Elf Yourself!

Looking for an escape from the end of the semester/finals week?

Elf Yourself!

Going along with the Christmas spirit...

Spokane, Washington, public schools, in an effort to be inclusive, left out the holiday that is essentially the reason for the holiday season: Christmas. What was included? Well, Hanukkah, Human Rights Day, winter break, Eid al-Adha (the Islamic holy day), Kwanzaa, and the first day of winter. But no Christmas.

Just as a side note:

Huckabee is supposedly "booming." Well, let's look at Real Clear Politics:

Iowa: The average has Huckabee up only .2 points. Three out of five polls have Romney leading, with two out of five with Huckabee ahead.

New Hampshire: The average has Romney up by nearly 15 points. Huckabee is fourth, with one poll showing him in third and two polls showing him in fifth place. Romney leads in every poll.

Florida: Huckabee and his team are saying that he is now second in Florida. However, the average has Giuliani up just over 14 points. Huckabee is only in second according to one out of three polls, while Romney is in second in two. Giuliani leads in every poll.

Book Reviews...

First: Media Politics: A Citizen's Guide by Shanto Iyengar and Jennifer McGrady of Stanford University.


With the 2008 primary elections quickly approaching, the subject of the media's role in political campaigns is in the back of many minds. And if it's not, it should be. It doesn't matter if a candidate has a strong message unless the candidate has a good media strategy. Consider Fred Thompson - he has what he Opinion Journal argues is "more ambitious than anything we've seen so far from the rest of the GOP field." He wants to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, cut the corporate income tax, and implement a voluntary flat tax. That's right- a voluntary flat tax. Did you know this? I didn't. Why? Because Thompson doesn't have an adequate media machine like Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. (it's also partially because Thompson doesn't articulate his plans during debates; he focuses on attacking the frontrunners).

Anyway, the book tells it like it is: for a candidate to win an election, he or she must have a good public image. Unfortunately, this results in candidates and elected officials being preoccupied with public image instead of giving straightforward answers.

The book also touches on the media's tendency to gloss over their mistakes (i.e.: WMD's in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's involvement in the 9/11 attacks).

For more information on the book, read the transcript from an online discussion with Shanto Iyengar.

Next: Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler.


In case you aren't familiar with what constitutes a "networked economy," think of Facebook and its applications- though the applications are Facebook applications, they are made by users, not by Facebook itself. It is the value added by the users in the form of applications that exemplifies a networked economy.

One of the main points of this book is that networked economies cannot be treated like traditional economies.

Furthermore, Benkler talks about the power of the internet to allow everyone to have their say (and be heard) and claims this is indeed a good thing after years of dealing with top-down, centralized media in which the user has no real way to contribute.

To show how dedicated Benkler is to the cause of networked economies, as well as the "creative commons," he has allowed his book to be edited by readers. Visit the book's wiki by clicking here.

You Tube Debate: Mismanaged and Unproductive

Democrats run away from a Fox News hosted debate because of "bias" but Republicans participate in a CNN You-Debate hosted by none other than Anderson Cooper in which proponents of Hillary, Barack and John Edwards are chosen to ask questions of the Republicans. Does this sound right to you? Why aren't republican voters chosen as question-askers? It is the republican primary the candidates are campaigning for after all.

Oh, and then you have Anderson Cooper and CNN not doing the slightest bit of research on the questioners... Major Garrett reported on Fox this morning that a simple Google search tells you that the democratic questioners are supporting the respective candidates. Hmm.




And then there's the fist-fight that almost broke out.

Did anyone else notice that when Huckabee wanted to respond to Romney's accusations and ask Romney to allow him a chance to respond, Romney let him. But when it Romney's turn to respond, Huckabee wouldn't let him finish. Interesting.

And as for those of you who think Romney just says what will get him elected or that he doesn't answer the questions... let me remind you of this:

1. Huckabee constantly refers to his Christianity
2. Rudy's answers always come back to:
"George Will said I ran the most conservative government" (too bad the American Conservative Union endorsed Romney)
"I cut taxes 23 times"
"crime went down"
and "9/11."
3. Fred Thompson's wife is really the one running
4. Duncan Hunter only talks about the fence he built
5. Tom Tancredo focuses on immigration
6. McCain relies on his military service
7. Ron Paul is all about pulling the troops out of Iraq

Oh, and when Romney responded to the ad by Thompson, Romney at least gave a humble answer: "I was wrong." And he expanded to say that when it came time to make executive decisions about matters of life, that was when he sided with life. Not when he decided to run for president.

Anyway, the candidates have to say what they want to say during the short amount of time they have to say it because there are too many people running. Half of the candidates on the stage (Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo, McCain) shouldn't be wasting our time. If there were less people participating in the debates, there would be more time for substantive answers to the question at hand.

Oh, and why were Giuliani and Thompson placed in the middle? Does CNN not know that Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney are the 3 leaders?

Finally...

As I've been saying for a good while now, if any other Republican candidate was leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and doing well in South Carolina, he would be considered the frontrunner. However, because it is Mitt Romney who is in this position, the GOP nomination is considered "wide open," or narrowed down to Rudy, Romney and Huckabee.

Why?

Because Mitt Romney hasn't polled well in national polls and he has very little name recognition especially when compared to Rudy.

But...

National polls don't mean anything. They don't take into account the electoral college... they disregard the fact that a candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular vote. In the primary the early states are incredibly important, which is why the candidates focus their time and money campaigning in them.

Anyway, the Talking Points Memo has an article on an "epiphany" the writer had about how well Romney is doing.

Face it, Rudy is really only doing well in Florida, Thompson is wasting his time campaigning in states where the primary isn't so important and McCain, well, there's been a lot of talk about his resurgence but he had his time as the frontrunner (way back when before the presidential campaigns really got started).

Oh, and Huckabee? The TPM says, "We've given a lot of editorial attention to Huckabee's surge in Iowa and the consequences it could have for Romney. I still believe that. But the graph makes pretty clear that the issue is Huckabee's surge, not any drop off in Romney's support. He's still rising, albeit at a slower pace. And that may simply be due to the fact that in a large field it gets harder to keep up the rate of increase in support as you near 30% of the total."

The italicized sentence is really important and something that no one has touched upon when talking about Huckabee's performance in Iowa.

On the Democratic side in Iowa, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes Obama is going to prevail. My question: why do we even care what Gingrich says? He was the Speaker during the 1994 Republican "revolution" and he's written a few books, but his place is in policy-making, not in election-predicting.

