Weakened by the unpopular Iraq war, President Bush accused Democrats of lacking a plan to win it as he is campaigning to maintain Republican control of Congress.
President Bush has just sunk to an all time low in my book with these campaign statements. He does not have the right to say this about the Democrats. This is his war. Shouldn't it be he that needs a plan for Iraq? I am sorry Mr. President, but you do not get to criticize the Democrats on this one. Last time I checked, it is you and you and your Republican held Congress in control of making these kinds of decisions. Don't put the blame on the Democrats for not having a plan when you don't have a clue on what to do in Iraq.
It was some of your party members who wanted a vote of no-confidence for the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. Shouldn't that be a sign to you that you are doing something wrong here? I guess it hasn't since the only thing you changed was your slogan for your so called "plan". The only reason you changed the slogan from "Stay the Course" to whatever the hell it is now is because you finally woke up and saw just how unpopular this war is among fellow Americans. You realized that the only way you will gain support for a hope of keeping control of Congress and having an attempt to bring your pitiful approval rating from out the dump is to change your slogan. How about you try this instead Mr. President, how about instead of changing the slogan of your plan, you change the actual plan or better yet, formulate a plan.
What kind of President goes into a war and has no idea on how to get us out of it? If he could serve another four year term, I guarantee you he would still have the troops in Iraq getting shot at and killed everyday with still no plan on how to get out and consider this an American victory.
You have no right to criticize the Democrats on this one George. This is your mess you got yourself in to. This is why you are going to lose control of the House and I hope to God the Senate as well. I hope they make the rest of your pathetic presidency a living nightmare. Next time, before you decide to criticize the Democrats, you need to start with your own party. The Republican party is supporting you on this, and they are the ones with no plan on how to get out and win this war.
A New CNN poll finds most Americans agree with the statement that "the government is not the answer to our problems - government is the problem." The poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans perceive that the size and cost of government have gone up in the past four years, when Republicans have had a grip on the House, the Senate, and the White House. "Conservatives came to office to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative," said Sen. John McCain (R-Arz). "But lately, we have increased government in order to stay in office."
I think John McCain's statement says a mouthfull regarding the Republican party. Conservatives are supposed to believe in less government involvment and an overall decrease in the size of federal government. This doesn't seem like the case as of recently. According to the Congressional Budget Office, government spending grew from $649 billion in 2001 to $968 billion in 2005, an increase of $319 billion.
For a party who believes in less federal government sure are going against their beliefs now aren't they. The thing I don't understand is Republicans keep on saying that if the Democrats take control of Congress, taxes will increase. The Democrats say they will not raise taxes if they gain control, but if they do, it won't be their fault for having to do it. It is going to be the Republican's fault because of their increased spending. It is common sense. The only way government can get money is from the people. The more the government spends, the more the people have to pay.
I just don't understand how Republicans can blame Democrats for the problems in this country when Republicans currently hold both branches of Congress and the White House. They are the ones responsible for everything that is done and not done to this country.
I had a recent discussion with a friend about a recent event he brought up. The even was that somewhere in Southern Texas, the Mexican flag was flown at a high school football game. This outraged my friend but I was un-offended by it.
He was outraged because in America, our national icon is the American flag. In our country, we should say what should be flown on our flagpoles with no exceptions. Since we live in America the Mexican flag has no business for the publics' eyes to see.
I don't agree with what my friend had to say about it. Flying the Mexican flag at a high school football game on a Friday night in a town where it is majority Hispanics does not harm me one bit. Their flag being flown at this football game has absolutely no effect on my life what so ever. I don't see how this flag is causing me any sort of pain or discomfort to anyone's life.
Now to make everything perfectly clear, the Mexican flag on the flagpole did not replace the American flag from my understanding. What I gather from this is that either they flew the Mexican flag on a separate flagpole or underneath the American flag.
I want to hear from someone who is against this flag from being flown. I would love to hear your explanation why they shouldn't have the right to do this. I would love to hear how this harms you in any way.
One thing I like about living in America is my freedoms granted to me. One freedom I have is the right to free speech and freedom of expression. Based on this constitutional amendment, how can I tell them they cannot fly this flag?
