Ralph Nader the Hater Enters the Race!

Oh Ralph Nader, you’re so silly.  I don’t get why this guy feels the need to jump into a race.  I mean, we can all see through his “righteousness” reasons.  Frankly, I think he just wants his 15min of fame in these historical times.  I caught him on Tucker (on MSNBC) yesterday, and it was just funny.

Tucker drilled Nader on his show, citing one of the priorities on Nader’s agenda:

Impeach Bush and Cheney

Are you serious Nader – the mere fact that he has this as his priority for the moment is quite pathetic.  Sure, there are plenty of people who would love to see that, but what a waste of time.  I think I became politically dumber by listening to that!

Anyway, I don’t think he’ll “steal” votes away from anyone.  He may get some Nader-ites to join his cause, but it won’t affect the outcome in the least and he’ll be a distant memory once again…

until the next election that is.

And the Winner is…

Wow, what a primary season this has been so far. Okay, well this is the only primary that I have ever cared about! (haha)… just to get it all out on the table, I am most likely voting democrat this election, hopefully for Obama. I don’t care to go into the details since political convictions are about as intense as religious ones. let’s just say I was unsatisfied with the results of my republican vote in 2004.

But I tell you what, I remember just this past December watching the news. Barack and Hillary were 1 and 1 … and Edwards was sounding good too! Everything was so close and the analysts predicted that we would have to wait until SUPER TUESDAY to see who the winner of the democratic primary was…

“February!?” I said to myself. “That’s ForEVER from now!”

Well, low and behold, we are likely going to have to wait even longer. Super Tuesday has come and gone and we know nothing new (except that the news stations do a horrible job making predictions). It comes down to two major states, Texas and Ohio.

So, I believe that Hillary will win Texas because of the Latino vote. However, that could potentially be hindered (but probably not) because she just fired her Latino campaign manager. My belief is that Ohio is going to be a HUGE state for both campaigns, especially Barack. He needs it big time.

My guess is that he’ll ride his victories from the Patoimic states and the choice other few for while, but his steam may die down before the Texas and Ohio primaries.

Unfortunately this will probably be decided by Super Delegates – which will be the topic of my next post. Let me give you a hint: I don’t like them.

Until then.

Obama Could WIn New York City!

By BENJAMIN SARLIN
Special to the Sun

Although a statewide win in New York appears unlikely for Senator Obama, he could score a symbolic victory in the February 5 presidential primary by carrying New York City, where recent polls show him to be competitive.

At a rally yesterday in front of City Hall, elected officials and labor leaders pledged their support for the Illinois senator and promised a hard-fought campaign on Senator Clinton’s home turf. State senators Bill Perkins, John Sampson, Kevin Parker, and Eric Adams; Assembly members Hakeem Jeffries and Karim Camara, and Council Member Albert Vann rallied for Mr. Obama, as did a former congressman, Major Owens, and two former council members, Ronnie Eldridge and Wendell Foster.

Mr. Obama faces an uphill battle to win the New York State primary. Mrs. Clinton has won two elections here by large margins, and she commands the support of many prominent elected officials, including Governor Spitzer, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and all four New York members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Partly because of the state’s image as a stronghold for Mrs. Clinton, a win for Mr. Obama in America’s most populous city could be a badge of honor as the two compete for votes beyond the February 5 primaries. Because New York’s Democratic primary divides its delegates proportionally rather than through a winner-take-all system, a strong showing not only would help Mr. Obama in the spin room, but also it would give him a number of delegates.

A WNBC/Marist poll released last week found that although Mrs. Clinton had a 47% to 31% lead over Mr. Obama among likely New York State voters, he was far closer in New York City, drawing 39% of likely voters versus 43% for Senator Clinton. In recent weeks, Mr. Obama’s support has been surging among black voters, a demographic he won 4 to 1 in South Carolina, according to exit polls, and whose turnout and support would likely be crucial in New York City.

Addressing a crowd of hundreds of Obama supporters, speakers yesterday emphasized Mr. Obama’s ability to unite.

“It’s about hope,” Mr. Perkins said. “It’s about believing change can happen despite the establishment’s hold on the process.” He praised the Illinois senator for bringing people who normally do not participate in elections, such as young voters, to the polls.

Mr. Jeffries described the candidate’s South Carolina victory as “a mighty mighty beatdown,” drawing cheers from the audience, who frequently chanted Mr. Obama’s campaign slogan “Yes we can!” in English and Spanish.

Mr. Obama can “absolutely” win the city, Mr. Jeffries said.