On an ending note, it seems that the American public's view of the military effort in Iraq has become more positive over the last few months...

Does anyone think anymore?

2 things...

1. Selective Pregnancy Reduction (aka abortion) is the thing to do when you decide you have the right to play God. If you get pregnant by "accident" and decide the baby's life is not worth having (even though adoption is always an option), remember this phrase and you'll feel better about yourself and your ability to have a choice.

2. John Howard, former PM of Australia and Bush-ally, lost his re-election bid. So, should liberals be jumping up and down for joy? Not really since the new PM, Kevin Rudd, is likely to follow Howard's foreign policy route. In a summary of the election, Time writes:

"A vote for Rudd was a vote for someone new. But not too different. Cartoonists drew Rudd as a mini-Howard. A satirical video on YouTube cast the Chinese-speaking Labor leader as Chairman Mao, with subtitles reading: “Rudd unnerve decrepit Howard with clever strategy of ’similar difference.’” Rather than attacking Howard’s strengths, Rudd appropriated them. “I am not a socialist,” Rudd insisted. “I am an economic conservative.” On issue after issue, from federal intervention in dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, to national security, to the expansion of coal and uranium mining, Rudd adopted the government’s line."

More importantly:

"On Iraq, Rudd has moderated Labor's earlier "pull-out-now" policy. He says he will bring home the 1,400 Australian troops in Iraq and the Gulf gradually, in a "negotiated, staged withdrawal." He is prepared to send more troops to Afghanistan."

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008 is becoming more and more interesting...

I've reported on the Democratic boycott of Florida and I've gotten some feedback from people (both from FL and not from FL) saying that I've been too harsh on the democratic presidential candidates and whatever else.

Well...

The Miami Herald has a story on the latest Mason Dixon Florida poll. The poll contains a lot of information but in general election match-ups...

Rudy Giuliani beats Hillary by 7 points.
Fred Thompson beats Hillary by 4 points.
Mitt Romney beats Hillary by 1 point.

Most interesting, though, is that more independents (54%, 47% and 45% respectively) selected the Republican candidate over Hillary.

Why? The Democratic boycott of Florida.

26% of independents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who "refuses to campaign in Florida in advance of the primary in order to placate voters in Iowa and New Hampshire."

According to the Sunshine Independents Blog, more than 2 million Floridians (19% of Florida voters ) are registered as independents. So, if 2 million independents vote, then roughly 520,000 of them would vote for the Republican candidate only because of the boycott. That's a lot more than the 527 votes that won Florida, and ultimately the presidency, for George W. Bush in 2000.

In 2004 John Kerry received 54% of independent votes to Bush's 41%. In 2000, 47% of independent voters marked their ballots for Al Gore while 46% voted for Bush. As stated earlier in this post, the independents are already leaning more toward Giuliani, Romney and Thompson than Hillary although the Democrat has won the majority of independent votes in Florida in the past 2 presidential elections.

Looks like Florida will play a key role in the presidential election once again.

Oh yeah, the relatively newly elected democratic Congress is setting new records. According to Gallup: "By historical standards, the current [congressional] 20% approval rating is among the lowest Gallup has ever recorded. In fact, in the 173 times since 1974 that Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing, Congress' approval rating has been at or below 20% only four times."

Again, the independents play a role here as only 14% of them approve of the current Congress. That's lower than th 20% of republicans that approve.

President Bush's approval rating is at 32% with 27% of independents approving of his job performance.

Please explain...

How anyone could believe that the "rights" granted to foreigners by the constitution of the United States of America should come before the lives of Americans. !!!




Someone over at the Daily Kos would rather Americans die so that foreigners could reap the benefits of the US Constitution.

"Here's the reality. Even if it was sure to be lost in a terrorist attack today, my life is not worth the Constitution. The life of my child, is not worth the Constitution. The life of hundreds -- thousands -- is not worth setting aside the rights ensured to us by the Constitution. Because setting aside the Constitution is a defeat greater than any that can be delivered to us by any instrument of terror or war."
This is in reference to Chris Dodd's statement that National Security comes before human rights. This blogger doesn't agree. The blogger is referring to Bush's "illegal" war.

Except, the US Constitution serves to protect the American people...


The blogger furthers this outlandish post by stating:


" We no longer read [National Security] as the end of the nation itself, but as encompassing any threat -- any possible threat -- to any one of that nations' three hundred million residents. That's not "national security," that's national fear. We're not facing the possible end of the nation in rebellion and riot, we're not even facing about the certain knowledge of impending attack. We're talking about setting aside the rights enshrined in the Constitution against only the possibility of attack. If you search your dictionary, I believe you will find that to be the very definition of cowardice, and no one willing to make that trade deserves to utter the oath listed above."


In the time of war (which was arguably declared on the US by the 9/11 attacks), national security is NOT something to be taken lightly. Instead of praising the President for his dedication to protecting this nation and its people from another 9/11 (which he most likely has in the past few years), this person has the nerve to call President Bush a coward.

All of you who agree with this or believe that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008 because of this take on national security, I ask you why you think the majority of Americans would rather die than have the President protect the nation? With the issue of illegal immigration such a hot topic and people being sick and tired of sanctuary cities and illegals receiving benefits that should be saved for AMERICANS, why on earth would something like this ever, EVER go over with the American people?


And I noticed that no one answered my previous question: What has President Bush done to those of you who dislike him so much?

Apparently I'm Immoral.

Good Morning America's Bill Weir thinks that it is a "moral imperative" to believe that humans are the cause of global warming and that people need to "err on the side of planetary survival."

Besides all of the rhetoric, this questions the morality of those who don't buy into Al Gore's global warming crisis idea.

Have we forgotten that in the 1970's it was global cooling (please visit the link to read all about it) that was the problem and that these cooling fearmongers were proposing melting ice caps to solve the problem. And by the way, the 1975 article I have provided a link to is in the same magazine that hired the mind behind the Daily Kos (a person who has no real American political experience and merely sits behind a computer and complains about conservatives all day).

Partisan Politics and the Desire for '08

1. Push polling? on religion nonetheless? Despicable. However, I think this shows that Romney is the Republican candidate to beat in the primaries despite the nonsense floating about the media that the R primary is "wide open." If it was anyone else leading by the margins Romney is in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire as well as topping the polls in Michigan and Nevada, they would be deemed the frontrunner. But, because Giuliani is leading in national polls (which, by the way, mean NOTHING), and Mike Huckabee is "gaining momentum," which he really isn't, it's been decided there is no frontrunner. Any what's the real reason behind this? Conservatives are so concerned with beating Hillary (the perceived Dem frontrunner), they'll sell out their values and throw support behind the winnable candidate. Well, this can only hurt the Republican party in the long run. Maybe we should focus on spreading the message of conservatism and its benefits instead of attacking the Democrats. I'm disappointed.