Last time I checked, Texas is located within the United States borders. You can look on any map and clearly see that Texas is part of this union. I do not need a flag to be flown in this territory to signify what country I am in.
Liberals believe in the right to choose. They believe that you should have the ability to make the best decision for yourself granting the power to you. A major issue where liberals stand on this position is of course abortion, but this only one example.
As a liberal, I believe in the right to be able to make the best choice for yourself that you see fit. Having the right to choose is a fundamental right of freedom in which America is based upon, but here is where I begin to stray from this belief. If you believe in the right to choose, should you have the right to chose to get behind the wheel of a car and drive while intoxicated? In this case I believe in government involvement. I do believe in the blood alcohol level law that qualifies you for a DUI. I think this is necessary for the safety of all people who drive and somehow they have to be protected.
If you believe in the right to chose, it should be your decision to smoke inside of a public restaurant right? I disagree with this too. By you smoking inside the restaurant, you are making the environment less healthy for everyone inside. Now you might say, "Well, you don't have to dine there. If you don't like that I smoke then you can go and eat elsewhere." That is a true statement. I do not have to eat at that particular place. I can take my business elsewhere, but why should I have to tolerate your smoking when I want to eat there? You don't have to smoke to stay alive. What you have to do to stay alive and healthy is to breathe clean, smoke free air.
I guess to sum up my political view on the issue, I would have to conclude that I believe in the right to choose as long as it does not endanger other people around you. Your choice to be gay is not harming anyone, so why should I try to ban you from getting married. Your choice to take birth control or use other forms of contraception isn't harming a single sole, so why shouldn't you do this if you choose. Looking at pornography or posing for pornography, having sex with whomever is of legal consent, and choosing your own religious beliefs only affects your life, no one else's and should be your choice to make.
Now, you driving drunk puts everyone on the roadway at risk of getting injured or killed, and this should not be your decision to make. You smoking in public venues is making the environment harmful to everyone who has to breath it again, should not be your decision. I think it is necessary for government involvement to step in when it comes to the overall well being of the American public and the human population.
In America, the fastest you can go legally in your automobile is 70 mph. The question I would like to ask you is should the government impose a law to mandate a governor to be installed on engines limiting the automobiles maximum speed to be 70 mph?
Lets stop and think about this before you formulate an opinion. Facts show that on major highways that have lowered their speed limits, crashes and fatalities have decreased by a wide margin making the roadway safer. Another fact based on common sense says that if you drive slower, you have more time to react on the roadway and therefore increases your factor of safety.
Some might say that if this is imposed and someone has an emergency, the quickest that person can drive is 70 mph and sometimes that just isn't fast enough. Try looking at this from this stand point. By you driving over 70 mph, you are increasing the risk of not only you getting in an accident but also the other people on the roadway because of your emergency. How would you feel if because of your emergency, that you caused a wreck and killed an innocent driver on the roadway?
Here is an example of this. You get a call saying that your brother or sister has just been involved in a major car wreck and is rushed to the nearest hospital. You decide to get on the roadway and drive as fast as you can to hurry and go see him or her disregarding all speed limits. By doing this, you are risking the lives of everyone on the roadway and your own life because of a wreck that already happened and cannot do anything about.
If you still say that "No, there shouldn't be a governor on the engine to control my maximum speed," what would you say if your insurance company gives you this option? What if they say they'll drop your insurance rates 25% per vehicle that has this governor installed?
Starting to really think about it now aren't you. It's amazing how one thinks differently when something deals with their pocketbook.
If it was your option, would you have this installed on your 16 year old's vehicle who recently got their drivers license? Everyone knows teenagers are wild behind the wheel and love to drive fast. Why not give them that extra added safety? Why not make sure they don't speed and get ticketed for it?
I want to know what you think about this matter. Even though this is only a few situations I made up, this could possibly be something debated in the future. If you stop and think about it, what is stopping the government from drafting a law to this effect? What is stopping your insurance companies from doing this to save them money?
