and that some thought they had registered when they signed up for selective service at age 18. How did this happen to these kids? Many of them claim that their parents and teachers never explained the process to them. What’s worse is that instead of explaining the process their parents instead instilled an apathetic vision of government being self-serving and partisan. I guess it’s funny (the apathy) because it is true, at least to a certain extent.

Regardless, I encourage anyone who isn’t registered to change this country to go out and sign up today. It doesn’t take much; most states allow online voter registration. If your state doesn’t offer online registration (NH), then take a short trip over to your town hall with the proper identification (license, soc. security card, pay stub or immunization record) and sign up. Show those folks in Washington that you’re tired of politics as usual and that you are ready for change. I don’t care whom you vote for, just that you make an educated decision and that you do.

The Republican Party will send their brightest stars and distant quasars to California’s Reagan Library to debate why they, instead of Democrats, should determine the drumbeat of the nation. Looking at the lengthy list of candidates, this debate will most likely mirror last weeks “debate”. Lets face it; nobody is going to go after anybody this early in the season. If you are coming into this looking for a knockout punch, you are going to be disappointed. With that said lets take a quick peak at the GOP candidates in tonight’s debate.

With any debate there are the top tier candidates such as Giuliani, McCain and Romney, who merely need to have a pulse and this “debate” will be a success. The only way for any of these candidates to blunder tonight will be to agree with anything Ron Paul says. Lets face it; nobody likes an extremist no matter which side they are coming from. Besides in our apathetic Paxil controlled nation we are submissive and easily steered and controlled through fear, so who better than a candidate who will scare the hell out of us at every turn.

The middle of the GOP pack is extensive, filled out with the likes of Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, Thompson and Dark Lord Sauron. The reason I put Lord Sauron in the list is because he has just as good a chance as the rest of the middle tier candidates. These candidates hold many similarities to their top tier counterparts, but due to their lack of star power they can expect to fall by the wayside as the debate process rolls on. Much like the Democratic debate last week, I would expect the middle tier candidates to have the strongest performance but yield the lowest numbers. It’s a shame, and it is likely to leed this country to ruin, but Americans love a brand name. 

Moving right along, I’d like to introduce the “fodder” of tonight’s debate. I have absolutely nothing against Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore, in fact I enjoy Ron Paul’s candor. As for Jim Gilmore, I never heard of him until I researched material for this article. I would expect for Paul and Gilmore to make a few “outrageous” statements and get the most applause. These two might even be the best candidates, but they aren’t popular enough to harness the mainstream support they will need to move forward in this “democratic” process.

In conclusion, lets take a look at the GOP candidates for tonight’s debate and their do’s and don’ts:

• Rudy Giuliani - Do’s - Stay on point - Don’ts - Wear a dress
• John McCain  - Do’s - Agree with everyone except Ron Paul - Don’ts - Praise Bush
• Mitt Romney - Do’s - Get your name out there - Don’ts - Say Reagan Excessively
• Sam Brownback - Do’s - Mention record - Don’ts - Lose the bible
• Mike Huckabee  - Do’s - Tell the truth - Don’ts - Bitch about the administration
• Duncan Hunter  - Do’s - Have a good lunch - Don’ts - Waste your time
• Tom Tancredo - Do’s - Who are you? - Don’ts - Who are you?
• Tommy Thompson - Do’s - Wear a red tie - Don’ts - Wear a yellow tie
• Jim Gilmore - Do’s - Drop out - Don’ts - Stay in
• Ron Paul - Do’s - Stir the drink - Don’ts - Play the game with the politicians
• Dark Lord Sauron - Do’s - Get the ring - Don’ts - Be distracted by Aragorn while Frodo and Samwise destroy the ring inside Mount Doom.

The GOP debate begins tonight on MSNBC at 8pm Eastern from the Reagan Library in sunny California.

Well, the countdown is on, just look at MSNBC they even have a timer. The first debate is scheduled this evening in South Carolina between the Democratic primary contenders and it promises to be a highbrow event. The debate, moderated by NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, has been billed as an opportunity for lesser known candidates to present their platforms and get a little face-time before being fed into the Hillary / Obama / Edwards wood chipper.

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson will all participate in this evenings debate, and it will be interesting to see how candidates such as Richardson, Dodd and my personal favorite Kucinich will fare. I have been watching various news outlets this afternoon and the feeling is that everyone except Hillary and Obama stand to gain from this debate. I think Hillary is up shit creek, I believe Americans are fed up with the Bush’s and Clinton’s after almost 20 years of their leadership. As for Obama, he has his record against the war to go on (which promises to be a hot topic this evening), but his lack of experience compared to the other candidates may be his undoing.

Edwards, currently third, looks to have a distinct advantage during tonight’s debate. Not only is Edwards in his home state, but also he has a sort of Sanjaya Malakar charm about him, which should help him move on to Hollywood…err Washington. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have similar disadvantages in this debate. They will both be competing for airtime and will likely have to force their way into the debate. If anyone is familiar with the Massachusetts gubernatorial debate last year between Kerry Healy and Deval Patrick, their was a Green Party candidate (Grace Ross) and an Independent (Christy Mihos) who were present for two of the three debates and it was all they could do to get a word in. Both Healy and Patrick didn’t even address them in the debate, this is what I expect from the big three tonight.

Gravel and Richardson are likely to experience the redheaded stepchild treatment as well this evening, but whoever is next to Kucinich will get quite a bit of face-time. Kucinich is always an entertaining candidate and promises to deliver again with his impeach Dick Cheney stance, his position on the war as well as the Patriot Act. I can’t wait for the attack dog to lunge at Clinton and Obama.

Fairly unbalanced Faux News announced they would co-host a debate in Nevada with the states Democratic Party, it is unclear which candidates will attend, (if any) seeing as though Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and not a legitimate news channel. Not that MSNBC is much better, but at least they only have one Olberman.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch announced last week that he stands in support of a bill that would guarantee civil unions in the Granite State. It is still unclear whether or not Lynch will sign the legislation quietly or create a spectacle in Concord when the legislation reaches his desk. There have been many questions raised in regards to when a legal challenge to the legislation will begin, due to the complex issues that arise concerning employment benefits, adoption rights and legal issues.

Gov. Lynch’s decision to sign this legislation will undoubtedly disturb many folks in New Hampshire. This state is definitely not Vermont or Massachusetts we are not liberal here. Granted, New Hampshire has become a swing state due to the bungling Bush policies of the last 6 years. Gov. Lynch needs to realize we are not California, we may have voted for change in 2006, but we didn’t vote to abandon a value system that has been in place since the founding of our country.

Personally, I do not give a damn what people do in their bedrooms, and as far as I’m concerned; equality means everyone is equal no matter what. I guess I am indifferent when it comes to civil unions, I just don’t see what the big deal is. There are many folks, which would be more than happy to argue over an “erosion of values” or would be too quick to cite an aversion to traditional law. Nevertheless, this is a sticky, complex topic and it will no doubt bring folks who are passionate over the issue from both sides. It should be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next few weeks.