2. On a lighter note, Dave reported on "Swiftkids for Truth" videos. They're actually pretty entertaining, even though they are also part of what makes people aversive of politics. Here's the video on Hillary:



3. Speaking of Hillary, Liz reported on the female McCain supporter who referred to Hillary in a very derogatory way. While I agree that elected officials should be respected, a least a little, I think Joy Behar on The View was a little ridiculous about this occurrence. Okay, she likes Hillary. Well the McCain supporter didn't. Joy doesn't like President Bush- the PRESIDENT! But it's okay for Joy to talk in an insanely defamatory way about the PRESIDENT on national television would be but it's not okay for a citizen to express her point of view? Where's all the freedom of speech talk? Amazing. And again, what should McCain do? He didn't say anything. Do the producers of The View have to apologize for Joy's comments? No. Not even when so attacks religion by saying that prayer is a distraction. Seriously...

4. Media Matters for America got all upset because the Politico and CNN's Costello reported that the Democratic leadership in Congress is 0 for 40 when it comes to doing something policy-wise on the Iraq war. Okay, so they were able to pass legislation, just for it to be vetoed. They probably knew it would be vetoed- and this is just another part of their political game in which they strive to show that President Bush, and therefore Republicans in general, are awful and shouldn't be elected in 2008. Seriously- part of being a good leader, and especially a good legislature, is to be able to get things accomplished. Not just passing legislation for it to not come to fruition. You may say the this is just rhetoric for me to say that it's the Democrats playing politics. Well- they are. Not only are they recessing early, they've been wasting time trying to reignite the Fairness Doctrine and impeach Dick Cheney and hold votes of no confidence regarding Bush administration officials. Well, there are more important things, such as MAKING SURE AMERICANS DON'T DIE IN ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK. But no, they'd rather waste time and blame everything on Pres. Bush and Republicans. Secretary Gates has said he will have to layoff people in the Army and Marines and cease operations at Army bases. DURING A WAR? This is a huge weakness - thanks to Democrats who won't just suck it up and provide the troops the money they need without the pork programs. They claim the surge isn't working - a lot of reports have come out about this being the deadliest year. Well, in case you forgot/didn't know, after the surge we had a HUGE decrease in deaths. Oh, but let's leave that part out and then claim that conservatives refuse to put things in context. Okay. And then, let's use this to not pass funding for the war so that Osama Bin Laden, who isn't a real threat anyway, will see this as a big weakness and plan more attacks on us. Oh but wait, we shouldn't err on the side of caution- this isn't a serious threat. We don't know terrorists and Islamofascists are out to get us. Seriously?!!! The democrats want so badly to win the presidency in '08 that they are willing to put us in danger and then blame it on President Bush. They've already said that they are going to make the '08 election about Pres. Bush's presidency.

What did he ever do to any of you who despise him so much?

Basically, I'm so tired of all the partisan politics and political games on both sides. However, the Dems, with their majority in Congress, are putting us in danger. And this is NOT okay.

The Interplay of Influence

So, another book I had to read for class is called The Interplay of Influence. Unlike the others, this is an actual textbook. So, obviously, it is inherently a little less engaging and interesting. However, the subject isn't geometry or chemistry, so it receives a few bonus points.

Anyway, the three main topics are advertising, news media and politics. Basically, the book talks about how the mass media work and the power it has. It also touches upon the significance of the internet. Nothing really new, but interesting nonetheless.

One particularly interesting claim is that "the primary function of the mass media is to attract and hold large audiences for advertisers." If you think about it, this isn't such an outlandish statement. One 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl is going to cost nearly $4 million for the 2008 spectacle. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Super Bowl is so heavily promoted as a "must see" event? Football in general is a telegenic sport in which commercial breaks fit in well with timeouts and whatnot.

So, here's a classic Super Bowl ad... only aired once in its original format.

Daily Kos Continues to Leave Out Important Numbers

Everytime a new Presidential Approval Rating comes out the Daily Kos reports it and, of course, adds its own commentary about how awful and stupid and [fill in the blank] President Bush is. Today the Daily Kos was quick to report that President Bush is the "most unpopular President -- EVER!" This, mind you, cites ONE polling company (Gallup) and, while I'm not disputing that Americans aren't pleased with the President, leaves out another important statistic: the Congressional approval rating.


Real Clear Politics, which averages the various results, reports that the current approval rating is 24%, with a disapproval rating of 64.5%.

President Bush's RCP approval rating average is 34%, with a disapproval rating of 60.2%.

64% is Bush's highest disapproval rating, but 70% is Congress's highest disapproval rating.
36% is Bush's highest approval rating, but 28% is Congress's highest approval rating.

Let's take some other things into consideration:

1. President Bush is not running for re-election. He can't. And he's already said that his legacy will be determined not now but many years from now, as most legacies are. The Dems, however, are running for re-election (in terms of keeping the majority in Congress).

2. President Bush has been in office for 7 years. The Dems have been in charge for less than one year.

I'm not going to make any claims about what this all means, you can think about that for yourself. However, (and this is especially meant for all of you who cry out for 'context') think about the situations surrounding these numbers, not just the numbers themselves. Same thing goes for national poll numbers for Presidential elections. They don't really mean anything because, as all of you should remember from 2000, it's not the plurality of people's votes that matters, its the electoral votes that get a President elected.

Here's an endorsement you don't hear much of: Borat likes "Barack Obamas"



Q: Who do you favor for President in the United States?

A: "I cannot believe that it possible a woman can become Premier of US and A - in Kazakhstan, we say that to give a woman power, is like to give a monkey a gun - very dangerous. We do not give monkeys guns any more in Kazakhstan ever since the Astana Zoo massacre of 2003 when Torkin the orang-utan shoot 17 schoolchildrens. I personal would like the basketball player, Barak Obamas to be Premier."

Book Review: Unleashing the Ideavirus

Unleashing the Ideavirus is another book that wants to change the face of marketing, it's relatively entertaining yet isn't groundbreaking.

Author Seth Godin wants products and services to be treated as though they are humans... or computer viruses. Basically, he wants us to market products to each other by using the "word of mouse."

