We need foot soldiers from the region who are capable of facing-off with the ISIS "soldiers". That's of foremost importance.
Given the desert terrain the transportation of soldiers on the roads is rather limiting. We should focus on a weak spot in North-West Iraq where we can dominate for any period of time. That cuts off the Iraqi ISIS groups from Syrian support.
Since there are only a few roads from the north-west to Baghdad and other parts of eastern Iraq there are no easy escape routes for ISIS groups once they are attacked by overwhelming force.
Focus superior forces on one small location where they have a group and destroy that one group. Then, move on down the road doing the same. We can clear the main road from Syria toward Baghdad that way. Once there is a fork in the road we can either work on one road at a time or simply double the plan and work our way down each other branch toward bigger cities of Iraq. The ISIS groups will have no retreat or support from anyone.
They might seek to move toward Kurdistan, so a strong guard there is needed to keep them boxed-in.
Only once the fighting moves into larger cities could it become more difficult. Keeping civilians out of the way or somehow pushing ISIS fighters away from the citizenry is a tactic which needs some consideration. How can that be done?
Nibbling away at ISIS, one small group at a time means we don't need tremendous numbers of foot soldiers to work with our air forces. But, for a sustained effort it would be good to have sufficient forces to alternate or resupply our foot soldier units. Setting the pace of such a campaign is important and picking the right time of year is helpful. We control those things, not ISIS. We can control where we fight, the time, the manpower on each side, the entire effort.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
The Democratic Agenda
I was thinking for a few days about the Democratic Agenda, particularly after I saw an article with a list of ten things Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants done. I already had three of her ten on my list and can happily add three more of hers. Are these "radical Leftist" goals? No. How the political Right or Left might want to deal with them could be.
Big Campaign Debate Issues This Year
Raise the minimum wage.
Immigration reform
Extend background checks on gun purchases.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
How to handle the Middle East & ISIS-ISIL
Foreign Policy
Destroy ISIS-ISIL
Economic
Tax reform
Raise the minimum wage.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
Infrastructure spending
Broadband internet for everyone
Net neutrality
Immigration reform
Some stronger Wall St. rules
Fundamental to Political System or Personal Rights
End corporate personhood.
Require Campaign contribution transparency.
Make foreign campaign contributions illegal.
Overturn voter ID laws.
Overturn the Hobby Lobby decision
Long-term Projects
Continue working for a nuclear bomb free world
Continue working toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace
Others
EFCA for union workers
Social Security solvency
Require gun locks on guns in households with children.
Close Guantanamo Bay prison
Finally, fill all ambassadorial posts.
Continue whittling away at over-use of filibusters in the Senate
Big Campaign Debate Issues This Year
Raise the minimum wage.
Immigration reform
Extend background checks on gun purchases.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
How to handle the Middle East & ISIS-ISIL
Foreign Policy
Destroy ISIS-ISIL
Economic
Tax reform
Raise the minimum wage.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
Infrastructure spending
Broadband internet for everyone
Net neutrality
Immigration reform
Some stronger Wall St. rules
Fundamental to Political System or Personal Rights
End corporate personhood.
Require Campaign contribution transparency.
Make foreign campaign contributions illegal.
Overturn voter ID laws.
Overturn the Hobby Lobby decision
Long-term Projects
Continue working for a nuclear bomb free world
Continue working toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace
Others
EFCA for union workers
Social Security solvency
Require gun locks on guns in households with children.
Close Guantanamo Bay prison
Finally, fill all ambassadorial posts.
Continue whittling away at over-use of filibusters in the Senate
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Breaking Gridlock
The public is disgusted with government. Why can't they get anything done? How can America move forward with this partisan gridlock?
Here are some ways to break the gridlock:
1. Impeach and convict and remove the president AND the vice president for no just cause, so that current Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) can become president. The Democrats in the Senate wouldn't enjoy cooperate because it's their duty to try a president and convict him/her.