This photo shows potential Democratic House leaders and Democrats positioned to become committee chairmen if their party should win back a majority in the House on November 7th. From top left to right, potential Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; potential Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Agriculture: Collin Peterson, D-Minn.; Appropriations: David Obey, D-Wis.; Armed Services: Ike Skelton, D-Mo.; Budget: John Spratt, D-S.C.; Education and the Workforce: George Miller, D-Calif.; Energy and Commerce: John Dingell, D-Mich.; Financial Services: Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Government Reform: Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Elections are only 14 short days away. Democrats are set to take control of the House and possibly even the Senate. Mark my words, the Democrats will take over the House and put this country back on track. Don't be afraid of this change. It is defiantly needed, and what better time than now.
Personal Info Birth: February 22, 1952 Religion: Presbyterian
On the Issues Abortion: Pro-life voting record Stem Cell Research: Supports with ethical standards Gay Marriage: Against same-sex marriage Death Penalty: Supports the death penalty Drugs: Supports increased panalties rather than rehab School Vouchers: For public school voucher program Education: Anti-public education voting record Oil: Against alternative fuels, For oil leasing in Alaska's AMWR Free Trade: Supports free trade over fair trade Gun Control: Loosening restrictions for background checks Health Care: For privitized medical coverage, Anti-public health voting record Homeland Security: Supports National Missile Defense Immigration: Supporst Guest Worker program but not allowing them path to citizenship Minimum Wage: Against raising the minimum wage Social Security: For privitizing social security War in Iraq: "Stay the Course" plan for Iraq
Voting Record Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives Voted YES on banning human cloning Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts Voted YES on school vouchers Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows Voted NO on background checks at gun shows
United States Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he has thought about running for president in 2008 but will give it more serious consideration after the mid-term congressional elections.
Senator Obama is being considered one of the most powerful political figures of the Democratic party. If he would decide not to run for president in 2008, it would be a shame to the Democratic party and a let down to the country. Senator Obama is less than two years into his first term in the U.S. Senate. He has previously stated that he plans to serve out his entire six-year term in the Senate. When he said this he had no idea just how great of a politician he would become.
Time magazine named Obama one of "the world's most influential people." In an article in the British journal, Obama is listed as one of the "10 people who could change the world."
Senator Obama just recently published his second book entitled "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream". This is Senator Obama's second book to have been published, which is preceeded by "Dreams from My Father".
I have a strong belief that Senator Obama will announce his run for the presidency after the mid-term elections. It would be ashame for him not to considering how influential and strong a politician he is. Watch for him to be a real contender for United States President in 2008.
Personal Info Birth: October 26, 1947 Religion: Methodist
On the Issues Abortion: Pro-choice, late term abortion only if life or heath at risk Stem Cell: Expand embryonic stem cell research Gay Marriage: Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits Crime: Supports "Three Strikes" laws and more prisons, more funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes Education: Transfer tax cuts from rich & corporations to student aid, pro-public schools Oil: Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation Environment: Stands for clean air and funding the EPA Family & Children: Supports Leave No Child Behind program Foreign Policy: Engage in world affairs including human rights Gun Control: Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands Health Care: Work toward affordable universal health care Homeland Security: Supports funding for "Star Wars" missile defense Immigration: Establish a Guest Worker program Jobs: The working poor deserve a living wage Minimum Wage: Increase the minimum wage Social Security: Social Security protects families not just retirees Tax Reform: Tax cuts for the middle class Technology: Increase spending for libraries Drugs: Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts War in Iraq: Believes the Iraq war is up to the people of Iraq to be won or lost, not the U.S., Bring the troops home
Voting Record Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration
Personal Info Birth: November 20, 1942 Religion: Roman Catholic
On the Issues Abortion: Abortion is a woman's right but disagress with partial birth abortion Stem Cell Research: Expand embryonic stem cell research Budget & Economy: Tax cuts more important than national debt reduction Gay Marriage: OK with same-sex marriages Crime: Establish an FBI registry of sexual offenders Death Penalty: Against death penalty appeals limit Drugs: Against increasing penalties for drug offenders School Vouchers: Against school vouchers Education: Funding for smaller classes rather than private tutors Oil: Reduce oil usage by 40% by 2025 Energy: Ban drilling in AMWR Gun Control: Stronger license and background checks at gun shows Health Care: Pro-public health voting record Immigration: For a Guest Worker program Minimum Wage: Supports a minimum wage increase, Pro-union voting record Social Security: Against Privitizing, Pro-senior voting record Welfare: Supports welfare reform, against privitizing
Voting Record Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime Voted NO on banning human cloning Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts Voted NO on school vouchers Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007 Voted YES on welfare block grants
New Orleans police found a very disturbing crime scene at a New Orleans' residence. They found a charred head in a pot on the stove, feet and legs baked in the oven, and the rest of the body dismembered in trash bags in the refrigerator. The man responsible for this horrendous act wrote a suicide note, placed it in his pants pocket, and jumped off the Omni Royals Orleans Hotel to his death. The person he brutalized and cooked was supposedly his girlfriend in her mid 20s.