Godin says that "the future belongs to marketers who establish a foundation and process where interested people can market to each other... Ignite consumer networks and then get out of the way and let them talk."

He presents 3 significant groups related to unleashing the virus:

1. Sneezers: those who can best spread the "virus"
2. Hives: populations in which the "virus" is willingly received
3. Smoothness: the ease with which sneezers are able to spread the "virus" through a "hive"

And, to explicate his idea, Godin uses real-world examples including Napster and Hotmail.



As I was reading this, I kept thinking about elections. What do the political candidates/parties want its supporters to do? Go door to door, make phone calls, "spread the word." This is exactly what Godin is proposing. Does it work? Sometimes. Should it replace marketing as we know it? I don't think so.

Which do you think has worked better (before 2006): Karl Rove's pinpointing marketing strategy or "spreading the word"?

I think Godin's marketing plan is a great supplement to traditional marketing, and it may even reduce the amount of traditional marketing. However, I personally don't see this strategy working for everything.

Taxes...

The New York Times' David Leonhardt wrote an article called "Plain Truth about Taxes and Cuts." In this, he poses the question, "How important is it to let people keep the money that they earn?"

What?!!!

He's talking about relieving the middle class's "economic anxiety" and wonders how important it is for people to keep the money they earn???

Last time I checked, it's very important.

Not only is taxing legalized theft, it can hurt the people Mr. Leonhardt seems to be concerned for: the people who need the money.

He talks about how the tax rates on the rich have been falling in recent history... but he even points out that they pay (all together) at a tax rate of 30%. Yes, you can say "well they don't need it," but I stand by my statement that taxing (read: taking money from one person to give it to another) is legalized theft.

Don't get me wrong- I know we need taxes for the country to survive... especially for things, such as defense, that benefit everyone. However, I think it's a ridiculous argument to say that we are spending too much on the war and not enough on social programs. This is based entirely on the fact that the defense of this country (ex: the war- whether you agree with it or not) benefits everyone. (I know many of you will want to bring up stories of soldiers and Iraqi citizens dying because of an "illegal" war- which it is not, but that's for another day, however- you may be forgetting that Pres. Bush has probably stopped many attacks on this country... attacks we don't know about for our own sake). So, like or not, President Bush is our commander-in-chief and therefore he gets to decide what is best for our country in terms of defense (which, I emphasize, benefits everyone). You may not think he knows what he's doing and you may even think that he is crazy, but he's still the re-elected President. However, federal funding for social programs only benefits a certain segment of the population.




Mr. Leonhardt claims that the Medicare budget is a "much bigger" problem than social security. Granted, Medicare is facing financial a huge financial crisis, but doesn't he know that the SS "money" is actually a bunch of IOU's in a warehouse? The Social Security system faces a $13.4 trillion shortfall- a number that can only grow larger because of the "pay as you go" system. Basically- my generation will most likely never see what the government has taken out of our paychecks for social security. So we're paying for other people to retire yet we have no help from the government. Great. (I could go on and on... but I'll stop here) He also says that the Medicare budget problem "could be held in check if the government figured out how to say no to some expensive medical procedures." Umm... isn't it the "expensive medical procedures" that most people need help paying for?

Just to clarify- I'm not against helping people. I myself give blood very often, I've volunteered with the United Cerebral Palsy organization, I've volunteered for Meals-on-Wheels over summers and on Thanksgiving, and the list can continue. I just don't think the government has the right to dictate what cause my money helps to further. Not to mention that most of the federal social programs have serious problems.

In an ideal world- social government programs would help the people that really, desperately need help. In the real world, the people who need the help don't get it or they abuse the system. (Trust me, I have many stories of this- like people with children spending the money they are given by social programs to fix their un-livable houses to go on trips to Disney World. So basically- the money that is taken from our pockets is given to people who blow it on stuff they DON'T need and then expect more money from us ... does this sound right to you?)

Oh, and this would be a good time to say that I don't like the FairTax idea.

I like this one.

Halloween Post

What's your Halloween candy personality?

Going along with the Halloween theme...

Want to dress up as something scary this Halloween? Well apparently you have 2 choices: Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani.

...or... .


Or better yet:

...or...

You Don't Wanna Mess With the President!

Just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean I can't make fun of them!

In other news, I'm sure many of you heard about Mitt Romney's "Obama-Osama gaffe." But, have you seen this video?

Ted Kennedy confuses Obama with Osama


And another video for your viewing pleasure:

You Don't Want it From the President


And, of course, I have to report that only one Democrat running for President showed up to Florida's Democratic Convention.

Reuter's reports: "The Democratic Party's convention in Florida during the weekend was like a rock concert performed solely by warm-up bands."

"This would be the least exciting (convention) in 30 years, the least encouraging," said a noticeably deflated, long-time Democratic conventioneer Alice Long Owens of St. Augustine, Florida.

This convention didn't get nearly as many posts on the Tampa Bay Buzz Blog as Florida's Republican "Presidency IV," which was, by the way, amazing.

Oh well. I'm sure that the huge and nationally representative populations of Iowa and New Hampshire will make up for the Dems blowing off Florida. Oh wait...

The Top 10 Things you Need to Know

1. DO NOT fly Southwest Airlines.
2. Congratulations, Governor Jindal, the first Indian-American governor!
3. Sen. Clinton continues her unethical fundraising antics.
4. I was right about Sen. Fred Thompson; he's even more boring in person than on TV.
5. I was wrong about Mayor Rudy Giuliani; he is very engaging and inspiring.
6. Gov. Mitt Romney is still my favorite candidate for president.
7. DAVID was interviewed on Hannity & Colmes! Sorry, no video :(
8. The RNC is following the DNC by punishing states for earlier primaries (including NH); however, Florida has only lost half of its delegates to the RNC and the Republican candidates won't be boycotting my state.
9. Thank you to Rep. Stark for apologizing for his outlandish remarks.
10.Favorite quotes from Presidency IV:

"Where will the Canadians go for healthcare?"
-Mayor Giuliani on America adopting socialized healthcare

"11% - that's paid staffers and blood relatives."
-Sen. John McCain on Congress' approval rating

"When those old hippies find out they get free drugs, see what happens."
-Gov. Mike Huckabee on Medicare

"I wasn’t there, I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time."
-Sen. McCain referring to his time as a POW during Woodstock.


p.s. If you are going to comment on my blogposts, please read the blog first. Thanks.