2. Vote to overturn the majority of the House of Representatives -- throw out Speaker Boehner. Then Democrats would have control of the House, Senate and presidency. This would require a huge number of House races (currently being contested) to flip from Republican control to Democratic. Nobody has found a way to convince that many voters to change their vote.
3. Vote to kick out Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) who has abused the filibuster as nobody before ever dreamt possible. But, Republicans would elect another Leader who would probably continue the practice.
4. Vote to turn over the Senate to the Republicans. Problem is, only one-third of the Senate seats are up for election each cycle, so this would require at least another election. And, nobody has found a way to convince the electorate to change their views that fast.
In short, you can't just enforce "getting things done". If the public are not of a unified view, if there is no consensus, then things just aren't going to get done.
So, what should the voter do? Vote for the person you think is going to do the best job, as you see that. It's what the Founders of this country wanted. They didn't think it always necessary for Congress to move quickly or at all. They thought it was important for a sound majority to exist before anything could or should happen. Not changing things isn't the end of the world (usually).
As a partisan Democrat it bothers me that certain things aren't getting done and I blame Republicans for holding back the nation. There are Republicans who say it's President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (House Democrats Leader) and all the Democrats who are standing in the way. This is an extreme case of partisanship or of ideologies being less overlapping, but it is not "against the rules" or "a broken Congress". It's just frustrating.
Here are some ways to break the gridlock:
1. Impeach and convict and remove the president AND the vice president for no just cause, so that current Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) can become president. The Democrats in the Senate wouldn't enjoy cooperate because it's their duty to try a president and convict him/her.
2. Vote to overturn the majority of the House of Representatives -- throw out Speaker Boehner. Then Democrats would have control of the House, Senate and presidency. This would require a huge number of House races (currently being contested) to flip from Republican control to Democratic. Nobody has found a way to convince that many voters to change their vote.
3. Vote to kick out Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) who has abused the filibuster as nobody before ever dreamt possible. But, Republicans would elect another Leader who would probably continue the practice.
4. Vote to turn over the Senate to the Republicans. Problem is, only one-third of the Senate seats are up for election each cycle, so this would require at least another election. And, nobody has found a way to convince the electorate to change their views that fast.
In short, you can't just enforce "getting things done". If the public are not of a unified view, if there is no consensus, then things just aren't going to get done.
So, what should the voter do? Vote for the person you think is going to do the best job, as you see that. It's what the Founders of this country wanted. They didn't think it always necessary for Congress to move quickly or at all. They thought it was important for a sound majority to exist before anything could or should happen. Not changing things isn't the end of the world (usually).
As a partisan Democrat it bothers me that certain things aren't getting done and I blame Republicans for holding back the nation. There are Republicans who say it's President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (House Democrats Leader) and all the Democrats who are standing in the way. This is an extreme case of partisanship or of ideologies being less overlapping, but it is not "against the rules" or "a broken Congress". It's just frustrating.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Extreme Partisanship vs. Working Together
In campaigns across the country there has been a lot of discussion about the dysfunctionality of Washington and proposed solutions to increase "working across the aisle". Often the question of where this all began has arisen.
Consider the election of Lyndon Johnson. It was a huge landslide for the Democrat with a great deal of help from the African-American electorate and the unions. Republicans were quite concerned about their chances in the next election. To undermine Johnson the records now show Richard Nixon worked behind the scenes to undermine the Vietnam War peace talks. He was probably worried there would be a "breakthrough" at the peace talks in time to make the Democrats very popular in the November elections. Johnson withdrew from the race and stalwart Vice President Hubert Humphrey became the main candidate. Also entering the race was Democrat Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, brother of the slain former president John F. Kennedy. This divided the Democrats, but as John Kennedy had defeated Humphrey in the 1959-60 primary race it was seen by many as most likely Bobby Kennedy would do the same and become the nominee. He was quite charismatic, had the Kennedy aura and was known to be a very good campaigner with youth and great vigor. What Republican could hope to win that race?
At this point in history it's safe to say the change in the country because of the Civil Rights bills Johnson had pushed into law made the African-American vote a big advantage to the Democrats. What were the Republicans to do?