The five-page suicide note claimed that he strangled her in the bathtub then dismembered her body before taking it in pieces to the kitchen. Police found the victim's head burned beyond recognition in a pot on top of the stove and her legs and feet in the same condition in pans inside the oven.
The man responsible apparently had lived in the New Orleans area, and friends say he served in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and displayed bitterness over that experience.
Only in Louisiana will you find something this horrendous. I am a resident of Louisiana and have been for all of my life (only 22 years). I would just like to make the record clear that this isn't a normal occurrence. I don't know what your ideas of people from Louisiana are, but I can say with confidence that we are no different that any of you. Don't believe everything you see on TV about this great state.
Back to the story. This is a real horrible ordeal. I have no idea what goes through someone's mind at the time they decide to cut up their girlfriend and cook her body parts. I don't know if after he cooked her if he did in fact eat part of her but based on what I read, I wouldn't put it past him. This obviously was a sick individual that was in desperate need of some mental help. I wish instead of deciding to take his girlfriend's life and then his own that he would have sought some help. This probably would have prevented this horrible act from happening.
With congressional elections less than 20 days away, the Republican party's approval ratings are at an all-time low. 47% of respondents said they were less in favor of keeping Republicans in control of Congress with only 16% of respondents approving of the job Congress is doing, the lowest level since 1992.
In October 1994, when Democrats held congressional majorities, Congress had a 24% job approval rating. Democrats lost 52 House seats and 8 Senate seats in the 1994 midterm elections.
When asked who would you vote for in the upcoming congressional election, 37% of those polled said Republicans and 52% said Democrats. The 15% difference was the highest disparity ever in the polls and up from a 9 point difference only a month ago.
Lets hope these poll numbers are a good indication of what is going to happen this November. I'm fairly confident that the Democrats will take back the House but it's not so clear for the Senate. It is possible but would require some upsets to occur. I hope this change occurs because we are in desperate need of it. This session Congress got just about nothing accomplished. It is time to put new people in office that are willing to work for America.
Because of school, I am unable to be at the polls on November 7th. This will be the first election I will not be voting on the actual day of the election. This, however, is not going to stop me from casting my vote. I am voting absentee this year. I received my ballot in the mail today, and I already completed it. All I have left to do is get it signed by two witnesses and mail it off.
I would just like to remind everyone to get out and go vote on November 7th. If you are unable to vote, do like me and cast your vote absentee. Its really easy, you don't have to wait in the long lines, and there is no confusion like when dealing with the electronic voting machines.
I recently discovered this new political quiz site. Try it out. It is pretty interesting. It won't take much of your time at all, and it may even decide for you which way you should be voting in upcoming elections.
It is on the Ontheissues.org website under Quizzes tab at the top.
If you click on the SenateMatch Quiz 2006, you can get results by which Senate candidate you match the closest, which possible 2008 Presidential candidate you match, and your political philosophy.
Here is what is said for me:
Your Score You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions: Personal Score 75% Economic Score 8%
Where You Fit In Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy. Based on the above score, you are a Hard-Core Liberal.
