After the 2006 and 2008 elections some are counting out the GOP. I for one am not. Recently, the Republican party voted former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele as new the Chairmen of the Republican party. Being Chairmen of the Republican party puts Steele as at least one of three leaders of the Republican party along with House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
I personally have enjoyed hearing and watching Steele in his various radio and TV appearances since rising in prominence from his 2006 senate race. But, I applaud Steele's chairmanship more for the the change that he represents (not what you think). I was actually almost glad to see former Chairman Mike Duncan fail in his bid to be reappointed. I don't get any pleasure from a persons failure but rather I think it's healthy for a party to see change, particularly the Republican party. Steele represents something different because he has not spent his career as a party representative but rather a public official. Most of the other candidates for the chairmanship were previous or current heads of various state republican parties.
With Steele as the Chairman there is now an opportunity to change the Republican presentation. I believe that Republican principles are great and a good thing for this country but we have not been winning the public relations battle and if we do not make adjustments we will continue to lose.
Steele has already shown he is aware of some of the Republican party faults. Tomorrow the Republican party will host a Technology Summit and figuring out ways how the party can better utilize the web (things like blogspot, twitter, facebook, myspace, etc) . I believe President Obama was so successful in part because of his grasp of technology. The best part about using the web to get out the message is that you can reach a massive audience in a short period of time for a very minimal cost.
In terms of candidates embracing technology I believe it should be mandatory for any candidate to update and maintain facebook, twitter, and myspace pages. They should also maintain a blog. I must give kudos to Zach Wamp, current US Congressmen, who has been very active on Twitter as he works to lay the foundation for a gubernatorial run. Wamp stands out to me as a tech friendly candidate and I am sure I am missing others (hopefully).
To be honest though technology itself will not win us elections. We need to rephrase our arguments and our points for or against something. I am reminded of watching the Republican presidential primary debates last year, every candidate was talking about being like Ronald Reagan. I love Ronald Reagan for everything that he did for this country but he finished his presidency 20 years ago. Candidates must run forward and talk about the future. Americans don't always vote on how the past 4 years have been, they vote on what they want the next 4, 8, or even 20 years to be like.
Republicans have proven they can win elections on their ideas not on a distaste for the opposition. I argue Democrats have been successful the last two elections because Republicans were unpopular and not because the American people wanted Democratic ideals. People are shocked at the actions of President Obama because he is doing things that they don't really agree with or that weren't really talked about during the campaign.
The 2010 election cycle is crucial because we cannot afford to allow Democrats to gain any more control or to control the campaign language. I will write more specifics in the future but I wanted to get my opinion out because it is something that has been bothering me for sometime now.
By the way, to prove I am a man of action and not just words I have recently created a "political" twitter. You can find my tweets at www.twitter.com/talkingelephant.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
End Guantanamo?
Before proceeding please read my inspiration for this post:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php
I don't know if shock is the right word because it does not really surprise me that a former Guantanamo prisoner, in this case Said Ali al-Shihri, is out prison and back to his terrorist ways. This time though al Shihri is not a pawn in any terrorist network, he is now a leader of al Qaeda. I don't know what bugs me more that fact that this individual was even released from prison or the idea that shutting Guantanamo Bay is a being considered.
Let me be clear I don't like the idea that Gitmo exists or any other prison for that matter. I don't like the idea we have terrorists in this world. But I cannot live in fantasy land, I have to live in the real world. There are people in this world that want to do absolute harm to the United States. There are people that are willing to die for their cause. Remember the 19 hijackers from 9/11 who were willing to die for their cause? Or look at the news from Israel with terrorists walking into cafes, onto buses or any other public venue and blowing themselves.
I believe people can be reformed and rehabilitated...but to an extent. I believe someone who has a drinking or drug problem can be cured. I even believe a murderous teenage gang banger can one day wake up in prison and realize what they've done, feel remorse, and try and change the lives of at-risk youths.
I am not ignorant, however, terrorists don't feel remorse, you cannot change their mindset. I am scared of someone who associates themselves with an organization that is upset only that more innocent bystanders were not hurt or killed. 9/11 was a day for me that will live in infamy and I remember seeing footage around the world and seeing some in the Middle East let off guns in celebration. When someone decides to celebrate the death of thousands of people that's when I put that person in a different category. I don't even call that human anymore.
I recognize that what some people don't like about Gitmo is that the prisoners there haven't had a trial or a conviction. I do have trust in my government, I do not believe that the government just picked up some middle easterners and put them in prison. I don't have a security clearance , I don't know all who is there at Gitmo, but I trust the government had reason to detain those that are at the prison.
There should be a time and place for the identity and charges of Guantanamo prisoners to be known, but right now I don't really care. The harm that can be caused by their release and the shutting down of Gitmo in my mind is greater than the harm caused by the prisoners sitting in prison. If we released these prisoners, what do we expect to happen? It's not like there is going to be parole officers monitoring them, there aren't halfway houses for them to stay at. We would be releasing prisoners out into the world (literally the world) in a day and age where it takes one person to get ahold of one nuclear weapon to do unheard of damage and destruction. Isn't there a better idea?