I don't know whose idea it was, but the Republicans devised a "Southern strategy" which was aimed at the White vote, particularly the men's vote. From that time until today the Solid South still votes Republican, unless there is an exceptional person such as Jimmy Carter (who was an unknown when he ran for office in 1975-76) or the charismatic Bill Clinton (who first ran in 1991-92). Another prong of the Republican plan was to undermine the unions, and even today you hear arguments for the Citizens United Court decision based on the need for individuals to be able to give large sums of campaign money to compete with the union giving.
The third prong of the Republican strategy may have come a bit later. I don't recall precisely when it began or who promoted it, but it may have been a fortuitous effect of the Southern Strategy affecting many in the West (the mid-west to the Rocky Mountain areas) and the rabid support for Arizonan Barry Goldwater. They joined the Southerners and made a strong coalition. The Republicans took advantage of this in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, born in the mid-west, but living in southern California. California has drifted more and more toward the Democrats, but in 1980 the candidacy of Reagan made it possible for them to win. Reagan's first campaign stop was in Philadelphia...Mississippi to win the Southern vote.
Finally, the biggest strategic decision, but one not involving any distinct electoral group (such as southerners or rogue Alaskans or maverick Arizonans) was to make themselves more distinct in the voter's mind from the Democrats -- to give them a clear choice. There may have been some in the Republican party who suggested this in the 1970s, but I think I recall hearing it first in the 1980s. This divided the country, eliminated a need for "working across the aisle" and led to some other major changes.
There has long been a two-sided coin to Republican thinking: should they allow the occasional Liberal Democratic president to get our turn at having a Conservative Right-Wing Republican president or should they try to push the country as a whole to the Right to avoid ever having a Liberal Democratic president, even if it means having more Centrist Democratic presidents and fewer Republican presidents altogether.
I believe the Bush family were the Conservative Right-Wingers who crept into the Republican tent (with Reagan's blessing) to garner support from that part of the Right's electorate. George H. W. Bush managed to present a moderate's image while holding some more radical views. His son George W. Bush didn't have the smooth veneer, but with help from his campaign team they used the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" and campaign rhetoric such as calling for a reduction in overseas military bases (believe it or not) to convince the public Dubya was okay. His policies in office were dramatically more radical. Since California had become more Democratic after Reagan it should also have been no surprise their candidate for the presidency in 1999-2000 was from the mid-West and South -- Texas in this case.
The Gore-Bush election of 2000 was the ultimate division of the country. It was decided by one U.S. Supreme Court vote. Some said, "the South has arisen again".
It was also the dream race for the Republicans. They not only defeated a true Liberal (Gore), but didn't have to put up a moderate Republican to win. They had it all: a Conservative Right-Wing presidency, control of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Such power has never really been wielded before in America. And, it was a disaster.
Surprisingly, there were a few instances where Dubya worked across the aisles, but on at least one or two occasions "his" Congress didn't go along with his leadership. Even the radical president wasn't enough for the Republican members of Congress. This wasn't the first indication the Congressional Republicans were moving rapidly to the Right. In 1994 the Republicans got control of the House of Representatives with new Speaker Newt Gingrich declaring he was a revolutionary. But, he too was removed for being too willing to work with Democrats. The Party had clearly moved very far to the Right.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected and even as he was being inaugurated the Republican Leader of the Republican caucus (the minority now) Sen. Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky) was saying his primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president (in essence to make him Carter II). If anyone had any doubts about the country being divided or any confusion why there was no "working across the aisle" it should have been over that day. Since then McConnell has used the filibuster more than ever before. It became so that years into his term the president still couldn't fill ordinary offices with his own appointees.
That is how it began and why we see such partisan divisiveness today.