About the Results Personal Score: This measures how much you believe government should intervene in people's personal lives. Personal issues include health, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars.
A high score (above 60%) means you believe in tolerance for different people and lifestyles. A low score (below 40%) means you believe that your standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government.
Economic Score: This measures how much you believe government should intervene in people's economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.
A high score (above 60%) means you believe in personal responsibility for your financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government. A low score (below 40%) means you believe that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. You believe that government's purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.
Officials at an elementary school south of Boston have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable. Recess is "a time when accidents can happen," said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe, who approved the ban.
On one hand, I do see where this principal is coming from. As principal, she does have a responsibility to keeping her students safe from injury. By not allowing this these playtime games to occur, this does decrease the risk of serious injury.
On the other hand, in today's society kids can no longer just be kids. Playtime for kids is pertinent to their social development. This is a great way for these kids to release stress, release energy and develop as human beings.
Which hand would pick? This is starting to be strongly debated around the country. If these principals do let their students play these playground games and one does get hurt, the parents are only going to want to sue. I think the blame for this ban on playground games falls on the parents. It is their fault. If they wouldn't want to sue every time their kid got hurt and realize that kids will be kids and get hurt, then you wouldn't have to worry about this banning taking place.
I would have to agree with the principal here though. If I was principal, I would have to approve the ban. You're probably calling me a Pinco-commie liberal right now, but I'm looking at it from this point of view. Schools are setup for on purpose and on purpose only. Students are there to get an education. They aren't there to teach religion, to discipline your kids, and not to allow them to run around unattended and get seriously injured.
I'm not against playtime fun. The thing is that it needs to be supervised. Allow the kids to play during their physical education class. That is what that is there for. Recess should be there so the kids should stretch their legs, go to the restroom, get some water, and give their brains a rest from all the strain.
President Bush assured Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that the United States has not set any deadline for the Iraqi government to bring the violence under control and to take back their country.
If we don't give the Iraqi government a set time for them to take back control of their security, it will never happen. It is like if your parents tell you to clean your room but never give you a deadline to complete it, it will never get done.
I don't know what is Bush's plan to completing Iraq. Oh wait yes I do, there is no plan! That is the part I don't get about this war, and how people can still support this President. He has no plan for post-Iraq. He doesn't even have a plan on how to successfully get out of Iraq nor does he have a plan on how to consider Iraq a victory for the U.S. As president, you can't just go to war with a country and leave the planning on how to complete it in the hands of the next president. This is a complete failure on his part, and I wish more people would wake up and see this.
Iraq is a failure and always will be. The main reason it will be considered a failure is because of the lack of planning from him and his administration. Leaving a mess for the next president to clean up after you are out of office doesn't give you points to be considered a good president.
The last thing is he had five years to come up with some sort of plan for Iraq since we invaded it in 2003. There is no excuse for this war to be going like it is. As president, he should realize that their is a problem with the way the war is going and take presidental responsibilities by making the necessary changes. His lack of leadership has failed this country in so many ways. Iraq is only one example of his failed leadership as president.
Julia Wilson, 14, got a surprise visit from two Secret Service agents at her high school after the words "Kill Bush" appeared on her MySpace.com web page. Julia was pulled out of her biology class to answer why she posted a cartoonish photo-collage of a knife stabbing the hand of the president under the words "Kill Bush" on her personal MYSpace page. Julia was questioned by two Secret Service agents without her parents present, which is raising some controversy. First Amendment lawyers question whether Secret Service over-reacted to her comment.
Well first of all, if you happen to search the internet for the words "Kill Bush", you will probably get a link to my web page. I wonder if Secret Service will come and pay me a visit. Trust me, if they do you will be the first to hear about it. This would make quite a post to my blog don't you think?
Now about Julia Wilson's situation. I don't have a problem with Secret Service agents checking out threats made to our president. I may not agree with the president and may not approve of the job he is doing, but I definitely do not believe he should be assassinated. What I do have a problem with, however, is when the Secret Service pulls a 14 year old girl out of her high school class room and accuses her of wanting to kill the president because of a cartoon drawing on her web page. I also don't like the fact that she was questioned without her parents present. How big of a threat could this young girl really be to national security? This is just another example of our government chasing around fellow Americans and ignoring those who are really threats to our country.