“If you look at the fact that Jesse Jackson in 1988 won New York City with a coalition of diverse supporters that is not as diverse as we think Senator Obama would be able to put together, I think he has a very good chance of winning New York City,” he said. “New York City, with a population of 8 million people, has a tremendous amount of delegates, more than many states. Winning New York City is the equivalent of winning several rural or southern states combined, and so the importance of a victory in the five boroughs cannot be overstated.”

read more | digg story

News Flash: Presidential Candidates are Human!

I don’t get it, how come we get in a huge fuss when we find out that a Presidential candidate changes their mind on a particular issue?  News Flash:  THEIR HUMAN!  I’m tired of all the “you used to believe this” rhetoric that candidates play.

For example, if a candidate was once pro-choice, but at some point became pro-life, we are expected to think that is a big deal.  I for one have changed my opinion on that issue multiple times.  I mean, as we live more life, I think we are entitled to form opinions, re-evaluate them, and changed them if we like.

It’s like politicians are supposed to come out of the womb with all our views and beliefs programmed like some robot.  Give me a break people.  A man changing his opinion is not a character flaw.

Do yourself a favor in this election, find out the current stance your favorite candidates have on certain issues and then make your decision based on that…and hey, if you change your mind on who you want to vote for, you don’t have to worry about me causing a fuss!

Huckabee: women’s role in marriage is to “graciously submit”

Huckabee’s opinion on gay marriage is out there, but we should also be publicizing Huckabee’s opinions on heterosexual marriage. Specifically, what he believes about a women’s role in a marriage.

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: “I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention.” What was in the family statement from the SBC? “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

The ad wasn’t just a blanket, “we support the SBC statement,” but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: “You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership.”

Add “graciously submit” to his “Take back the nation for Christ” statement, and if the media does its job, he’s well on his way to being toast.

[original article]

How will I secure the boarder? Two Words: Chuck Norris

So usually I get down to the more controversial, or serious matters on this site. Well, not today. I came across this video today and thought it was hilarious! For those of you who don’t know, Chuck Norris has experienced a resurgence in his career from the 18-30yr old crowd. Check out this video from the Mike Huckabee campaign:

Flip-Flopping Romney?

For anyone who wasn’t able to catch Mitt Romney’s speech on faith, I recommend that you go to his website to watch it. I believe it was the best speech by a politician thus far. I never had an qualms about his faith to begin, but if I did, I think the speech would help a little bit.

Many reviews of his speech claim that Romney looked more presidential than any other candidate to date. I would agree, yet it really isn’t that important. What is important are the issues of course (unfortunately, many people don’t realize this).

But what about flip-flopping? Oh, the dreaded term that destroyed Kerry’s campaign. Well, it appears that Mitt has potentially dug himself a hole (should anyone pick up on it):

“I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” – Mitt Romney, at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum today.

And then there is this:

“We need to have a person of faith lead the country,” – Mitt Romney, February 17, 2007.

Thoughts?

Giuliani and Robertson…what a JOKE!

Here we go again.  Fanatic TV personality Pat Robertson has come out to announce his support for Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.   This blatent attempt to persuade the Christian right is just plain sickening.  Yes, we all know Giuliani is less than perfect (heck, if he is elected, he’ll be the first divorced man in the White House)  I laughed when I read the headline to this story…literally.  Here is the first paragraph from it:

Pat Robertson, the television evangelist and Christian Coalition founder, endorsed Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani for president when the two men appeared together at the National Press Club in Washington on Wednesday.

Robertson said he decided to endorse Giuliani because he was “a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans.”

If that is the only reason Robertson is supporting Giuliani, then that is enough reason to support about 70% of the candidates.  What sickens me is that Robertson didn’t just come out of the woodwork to support his “pal” Giuliani.  He was sought out, and brought to the front so all the world could see that a, GASP, fundamentalist Christian supports this man.

and heck, if Robertson supports him…he MUST be good right?  HA!

Sadly, all the “Robertsonites” will blindly follow their leader’s word.  I mean, this makes sense after contributing thousands of dollars to his ministry wealth.

As I have said, religion and politics are arguably impossible to separate.  Especially when politicians seek campaign help from attention seeking millionaire “preachers”.

The Coward Commenter of Politics and Religion

As many of you know, the reason I have made this blog is to talk about the major topics within politics and religion in a civilized manner. These are two topics which are very important in society (see my free report for deeper inquiry on this), and it is a shame that people will shy away from them as if they are the black plague.

So, I created a haven to talk about these important issues. Some posts have been better than others; some posts received a lot of attention while others go unnoticed. And my favorite, Sometimes people will comment.

I think that comments are the power behind the blog. I actually started the blog because of the opportunity to not only talk about what I love, but to talk with others about what I love. Which brings me to one of the downfalls with blogs… the “coward commenter”.

Fox News, only broadcast network that did not air Democratic response

Following President Bush’s address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response. Instead, Shepard Smith gave a short description of the response and stated…

read more