Consider the election of Lyndon Johnson. It was a huge landslide for the Democrat with a great deal of help from the African-American electorate and the unions. Republicans were quite concerned about their chances in the next election. To undermine Johnson the records now show Richard Nixon worked behind the scenes to undermine the Vietnam War peace talks. He was probably worried there would be a "breakthrough" at the peace talks in time to make the Democrats very popular in the November elections. Johnson withdrew from the race and stalwart Vice President Hubert Humphrey became the main candidate. Also entering the race was Democrat Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, brother of the slain former president John F. Kennedy. This divided the Democrats, but as John Kennedy had defeated Humphrey in the 1959-60 primary race it was seen by many as most likely Bobby Kennedy would do the same and become the nominee. He was quite charismatic, had the Kennedy aura and was known to be a very good campaigner with youth and great vigor. What Republican could hope to win that race?
At this point in history it's safe to say the change in the country because of the Civil Rights bills Johnson had pushed into law made the African-American vote a big advantage to the Democrats. What were the Republicans to do?
I don't know whose idea it was, but the Republicans devised a "Southern strategy" which was aimed at the White vote, particularly the men's vote. From that time until today the Solid South still votes Republican, unless there is an exceptional person such as Jimmy Carter (who was an unknown when he ran for office in 1975-76) or the charismatic Bill Clinton (who first ran in 1991-92). Another prong of the Republican plan was to undermine the unions, and even today you hear arguments for the Citizens United Court decision based on the need for individuals to be able to give large sums of campaign money to compete with the union giving.
The third prong of the Republican strategy may have come a bit later. I don't recall precisely when it began or who promoted it, but it may have been a fortuitous effect of the Southern Strategy affecting many in the West (the mid-west to the Rocky Mountain areas) and the rabid support for Arizonan Barry Goldwater. They joined the Southerners and made a strong coalition. The Republicans took advantage of this in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, born in the mid-west, but living in southern California. California has drifted more and more toward the Democrats, but in 1980 the candidacy of Reagan made it possible for them to win. Reagan's first campaign stop was in Philadelphia...Mississippi to win the Southern vote.
Finally, the biggest strategic decision, but one not involving any distinct electoral group (such as southerners or rogue Alaskans or maverick Arizonans) was to make themselves more distinct in the voter's mind from the Democrats -- to give them a clear choice. There may have been some in the Republican party who suggested this in the 1970s, but I think I recall hearing it first in the 1980s. This divided the country, eliminated a need for "working across the aisle" and led to some other major changes.
There has long been a two-sided coin to Republican thinking: should they allow the occasional Liberal Democratic president to get our turn at having a Conservative Right-Wing Republican president or should they try to push the country as a whole to the Right to avoid ever having a Liberal Democratic president, even if it means having more Centrist Democratic presidents and fewer Republican presidents altogether.
I believe the Bush family were the Conservative Right-Wingers who crept into the Republican tent (with Reagan's blessing) to garner support from that part of the Right's electorate. George H. W. Bush managed to present a moderate's image while holding some more radical views. His son George W. Bush didn't have the smooth veneer, but with help from his campaign team they used the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" and campaign rhetoric such as calling for a reduction in overseas military bases (believe it or not) to convince the public Dubya was okay. His policies in office were dramatically more radical. Since California had become more Democratic after Reagan it should also have been no surprise their candidate for the presidency in 1999-2000 was from the mid-West and South -- Texas in this case.
The Gore-Bush election of 2000 was the ultimate division of the country. It was decided by one U.S. Supreme Court vote. Some said, "the South has arisen again".
It was also the dream race for the Republicans. They not only defeated a true Liberal (Gore), but didn't have to put up a moderate Republican to win. They had it all: a Conservative Right-Wing presidency, control of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Such power has never really been wielded before in America. And, it was a disaster.