The U.S. Senate approved a bill to allow the construction of a border fence between the United States and Mexico last month. The foreign secretary of Mexico said the country may take a dispute over these plans of building the fence. The Mexican foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, said that a legal investigation was under way to determine whether Mexico has a case. The Mexican government sent a diplomatic note to Washington, DC critizing the plan for the 700 mile long fence along the border.
I don't see where Mexico has any sort of case here. The fence would be placed on our side of the border, and as a nation, we have all the legal rights to do what we want with it.
I think the fence is a great plan to help stop illegal immigration into this country. The impression I'm getting from Mexico is that they don't want their own people in their country. Illegal immigration is hurting our economy and needs to be dealt with in a serious matter. We cannot allow Mexico to take legal action against the border fence construction. As a result, this would only be viewed as a mockery of the U.S. Senate to everyone around the globe.
According to a recent USA Today Gallup Poll, 58% of registered voters say they would give their vote to a Democrat in this Novembers Congressional elections.
Other statistics show that nearly 3 in every 10 registered voters said their representative does not deserve re-election. This is the highest level since 1994.
President Bush's approval rates is 37% in the new poll which is down from a September 17th poll that had him at 44% approval.
Also, for the first time since the question was asked in 2002 which party would best handle terrorism, Democrats favored the Republicans by a 46% to 41% margin.
GOP ratings in the polls have plummeted due to a series of events that have given the Democrats ammunition to argue that the country is in need of a new direction. Some of these events include increased violence in Iraq, the Bob Woodard book about internal White House discord about Iraq, and of course the Mark Foley (R-Fl.) scandal.
All of these statistics sums up exactly how the majority of Americans feel. The majority feel that it is time for a new direction. They feel that a change of power is needed. Republicans are scared to death of this, because they know exactly what this means. They know they are on the verge of losing control of the House or even the entire Congress all together.
Don't be afraid to vote Democrat. You are certainly not alone. I know it seems like everyone you talk to or all of your friends are conservatives, but let me let you in on a little secret. The liberal population is growing, and we are beginning to be heard. The time for conservatism was an idea of the past. Stand proud of your liberal believes. Recognize that a change in Congress is definitely needed, and ask yourself this question. Is it time for me to do what is right to end this corruption in Congress and place this country in a new direction? If you believe so, just as many others like you do, then don't be ashamed to give your vote to the Democrats. Stand proud by the fact that you are playing your part by shifting this country back on track and in its long needed new direction.
According to North Korean officials, the big underground blast that occurred Sunday night was a successful nuclear test. U.S. and other allies have yet to confirm this test to be in fact nuclear. Only 30 minutes after this blast went off, the U.N. Security Council went into an emergency session to decide what is to be done with North Korea.
President Bush called this action "a threat to international peace and security." As of present, there was no talk of military action even though this can be considered acts of war.
Right now the U.N. is trying to resolve this with sanctions. The only problem with sanctioning North Korea is that North Korea has been under sanctions for years now. Sanctions are nothing they are not already used to. I wish there was other ways to solve this, but I am beginning to feel that bombs are the only way for this to stop.
Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) said it best when he said that this administration is too much involved in Iraq to know what else is going on around them especially in North Korea. Senator Harry Reid is suggesting that this administration could have done something to prevent North Korea from going nuclear. I think he has a point, but what exactly could they have done.
I hope and pray that the U.N. can resolve this solution without the U.S. having to go to war with North Korea. It is very scary to know that this sick and twisted leader, Kim Jong-Il, is capable of using nuclear weapons. This needs to be taken seriously by the international committee just like it is now, and not stop taking it seriously until this stops.
In a recent press conference, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert attempted to clear the air of all the so called "rumors" regarding the Mark Foley scandal. According to House Speaker Hastert, he was not notified about the emails from Foley to a former Congressional page only a week ago.