Essentially what Preisdent Obama wants to do with some prisoners is move them out of Guantanamo Bay but shift the responsibility to another country. Is this really changing anything?
Now we have people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay being held by the United States. President Obama suggests closing the prison and shifting them to other countries. I don't understand what's different. Either way the terrorists are imprisoned, its more of a matter of would you rather have the US run the prison or another country?
For President Obama the answer is clear he would would rather have another country run the prison because liberals in the United States don't like Guantanamo Bay and if he shifts the responsibility to another country he can get brownie points with his base.
Maybe I am wrong about his intentions, I just don't see any other benefit to shutting down the prison other then the political benefit to President Obama. I beleive we cannot play politics with this issue it is too important for the sake of our own national security.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php
I don't know if shock is the right word because it does not really surprise me that a former Guantanamo prisoner, in this case Said Ali al-Shihri, is out prison and back to his terrorist ways. This time though al Shihri is not a pawn in any terrorist network, he is now a leader of al Qaeda. I don't know what bugs me more that fact that this individual was even released from prison or the idea that shutting Guantanamo Bay is a being considered.
Let me be clear I don't like the idea that Gitmo exists or any other prison for that matter. I don't like the idea we have terrorists in this world. But I cannot live in fantasy land, I have to live in the real world. There are people in this world that want to do absolute harm to the United States. There are people that are willing to die for their cause. Remember the 19 hijackers from 9/11 who were willing to die for their cause? Or look at the news from Israel with terrorists walking into cafes, onto buses or any other public venue and blowing themselves.
I believe people can be reformed and rehabilitated...but to an extent. I believe someone who has a drinking or drug problem can be cured. I even believe a murderous teenage gang banger can one day wake up in prison and realize what they've done, feel remorse, and try and change the lives of at-risk youths.
I am not ignorant, however, terrorists don't feel remorse, you cannot change their mindset. I am scared of someone who associates themselves with an organization that is upset only that more innocent bystanders were not hurt or killed. 9/11 was a day for me that will live in infamy and I remember seeing footage around the world and seeing some in the Middle East let off guns in celebration. When someone decides to celebrate the death of thousands of people that's when I put that person in a different category. I don't even call that human anymore.
I recognize that what some people don't like about Gitmo is that the prisoners there haven't had a trial or a conviction. I do have trust in my government, I do not believe that the government just picked up some middle easterners and put them in prison. I don't have a security clearance , I don't know all who is there at Gitmo, but I trust the government had reason to detain those that are at the prison.
There should be a time and place for the identity and charges of Guantanamo prisoners to be known, but right now I don't really care. The harm that can be caused by their release and the shutting down of Gitmo in my mind is greater than the harm caused by the prisoners sitting in prison. If we released these prisoners, what do we expect to happen? It's not like there is going to be parole officers monitoring them, there aren't halfway houses for them to stay at. We would be releasing prisoners out into the world (literally the world) in a day and age where it takes one person to get ahold of one nuclear weapon to do unheard of damage and destruction. Isn't there a better idea?
Essentially what Preisdent Obama wants to do with some prisoners is move them out of Guantanamo Bay but shift the responsibility to another country. Is this really changing anything?
Now we have people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay being held by the United States. President Obama suggests closing the prison and shifting them to other countries. I don't understand what's different. Either way the terrorists are imprisoned, its more of a matter of would you rather have the US run the prison or another country?
For President Obama the answer is clear he would would rather have another country run the prison because liberals in the United States don't like Guantanamo Bay and if he shifts the responsibility to another country he can get brownie points with his base.
Maybe I am wrong about his intentions, I just don't see any other benefit to shutting down the prison other then the political benefit to President Obama. I beleive we cannot play politics with this issue it is too important for the sake of our own national security.
Hope and Change? More like Hype and Nothing New
I feel my title for this blog says it all.
This past week week three of President Obama's nominees have either withdrawn their own nomination or are having their nomination held up because of tax related issues. I am now flat annoyed at being told someone is a person of integrity and strong moral character because they have been nominated for a Cabinet level position.
On Tuesday, two of nominees took themselves out of the running for Cabinet jobs, former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer. And on Thursday the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis is for the time being at least being held up because of back taxes her husband owes from 16 years ago! 16 years? Really? How does someone get away with skipping out on their taxes from 1992? Senator Daschle owes the IRS about $130,000 in taxes. How has the IRS not arrested him?
Well lucky there is now Change in Washington and we can count on the new head of the IRS, Secretary of Treasury Tim Geitner to crack down on these tax cheats. Oh, wait a minute he had tax problems too. I love how people seem to only address their IRS issue or other personal issues when it comes time to get a promotion and a high-ranking job.
Now I understand people make mistakes and I am even willing to acknowledge President Obama's nominees have more complicated tax situations then me. But, the IRS contacts you and lets you know you misfiled your taxes. All of these tax problems are not recent issues concerning some one's 2008 tax return. These are issues that have been going on since at least the first term of President George W. Bush. People make mistakes and when you are confronted with a tax return mistake you should handle that immediately. But I don't know maybe that's just me.