Surprisingly, there were a few instances where Dubya worked across the aisles, but on at least one or two occasions "his" Congress didn't go along with his leadership. Even the radical president wasn't enough for the Republican members of Congress. This wasn't the first indication the Congressional Republicans were moving rapidly to the Right. In 1994 the Republicans got control of the House of Representatives with new Speaker Newt Gingrich declaring he was a revolutionary. But, he too was removed for being too willing to work with Democrats. The Party had clearly moved very far to the Right.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected and even as he was being inaugurated the Republican Leader of the Republican caucus (the minority now) Sen. Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky) was saying his primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president (in essence to make him Carter II). If anyone had any doubts about the country being divided or any confusion why there was no "working across the aisle" it should have been over that day. Since then McConnell has used the filibuster more than ever before. It became so that years into his term the president still couldn't fill ordinary offices with his own appointees.
That is how it began and why we see such partisan divisiveness today.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Better Safe Than Sorry
Everyone is getting worried about ebola. I've heard from people in the medical field and I've heard politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) from Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and elsewhere all calling for a ban on travel from the West Africa countries which have an epidemic of ebola.
It's time to be Safe Rather Than Sorry, put up this additional barrier and continue the existing medical filters to keep people with ebola out and to quarantine those who somehow still get here.
It's unfortunate we should have to do something like this, but the American people have every right to be concerned and demand their government help them avoid a catastrophe.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
In Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell says Clean Coal Doesn't Exist and that He's for Jobs
Clean Coal According to NBC News
In 1984 McConnell Objected to a New Coal Plant in Kentucky
McConnell, like many Republicans, wants to appear one way for the voters back home, but in Washington acts another way. He said Kentuckians can keep their Kynect website (funded by Obamacare / ACA ), but he would get rid of the ACA. How can Kynect connect to the government agencies necessary to operate properly if the ACA is ended? How can the insurance companies who would offer policies via Kynect be regulated to offering comparable good quality policies if the ACA is ended? Nope, it can't. But, McConnell wants people to think Kynect was just a website invented by Kentuckians and that's all it is, just a simple website. But, it's not.
Many Republicans around the country do this, but McConnell is the leader of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. He sets the tone for much of what happens in Washington and his main priority he announced just after Obama was elected president was to make him a failure, a one-term president. To that end he has filibustered more than any time in the past and opposed the president tooth-and-nail.
In the House of Representatives the Republicans are doing much the same thing. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) pretends to be Speaker of the Majority and only brings bills up for debate & a vote if they have support from the Republicans. That's never been done before. The Speaker is supposed to Speak for the whole House, not just his own party.
To end that kind of hypocrisy and gridlock we need new Republican leaders and a clear Democratic majority in the House and Senate to get things done.
In 1984 McConnell Objected to a New Coal Plant in Kentucky
McConnell, like many Republicans, wants to appear one way for the voters back home, but in Washington acts another way. He said Kentuckians can keep their Kynect website (funded by Obamacare / ACA ), but he would get rid of the ACA. How can Kynect connect to the government agencies necessary to operate properly if the ACA is ended? How can the insurance companies who would offer policies via Kynect be regulated to offering comparable good quality policies if the ACA is ended? Nope, it can't. But, McConnell wants people to think Kynect was just a website invented by Kentuckians and that's all it is, just a simple website. But, it's not.
Many Republicans around the country do this, but McConnell is the leader of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. He sets the tone for much of what happens in Washington and his main priority he announced just after Obama was elected president was to make him a failure, a one-term president. To that end he has filibustered more than any time in the past and opposed the president tooth-and-nail.
In the House of Representatives the Republicans are doing much the same thing. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) pretends to be Speaker of the Majority and only brings bills up for debate & a vote if they have support from the Republicans. That's never been done before. The Speaker is supposed to Speak for the whole House, not just his own party.
To end that kind of hypocrisy and gridlock we need new Republican leaders and a clear Democratic majority in the House and Senate to get things done.
Friday, October 10, 2014
The Next Step in Political Argument
The Republicans are desperate and will slander, lie or anything to gain ground, especially in the close races. One original idea is something the Pat Roberts campaign is doing in Kansas. They're trying to make the old man look like a powerful figure in Washington, willing to stop the president single-handedly with a filibuster by claiming the president wants to immediately do something Roberts opposes. But, the White House response was "What?" They knew nothing of this supposed plan. Apparently the Roberts campaign just made it up to have an argument because they were losing. That's creative.