Rush's Midas Touch

My appreciation goes out to Rush Limbaugh today for turning a contempt-filled situation into a considerably large, heartfelt donation to children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement professionals.

The letter signed by Harry Reid and 40 other Senators in an attempt to censor what Rush could say on his own radio show was given to Rush by Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays. Rush, in turn, put the letter on eBay as a fundraiser.

The letter ended up going for more than $2.1 million - the largest charitable auction in eBay history, beating Jay Leno's guest-signed motorcycle which went for $800,000.

Not only that, but Rush promised to match the funds, so he will add $2.1 million of his own money, meaning that this letter, originally signaling government abuse of power against a private citizen, ended up in more than $4.2 million dollars in scholarships for children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement professionals.

On top of that, Rush is putting certified copies of the letter signed by him for sale on his website for $1,000. All of this money will go toward the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

Of course, Harry Reid had to have his say in the matter.

Sen. Reid tried to pretend that he was a part of this donation by implying that he and Rush had "buried the hatchet" and using the pronoun "we" when speaking of the fundraiser and amount of money raised.

Specifically, Sen. Reid stated: "I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people.



Rush Limbaugh's reply to this:
"I asked Sen. Reid to match and all the other senators who can afford to do so. I haven't heard from them on that. I asked Sen. Reid to go on the program and discuss his discussion of me as 'unpatriotic.' He did not accept my offer to do that and now has the audacity to climb aboard this, praising the effort, saying that 'he' never knew that it would get this kind of money."

Rush also said:
"It's poetic justice that Dingy Harry and those 40 signatories to this letter have made it possible for at least $4.2 million to go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation."

Read more here.

Once again, thank you, Rush Limbaugh.


Oh, and for you viewing pleasure:
Harry Reid Condemns Rush Limbaugh (Parody)

More from the Cluetrain

As an extension from my review of the Cluetrain Manifesto, here are two of the 95 theses presented and my thoughts on them.

#17: Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves.

Very true. Most of all, the internet adjusts market segmentation. Instead of appealing to broad audiences (ex: male), internet markets are more specific and concentrated (ex: male, married, 2 children, annual income of $70K, Miami Dolphins fan, etc).

By using the internet, companies can communicate in a one-to-one fashion as opposed to the one-to-many communication that TV, radio and newspapers provide. The internet can provide personalized experiences that other forms of media cannot. And, perhaps most importantly, the internet allows for [easier] feedback, or communication in general, from the consumer to the company.

#74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.

I disagree. Although pop-up ads are annoying and most people just don’t like advertising, I don’t believe that we’re “immune.” First of all, the authors of Cluetrain must have forgotten about product placement as a form of advertising. If people don’t realize something is being advertised, how can they be immune?

Also, I think advertising has been able to evolve and grow because of the internet. It’s able to target those smaller, more concentrated markets because of the internet and there’s more opportunity and need for advertising. Many websites depend on the income from advertising to stay up and running. Going along with this, there has been a movement towards online advertising from newspaper advertising. According to Wachovia Equity Research, online ad spending rose 17.8 percent in 2006 while major marketers continued to reduce spending on newspapers.

Finally, if people are immune to advertising, why is total US advertising spending for 2007 expected to be $152.3 billion? Online advertising spending alone reached nearly $10 million in the first half of 2007. That’s a lot of money to waste on something we’re immune to.

In other news,

A Reuters/Zogby poll regarding approval numbers of President Bush and Congress was released today. The results:

President Bush: 24% approval. Down from 29%.

Congress: 11% approval.

Also, a USA Today article reports that the feelings surrounding the SCHIP program are mixed.
A USA Today/Gallup poll shows these numbers:

52% agree with President Bush. This concerns the allocation of benenfits going towards families that earn less that 200% of the federal poverty level. (or $41,000 for a family of 4)

40% say benefits should go to such families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance.

The last figure is the most interesting to me. The largest percentage reported in this article regards people being "very or somewhat concerned" about families dropping private insurance. Because the margin of error is +/- 5%, this figure shows that at least 50% fall in this category of concern.

And I thought Americans wanted government-run healthcare and were all completely in favor of the SCHIP. Well, all except for children-hating republicans.


Oh, and is it just me or does a possible Putin/Ahmadinejad alliance frighten anyone else?

One less annoyance on TV?

This morning as I was walking into the metro I received, as I usually do, a Washington Post Express. While waiting for the train to arrive, I began to read the stories about the Green Bay Packers defeating the Washington Red Skins, the rate of cancer deaths falling and Secretary Rice's new round of Middle East talks. But then I arrived upon page 38. Along with Ben Affleck's "I'm Bad at Acting" headline and T.I.'s "Celebrity the First Caught Ridin' Dirty While Parked" headline, I saw a headshot of "The View" co-host Elisabeth Hasselback. And what did the headline associated with her story say? ... "One Less Annoyance on TV." Interesting. Though the actual text did not mention her conservative view, however, it is easy to correlate the headline with her opinions.

So, why am I writing about this? Well, because it annoys me.

Why is Elisabeth deemed an "annoyance?" Oh, wait, it's because she's not afraid to let her conservative beliefs be known. She's not afraid of Rosie or Joy Behar and she persists when she is berated and told her opinions are wrong.

I understand the headlines in the "People" section are meant to be amusing. But this particular statement crossed a line. It referred to a person's beliefs and values as "annoying."

This annoys me. It annoys me everytime someone who subscribes to the ideology of so-called "love&compassion" believes someone that fights for their beliefs is annoying or wrong or shouldn't have a "soap box" with which to express these beliefs.

It also annoys me when a person advocating what they deem a good program has to criticize the other side with viscious words such as:

"they are a pitchfork-wielding mob of hate-filled sociopaths who saw an opportunity to extract their pound of flesh from some random and defenseless family that had dared to align themselves with their political opponents. That's pretty sound as explanations go."

Here's a question posed by the author of the aforementioned article:

"What, for instance, would Bush, Malkin et al say to a woman in her 30s with an infant child and a husband who wants stay at home as the primary caregiver, but can't find affordable health insurance on the open market?"

My usual response to people on the left asking questions such as this is, well, if you are so concerned for families without (fill in the blank), why don't you contribute your own money and ask others who feel the same concerns to donate and then you can sponsor (fill in the blank) for the family.