President Obama and any other presidential administration should not look for perfect people to help run the country because they won't be able to find people to fill the position (particularly if they only look in Washington). An administration should look at the crocheter of someone. For example I would accept Tom Daschle's errors and nomination if for example he paid his back taxes when he was confronted with the information. I don't trust a person who is using their power, influence , and money to avoid doing what they are suppose to do.
I hate paying taxes more then anybody, but while we have a tax system in this country, I believe I have a duty to pay what I owe. Please don't misunderstand I am a fiscal conservative and think taxes should be as low as possible and it would be great if we could operate without paying any taxes at all. But at least at this time, people pay taxes and should pay the amount on the line. Not paying what the IRS says you owe is like going into the store and not feeling its necessary to pay for your goods.
The tax problems of four of President Obama's nominees are not the only problems that make me question the truth of President Obama's campaign. Former Governor Bill Richardson stepped aside from his nomination as Secretary of Commerce because he is under investigaion for giving state contracts to political supporters. Is this what we call change? So far there is nothing new about President Obama's administration compared to other administrations. If there is any change in the Obama administration maybe they should pass a hat around and use the change to pay off their colleagues tax debt.
Now there has been one change regarding lobbyists working in the Obama Administration. On the campaign trail then Candidate Obama said lobbyists would not work in his White House. Well there's a change...to his campaign promise at least. President Obama granted a waiver to his Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, a defense contractor.
Now I didn't vote for President Obama, in part beacause I felt what he had to say seemed to good to be true. I am not seeing a highly ethical, lobbyist free Cabinet. And most recently when trying to encourage the passage of the Stimulus package, he said if the bill did not pass our economic crisis will turn from a "crisis to catastrophe." What ever happened to the end of the politics of fear? What type of change was President Obama referring to because I haven't seen anything yet. I wonder if the people that did vote for him are feeling a little bit had?
This past week week three of President Obama's nominees have either withdrawn their own nomination or are having their nomination held up because of tax related issues. I am now flat annoyed at being told someone is a person of integrity and strong moral character because they have been nominated for a Cabinet level position.
On Tuesday, two of nominees took themselves out of the running for Cabinet jobs, former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer. And on Thursday the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis is for the time being at least being held up because of back taxes her husband owes from 16 years ago! 16 years? Really? How does someone get away with skipping out on their taxes from 1992? Senator Daschle owes the IRS about $130,000 in taxes. How has the IRS not arrested him?
Well lucky there is now Change in Washington and we can count on the new head of the IRS, Secretary of Treasury Tim Geitner to crack down on these tax cheats. Oh, wait a minute he had tax problems too. I love how people seem to only address their IRS issue or other personal issues when it comes time to get a promotion and a high-ranking job.
Now I understand people make mistakes and I am even willing to acknowledge President Obama's nominees have more complicated tax situations then me. But, the IRS contacts you and lets you know you misfiled your taxes. All of these tax problems are not recent issues concerning some one's 2008 tax return. These are issues that have been going on since at least the first term of President George W. Bush. People make mistakes and when you are confronted with a tax return mistake you should handle that immediately. But I don't know maybe that's just me.
President Obama and any other presidential administration should not look for perfect people to help run the country because they won't be able to find people to fill the position (particularly if they only look in Washington). An administration should look at the crocheter of someone. For example I would accept Tom Daschle's errors and nomination if for example he paid his back taxes when he was confronted with the information. I don't trust a person who is using their power, influence , and money to avoid doing what they are suppose to do.
I hate paying taxes more then anybody, but while we have a tax system in this country, I believe I have a duty to pay what I owe. Please don't misunderstand I am a fiscal conservative and think taxes should be as low as possible and it would be great if we could operate without paying any taxes at all. But at least at this time, people pay taxes and should pay the amount on the line. Not paying what the IRS says you owe is like going into the store and not feeling its necessary to pay for your goods.
The tax problems of four of President Obama's nominees are not the only problems that make me question the truth of President Obama's campaign. Former Governor Bill Richardson stepped aside from his nomination as Secretary of Commerce because he is under investigaion for giving state contracts to political supporters. Is this what we call change? So far there is nothing new about President Obama's administration compared to other administrations. If there is any change in the Obama administration maybe they should pass a hat around and use the change to pay off their colleagues tax debt.
Now there has been one change regarding lobbyists working in the Obama Administration. On the campaign trail then Candidate Obama said lobbyists would not work in his White House. Well there's a change...to his campaign promise at least. President Obama granted a waiver to his Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, a defense contractor.
Now I didn't vote for President Obama, in part beacause I felt what he had to say seemed to good to be true. I am not seeing a highly ethical, lobbyist free Cabinet. And most recently when trying to encourage the passage of the Stimulus package, he said if the bill did not pass our economic crisis will turn from a "crisis to catastrophe." What ever happened to the end of the politics of fear? What type of change was President Obama referring to because I haven't seen anything yet. I wonder if the people that did vote for him are feeling a little bit had?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