In West Virginia the Repbublican, Shelley Capito, is simply claiming motherhood and apple pie. I think she has no answer to the charges leveled by her opponent, the Democrat Natalie Tennant.
In many of these races the negativism has been both depressing and frustrating -- the real debate gets lost sometimes.
I think it's time, the election is near, to begin a positive policies only trend, so the public will know precisely (and have it in their minds) what the Democrats want to do in office. Give them a reminder in clear terms what they can vote FOR.
Of course, I prefer the set of policies which enable people to live out their version of The American Dream. I prefer the "family-friendly" set of policies. I prefer the Democratic policies which have already been enunciated in the last several years. It's a long list, so each candidate/campaign has to fashion a statement which fits their own views and recent utterings.
In West Virginia the Repbublican, Shelley Capito, is simply claiming motherhood and apple pie. I think she has no answer to the charges leveled by her opponent, the Democrat Natalie Tennant.
In many of these races the negativism has been both depressing and frustrating -- the real debate gets lost sometimes.
I think it's time, the election is near, to begin a positive policies only trend, so the public will know precisely (and have it in their minds) what the Democrats want to do in office. Give them a reminder in clear terms what they can vote FOR.
Of course, I prefer the set of policies which enable people to live out their version of The American Dream. I prefer the "family-friendly" set of policies. I prefer the Democratic policies which have already been enunciated in the last several years. It's a long list, so each candidate/campaign has to fashion a statement which fits their own views and recent utterings.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
W. Va. Senatorial Debate
The debate just ended and I was impressed with the performance of Sec. Tennant. The moderator also impressed me and he hasn't always done that in past years. His questions were well-placed and worded and led to very good debate discussion. Rep. Capito tried to fight, but sounded too canned and awkward when she tried to either repeat a prepared argument or to speak her own words. Sometimes she said things which were ungrammatical and she couldn't make sense. That's not to say she didn't land a few punches.
They talked about West Virginia, its economy, its people and the nation's foreign policy. They didn't try to nationalize the race and talk about the national issues unless they were closely related to the state and our people. That kind of focus can be good, but when you're talking about a U.S. Senate seat it's important to realize those senators vote to confirm federal Court judges and they usually have much longer and more complete debates about all issues, particularly foreign policy. I want a senator who is capable of thinking and standing up to a wayward president or Court nominee and not just someone who thinks about W. Va.
Sec. Tennant's main blows against Capito were her recent t.v. ad arguments that Capito is too tied to Wall St. bankers and the difference between Capito's words and official votes. I thought this part of the debate was clearly good for Tennant and Capito didn't have much of a rebuttal.
I suspect Sec. Tennant's experience with television broadcasting made it easier for her to handle this debate. Many people wouldn't be comfortable in front of t.v. cameras. Well, she showed by her discussion points that it wasn't just her comfort level which made her appear relevant, it was the content of her arguments. Bravo Sec. Tennant.
They talked about West Virginia, its economy, its people and the nation's foreign policy. They didn't try to nationalize the race and talk about the national issues unless they were closely related to the state and our people. That kind of focus can be good, but when you're talking about a U.S. Senate seat it's important to realize those senators vote to confirm federal Court judges and they usually have much longer and more complete debates about all issues, particularly foreign policy. I want a senator who is capable of thinking and standing up to a wayward president or Court nominee and not just someone who thinks about W. Va.
Sec. Tennant's main blows against Capito were her recent t.v. ad arguments that Capito is too tied to Wall St. bankers and the difference between Capito's words and official votes. I thought this part of the debate was clearly good for Tennant and Capito didn't have much of a rebuttal.
I suspect Sec. Tennant's experience with television broadcasting made it easier for her to handle this debate. Many people wouldn't be comfortable in front of t.v. cameras. Well, she showed by her discussion points that it wasn't just her comfort level which made her appear relevant, it was the content of her arguments. Bravo Sec. Tennant.