My biggest problem with social programs such as the SCHIP is that it takes away money from people who have worked hard at their jobs and are therefore able to afford to insure themselves and it gives it to people who expect the government to give them handouts and are therefore unmotivated to work harder or to be personally responsible for themselves and their family. This misuse of the system ruins it for everyone, but it is nearly impossible to fix.

Continuing with the discussion of healthcare:

I found a post on the DailyKos saying that Democrats are more trusted and are believed to be able to do a better job with regard to healthcare. Here's a link to the results of the poll.

Let's take a look at the CBS News Poll, Sept. 14-16, 2007.
From 9/14-16/07, 42% stated they were very dissastisfied with the quality of healthcare BUT from 2/23-27/07, only 28% claimed by be very dissastified. This is a huge increase in the number of people dissastisfied with the quality of healthcare, a 14 point increase, actually.

Could this be because of the proliferation of healthcare coverage in the media? Could it be because the mainstream news media is tellling us to think about the healthcare system in America? Or could it be because the poll was skewed (I believe it is possible to make a poll say what you want it to)?

I honestly don't know. I despise insurance companies and their stupid policies and ways of doing business. But do I think the government should get involved? No. No matter who tries to fix it or what party is involved, the government will just screw things up worse.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Hillary and Nascar Cooties

Interesting... Hillary Clinton is proposing "tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401(k) retirement accounts."

AND, she has retreated from her brilliant (note the sarcasm) idea of giving free handouts equaling $5000 to babies born in the US.

Read all about it here.

And, as always, for your entertainment: a YouTube video!

Nascar Cooties...

The Cluetrain Manifesto and Illegal Immigration

Basically, Cluetrain authors Rick Levine, Chris Locke, Doc Searls and David Weinberger attempt to inform readers of the ways the web has affected business and markets.

They present 95 Theses and try to convince readers of their theories with stories. While anecdotes and analogies are typically more engaging than more academic-like material, the particular stories used didn’t exactly thrill me. That along with the fact that there were 95 theses presented. Wouldn’t 10 have worked? These theses certainly could have been fewer in number. They all referred to a relatively small number of underlying ideas.

Besides presenting anecdotes, the book says that because of networks, it is easier for people to communicate. For instance, at work, you can communicate with co-workers without ever leaving your desk. While an unintended consequence of email may be the proliferation of office gossip and mindless chatter, employees are able to get more points of view on their work from coworkers they may have never even met before. Therefore, the quality of work improves and results in even better ideas, products or projects for the company.

Another interesting point made by the authors is that the internet will cause advertising to become obsolete. Because it is relatively easy for consumers to compare companies and scope out the truth, “word of web will trump word of hype, every time.” Now, this book was published in 1999 in the midst of Y2K chaos. But, eight years later, just as the Y2K scare did not come to fruition, this idea the authors had has yet to be seen. There is still an abundance of advertising and many people are still brand loyal to products that may not be the best or may not live up to the “fluff” its advertisers come up with. I would even argue that we have seen an increase in advertising because of the internet. Nowadays there are websites, besides the product and/or company sites, that are created by advertising companies with the purposes of more subtly promoting the product. Not to mention pop-up ads and web sites relying on advertising to stay up and running.

I will say that the book is an interesting read, if you enjoy reading about the possible affects of the internet.

Also, for your viewing pleasure: YouTube Videos!

Glenn Beck's History of Illegal Immigration


Was Rudy's Phone Call Staged?


Another Video About Rudy:

Interesting Survey

Link to the original story.

Democrats vs. Democrats

Though I usually don't agree with Senator Nelson (D- Fla.), I thoroughly support his decision to do something about the DNC stripping Florida of its delegate.

This quote from Sen. Nelson sums up my thoughts on the matter:

"We believe the right to vote, and to have that vote count, is — in fact — the cornerstone of our democracy... Without it, nothing else will work."

Some background on the situation:

"Nelson, with Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), made it official Thursday they are suing Dean and the DNC for a declaratory relief injunction to prevent the party from going through with harsh penalties against the state that went into effect automatically Sept. 29. The lawmakers said those penalties effectively will negate the votes of almost 4.5 million voters."


4.5 million voters. And the DNC doesn't want them to vote. Shameful.

Censorship at its Finest

So, Democrats tried to get Rush Limbaugh in trouble with the CEO of Clear Channel for his "phony soldier" comment via a letter.

My question is, what happened to liberals love of free speech?

Apparently it's okay for Democrats to say whatever they want, but it's not okay for Rush, on his own radio show, to give his point of view.

By the way, the CEO of Clear Channel wrote a letter back to Sen. Reid saying he would not do anything about Rush's comments. He wrote that Rush has always been a huge supporter of the American troops and therefore he could not assume that this one comment was meant to "personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn't share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq."

The CEO also said:

"While I do not agree with everything Mr. Limbaugh says on every topic, I do believe that he, along with every American, has the right to voice his or her opinion in the manner they choose. The First Amendment gives every American the right to voice his or her opinion, no matter how unpopular. That right is one that I am sure you agree must be cherished and protected."

All I have to say to those who signed the first letter condemning Rush (Hillary, Barack, John Kerry, Bill Nelson, etc.) is

haha.

p.s. Straight from Real Clear Politics:

Zogby: President Bush is even less popular than he used to be, as just 29% rate his performance as excellent or good, while 71% call it fair or poor. It's barely possible, but Congress performs even worse -- just 11% call its performance excellent or good, while 87% say it's fair or poor.

RCP: Bush stands at 33.6% in the RCP Average, while Congress stands at 27%.

So if it's Bush vs. Congress, Bush is doing a better job.

Nice.

Are you kidding me?

Well, John Edwards, you've outdone yourself.

"Pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead."

That's one of the most racist comments I've heard in a long time...

Why are liberals and the drive-by media so obsessed with black people being... well, black?

Today, 60 Minutes aired an exclusive interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The primary focus? His African-American heritage. One of the most frustrating things this newscast brought to light was that Justice Thomas is seen as a sell-out who joined the Republican party to be rewarded with a seat on the high court because of affirmative action.




I was impressed by Justice Thomas. He realized that his Yale law degree wasn't worth as much because he was accepted so that Yale could fill their designated minority seats. In his new book, My Grandfather's Son, Thomas says that his Yale law degree is worth 15 cents.

And, when it comes to helping people, Justice Thomas says that he wants to help all people.

Justice Thomas truly believes that law should be colorblind, unlike certain other self proclaimed opponents of racism.

All I have to say to the liberals and drive-by media in regards to their opinions of black people:
Give them a little more credit than that.

BOOK REVIEW: News That Matters: Television and American Opinion

News That Matters: Television and American Opinion is a great book to read if you're interested in discovering more about the media's effects on people's opinions as well as the agenda-setting nature of the media.




Hopefully most people recognize that what the media tells us is not always true, or at least that it doesn't always match up with what the actual current situation of the world.

One of my favorite quotes from the book:
"It is one thing to learn from the CBS Evening News that serious crime is on the increase in the United States; quite another to be mugged on the way to the corner grocery store. In reaching judgments about national problems, how do Americans take into account these very different types of evidence-- evidence from television news, on the one hand, and from their personal experiences, on the other?"

The authors (Shanto Iyengar & Donald Kinder) claim that the media does partake in agenda-setting and that the media does influence the priorities Americans assign to national problems. However, they take this a step farther and introduce a concept called priming which refers to changes in standards that people use to make political evaluations.

A huge point made within the priming discussion is that the more television coverage intereprets events as though they were the result of the president's actions, the more influential such coverage will be in priming the public's assessment of the president's performance. So, take for example the 1982 recession. Was this because of President's Reagan's policies, or because of his predecessors? Or did it have anything at all to do with the presidency? The more the media connects the president with something such as an economic recession, the more people think it is of the president's responsibility.

Think about this: how often do we passively connect a person in an important position to an event? In Florida, a boy (Martin Lee Anderson) was killed by guards while in bootcamp. Though Governor Jeb Bush had no real involvement in the case (as it was a county bootcamp- Bay County to be exact), when students from Florida State University, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and Tallahassee Community College (accompanied by none other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) became outraged when they learned that no real action had been taken, it was Gov. Bush's office that was raided by these people proclaiming "justice delayed is justice denied."

We always seem to want to place the blame on the highest authority figure, even if that person shouldn't be the one punished. Though I do believe that responsibility ultimately rests in the hands of the "president" (read= the person who is in charge overall), I think we all too often rush to blame the wrong people. And by doing so, what does get done regarding the situation is done in an inefficient, untimely manner.


Oh... If you're interested, I received an email about me.dium. It is an add-on to your web browser that allows you to chat with others in your browser window and allows you to voluntarily share the sites you are visiting with others. Apparently this will be available, and good to use, during the MTV/MySpace "Presidential Dialogues."


To join, visit www.me.dium.com

Rock the Vote...

The "digital age," as it is referred to, is most definitely showing its presence in the 2008 Presidential election.


One Example:



Most people know that MTV implemented rock the vote to increase the number of people between the ages of 18 and 24 to actually go out and vote during the 2004 election.
This time around, MTV has teamed up with MySpace for "Presidential Dialogues."
Basically, the all of the major Democratic and Republican candidates for POTUS will answer "candid and unfiltered" questions asked by young viewers. The events will take place on college campuses but will be aired on MTV, MTVu as well as MySpace and MTV.com. Questions can be submitted via MySpaceIM, cell phone, and email.

The purpose of this is to allow home viewers along with the live audience interact with the candidates in real time.

"For years, young people have trusted MTV to inform and engage them on the issues that matter most, from politics to sexual health to the environment," said MTV President Christina Norman.
scary...

And, who is going to be the first candidate to participate?

John Edwards, of course.

Another Example:

The first online-only Democratic presidential debate took place recently. Hosted by Yahoo!, the Huffington Post and Slate, the candidates were interviewed and their responses were aired via internet. 3 out of 4 topics of the questions were chosen by voters, and the last topic was a wild card in which a question from any topic could be asked.

According to a Yahoo! poll afterwards on who won, Barack Obama received the most votes with Hillary Clinton as a close 2nd.

It will be interesting to see the affects of these "digital age" political events... I think it is a bit too early to begin to analyze what these particular events will cause, but I also believe that they will serve to get more people informed and involved, at least those who watch MTV.

In other news, there was an interesting story on NYTimes.com today about the "fallacy of the netroots."

And the Politico broke a story about censorship on behalf of the Clinton campaign with regards to GQ magazine.

Most interestingly, though, Alan Combs believes that Ahmadinejad is a conservative.

And finally, my thoughts:
I know this is not relatively recent, but still...
Rudy Giuliani's wife called during his speech to the NRA? What?

Times are Changin'

The 2006 mid-term election highlighted the effects of “new media.” For instance, Senate candidate George Allen’s particularly bad moment infiltrated the internet and ultimately helped him lose.

But, without YouTube and the blogosphere, how would have Allen’s “Macaca Moment,” and other stories perpetuated by blogs (ie Mark Foley), spread so far so fast?

In We the Media, Dan Gillmor describes this “new media” and its effects. One of the biggest effects is that people who were once merely among the audience can now be the broadcasters of news and information. Anyone can start and maintain a blog and anyone can sign up for a YouTube account.

But what does this have to do with times changing? Well, people with different backgrounds than the journalists of CNN, FOX News, NY Times, Washington Post, etc, can disseminate information and their opinions via the internet. Not only are there websites for conservatives/liberals respectively, but there are blogs from the perspective of wives, young adults, fashion addicts and other niches. This expands the viewpoints we can learn of and from, which in turn widens our view of subjects and issues.

We are also able to receive pertinent information that the mainstream media may not be the best medium to give. People may be near a TV when CNN is showing a video of a politician doing something stupid, but with the internet, those who miss the CNN viewing can access the video when they are free to watch it.

But, be reasonable and responsible! Don’t believe everything you read…

Going on with the idea of anyone contributing, here are a few programs sponsored by mainstream media sources to engage audience members... or to seemingly desire the input of the audience:

1. Send in investigative videos, ask “tough questions” or utilize iCaught at ABC

2. Comment on the Tampa Bay Buzzblog

3. Ask a Presidential Candidate a question via the CNN YouTube debates

Fred Thompson is doing something similar… ask him a question and he’ll answer it via a video on his website. But now I must provide this link and encourage you to use it.

On a departing note,



is more dangerous an offensive than



????!!!!

Freedom and "Desent"

For the record, I am not against people speaking their minds. I myself am not afraid to let my opinions be known. But I do think there is a clear line that distinguishes "free speech" and "fighting words."

For example:
PROTEST: Leftists Protest a 9/11 Memorial


Now I see why Nancy Pelosi is San Francisco's representative. (Kidding, kidding.)

Besides making my stomach drop, this video allows for the beliefs of these members of the "Revolutionary Communist Party of America" to be known world-wide. It also informs people that the group actually exists.