Monday, October 6, 2014
North Carolina Congressional Debate: Ellmers vs. Aiken
I just watched their debate and I was very impressed. I didn't expect to be, so this was a big surprise. Both candidates looked good, spoke clearly, used talking points and spoke directly to the immediate issue, and perhaps most importantly, they found ways to turns the discussion to their favor. This was most impressive as usually neither candidate in a Congressional race can do that and it's rare when even one candidate can.
The discussion hit on all the major issues of the day and I didn't really see either candidate landing a knockout punch. Each scored points for jabs and a few longer sequences, but then the other would come right back and do the same.
I don't know what the people of that district want, but they have two intelligent candidates from which to choose.
Personally, I can't imagine any individual Republican representative having the ability to do more than vote for their party line and Ms. Ellmers had difficulty showing she wasn't just another brick in that "just say no" wall. OTOH, Clay Aiken's belief that new members of Congress who believe in establishing relationships across the aisle and talking to everyone may be a bit naïve too.
Of course, party leadership decides whether to continue the House Speaker's rule of only allowing votes on bills the majority of the Republican caucus will approve. As far as I know the Democrats who have been Speaker never did that.
I look forward to seeing the polls and hearing how this race goes. It appears to be a tough one.
The discussion hit on all the major issues of the day and I didn't really see either candidate landing a knockout punch. Each scored points for jabs and a few longer sequences, but then the other would come right back and do the same.
I don't know what the people of that district want, but they have two intelligent candidates from which to choose.
Personally, I can't imagine any individual Republican representative having the ability to do more than vote for their party line and Ms. Ellmers had difficulty showing she wasn't just another brick in that "just say no" wall. OTOH, Clay Aiken's belief that new members of Congress who believe in establishing relationships across the aisle and talking to everyone may be a bit naïve too.
Of course, party leadership decides whether to continue the House Speaker's rule of only allowing votes on bills the majority of the Republican caucus will approve. As far as I know the Democrats who have been Speaker never did that.
I look forward to seeing the polls and hearing how this race goes. It appears to be a tough one.
As the Close Races Near the End
I've seen Republicans turn nasty in W.Va., so I wouldn't be surprised if they bring out the "guns from hell" everywhere to smear their opponents in hopes of turning close races into wins.
It shows they don't really believe the issues and proposed policies are really important so long as they can get into office. If they really believed that it was what they propose to do in office, then they would focus entirely on policies and leadership.
Republicans are offering no leadership, only hate and lies.
In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell doesn't care that he's opposed all federal gov't efforts to improve the economy (for Kentucky and all of America), he just wants to make his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, look bad. I suppose he thinks they already know what he would do in office -- just say "No". Vote for Grimes to have an a real positive agenda for America.
In West Virginia's 3rd District House race they're trying the same kind of smear campaign against Rep. Nick Rahall. A few years ago they did the same against the 1st District Rep who was a Democrat and they won, so I suppose they'll keep using the same tactic. But, Rahall has been a good representative for the state. Do West Virginians care about policies or just appearances.
I wonder where the other smear campaigns are around the country. The national media doesn't usually tell us.
It shows they don't really believe the issues and proposed policies are really important so long as they can get into office. If they really believed that it was what they propose to do in office, then they would focus entirely on policies and leadership.
Republicans are offering no leadership, only hate and lies.
In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell doesn't care that he's opposed all federal gov't efforts to improve the economy (for Kentucky and all of America), he just wants to make his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, look bad. I suppose he thinks they already know what he would do in office -- just say "No". Vote for Grimes to have an a real positive agenda for America.
In West Virginia's 3rd District House race they're trying the same kind of smear campaign against Rep. Nick Rahall. A few years ago they did the same against the 1st District Rep who was a Democrat and they won, so I suppose they'll keep using the same tactic. But, Rahall has been a good representative for the state. Do West Virginians care about policies or just appearances.
I wonder where the other smear campaigns are around the country. The national media doesn't usually tell us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)