The video was posted on conservative blogs such as Truth Caucus and CR Nation. The significance here is that these blogs are actually products of college republicans (people generally between the ages of 18 and 25). This age range is one of the most sought after voting blocs by both (or should I say all?) parties because they are up-and-coming voters that could significantly help or hurt a party. Also, the people who fall between these ages are more likely to participate in grassroots activities such as phone banking and precinct walking. Despite the fact that both parties need the efforts (and votes) of young people, the parties seemed to be more concerned with, in effect, brainwashing us with their ideas instead of reaching out to us to understand what we want and going from there to gain our votes. The "blogosphere" allows us to say what we want, what we like/dislike and how we feel regarding issues.

Continuing with the discussion of protests:



I actually went to this protest... not to participate (in this or the counterprotest), but to see the other side's point of view and understand why they do what they do.

Unfortunately, the only thing that stuck out to me was the anti-war protesters yelling obscenities and "you're stupid" to a man who was doing the same thing they were: letting his opinions be known. I was disheartened by the fact that a group of people who claim to want freedom and the right to "desent" (as spelled on an anti-war poster) did not want a fellow dissenter to have the freedom to say what he wanted. Instead they tried to censor him by yelling "you're annoying," and another man actually used the back of his anti-war sign to write "dumb ass" with an arrow pointing in the direction of the "annoying" person.

Oh, and the organizers of this march stopped the HIPS (helping innocent prostitutes survive) group from protesting with their song and dance ahead of the "contingent" (aka 10) of Iraq veterans who were the stars of the protest.

Seems like censorship to me.

Have You Forgotten?

Today, on the eve of the six year anniversary of 9/11, congress heard Gen. Petraeus' Iraq progress report. While Democrats were accusing Gen. Petraeus of being Bush's lackey and Republicans complained about a NY Times ad sponsored by MoveOn.org that quipped "General Petraeus or General Betray Us," a story broke of another Bin Laden video being published shortly. The video will show the last will and testament of a 9/11 hijacker.

Before the internet, access to such videos would be hard to come by. But the fact that this video testament will be available on the anniversary of 9/11 shows just how much Bin Laden and Islamic Fascists hate America and take pride in giving our country it's worst day in recent history.

But what amazes me the most is that politicians have caused Americans to stray away from the unification we felt that September morning and the months following. I'm not blaming the Democrats, though they obviously have played a huge role. But with the 2008 election already being in full force and the issue of the war being brought up constantly, I'm frustrated because we as Americans are being inundated with rhetoric but politicians on both sides are so concerned about an election that is just over a year away that nothing is really being accomplished.

Here's my opinion:


Six years is a relatively short amount of time to be at war against Islamic Fascists and be able to win. It takes Al-Qaeda longer to perfectly plot a terrorist attack. Let me explain. We're not at war against Iraqis. We're not at war against terror. Terror is a means, not an institution. We're at war against Islamic Fascists that hate America because they are taught from a young age that America is evil. These people want to destroy our country and kill as many of us as they can. Why? Because they believe it will further their standing in what they believe is "heaven." So, President Bush and other republicans are constantly scrutinized for putting soldiers (who, by the way, volunteer to be in the military) and moderate Muslim Iraqis (who are just as targeted by Osama as we are) in danger, but Muslims who believe that killing thousands of innocent people while at the same time committing suicide in order to advance themselves in "heaven" should be left alone?

And there are pictures like this going around? Unbelievable.

I'll leave you with these thoughts from the video...
If we pull out now, everything I've sacrificed will mean nothing.
They attacked us...
It's no time to quit, it's not time for politics.

Welcome!

Well, this is my first venture in to the "blogosphere," but hopefully this project will turn out okay.


So, the first topic:

Tonight's Republican Presidential Debate in NH.

a few of thoughts...
1. On the issue of immigration, the candidates agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but they all seemed to have different ideas as to how to go about fixing the problem. I found this refreshing, especially because of all of the back-patting that many of the candidates did with regard to John McCain and his position on the war and his experience in the military. However, I wish there was more discussion and academic debate amongst the candidates as opposed to finger-pointing and opponent bashing. Many of them had strong ideas, but in order for anyone's idea to come to fruition, the idea needs to be fully thought through and all options should be studied. I'm not saying that any one candidate hasn't done his research, but it seemed that most of them were anxious to attack instead of being open to other insights.

2. Although Fred Thompson chose not to be a part of the debate, a statement of his regarding crime in NYC was brought up. Giuliani responded by saying that Thompson would be "safer in NYC that in Boston," a blatant attack on Romney... but why? Every answer Giuliani gives, whether it is regarding crime or not, somehow strays to how he reduced crime in "the most dangerous city." So why did he find this to be an opportunity to attack one of his opponents? It seemed to me that Rudy did a lot of attacking, and I suppose as the "national front runner" he may need to from time to time. But I found it interesting that the people he attacked the most were his closest competitors. He kissed up to John McCain, even going so far as to say that he himself would support McCain if he (the self proclaimed best candidate)were not in the race. But McCain's ship is sinking... he can't raise money, he's falling behind in the polls and one of his most steadfast supporters in Florida has even moved on to other candidates (including Rudy and Fred.)

3. How interesting was it when people in that restaurant asked questions to the candidates? This opportunity allowed NH primary voters to show their support, or lack thereof, of particular candidates and also to ask questions that they, the voters, want answered. This situation could have also given a unique insight into the minds of voters, other than what the media outlets tell us is on the voters' minds. However, I have to wonder if the questions were screened? One NH police officer let Romney know that he and his wife were highly offended by Romney's comparison of his sons working for his campaign to those who serve in the military. However, Romney had already apologized for this misstatement. I'm sure that the man and his wife were offended, but why was he put on camera? The same goes for the Poly Sci student who questioned Rudy's family life and said that Rudy's family was not of the same quality or standard as Mitt's. Why this question? Is the media actually in tune with the voters, or are the voters' minds conformed by what the media tells them they should be concerned about?

On a closing note, I leave you with this:

The course of the 2008 election will most definitely be amended because of new media (blogs, youtube, cameraphones...) For example, a huge disappointment for Senator Brownback (and his few supporters) was unveiled to the public via internet... but would as many people know of this event if it were not for www.drudgereport.com? I think not.

Link to the Brownback picture: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070904/480/5ca0cf5624ad4cb59c18a7e2ebe0f469

Questions, Comments, Concerns welcome.


Until next time...