Kirk Fordham, the former chief of staff to Mark Foley and more recently Tom Reynolds, stated to the record after he resigned that Dennis Hastert's office new of these emails for at least three years now.
As of present date, Hastert has not resigned from his post of Speaker of the House. He is however being pressured by many members of his own party. Looking at this from a Democratic strategist's standpoint, no matter what Hastert does plays directly into the Democrats hands.
Situation 1: Hastert remains as House Speaker Dennis Hastert decides not to resign and remain as Speaker of House. The wounds made by Foley to the Republican party will never have time to heal. Every time Hastert is at a press conference, this will keep on getting brought up. He will only be viewed as symbol for this Republican scandal.
Situation 2: Hastert steps down as House Speaker Dennis Hastert decides that it is best to resign as Speaker of the House. This will raise many questions regarding his party's leadership. Think about how this will look seeing the person third in line for the presidency step down.
Either way you look at it, the Republican party looks to be in quite a bind politically from all this. If they can rebound by midterm elections, this would be an absolute miracle.
The chief of staff for Republican Congressman Tom Reynolds, Kirk Fordham (R), resigned after questions were raised about his role in the handling of the congressional page scandal, according to Republican sources on Capitol Hill. According to Fordham, he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office at least three years ago that congressional pages had lodged complaints about Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate behavior.
This is shaping up to be a very messy scandal for the Republican party. There is no telling how high up this will end up going. All that can said now is that Speaker Hastert knew of Foley's behavior and did nothing. As Speaker of the House, he has a duty to the House and the United States to ensure the integrity of this branch of Congress, and he simply did not do that. Instead of doing the right thing, he tried to cover it up and protect his party.
Kirk Fordham (R) resigned because he knew he didn't do the right thing and felt the pressure from it. He is spilling his guts too. He is talking to anyone with a microphone and a camera that is willing to listen. Based on his comments, Hastert's job is hanging on by a thread, and I would not be surprised if he does in fact resign.
Speaker of House Dennis Hastert said that he would not step down as Speaker, even as the pressure intensifies about why Republican leaders in the House did not act appropriately when faced months ago that Rep Mark Foley (R-Fl) was sending provocative emails to an under-aged page. Among the options being considered by senior Republicans is for Speaker Hastert to announce that he will stay on as speaker but not seek re-election to the post if Republicans retain control of the House.
The Washington Times, a very conservative newspaper, published "House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away."
Many other Republican leaders are already asking for his resignation. David Bossie, who runs a group called Citizens United, called for Hastert's resignation. Leaders from nearly six dozen socially conservative groups held a conference call all agreeing that this is "an outrage by how Hastert handled this. They feel let down, left aside. How can they allow a guy like Foley to remain chairman of the committee on missing and exploited children when there is any question about emails?"
Based on fact, Speaker of the House Hastert knew about these explicit emails for months now. What did Hastert do? He basically turned his back to the whole innocent hoping it would be taken care of in time. This kind of behavior is inexcusable for a man in his position. He has the responsibility to act accordingly by doing the right thing. He was hoping this would just all go away, well just look at it now.
Due to the fact that Hastert ignored the issue and basically did nothing to handle this, Hastert must resign his post of Speaker of the House. It is his duty to oversee all of the House Representatives. How can he be trusted to do the right thing in the future if something like this or worse comes up again? His non-actions is what must lead to his resignation due to no confidence.
Click Here to read statements by social conservatives asking for his resignation courtesy of DNC.org.
With less than 40 days to go until the elections to determine would will control the House and the Senate, Democrats suddenly face a map with unexpected opportunities. In Virginia, a state that was thought to be a shoe in for Senator George Allen, Republican, looks vulnerable after a series of controversies over his racial views. In Tennessee, a state that was to be considered safe for Republicans, the Democratic challenger, Harold Ford Jr., has kept to race particularly close. Elsewhere, Democratic challengers are either neck and neck or in a close tie in five states help by Republicans: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, and Missouri.
Senator George Allen (R-Va.) led his Democrat challenger, Jim Webb by 17 points six weeks ago. Now he and his challenger are in a virtual dead heat for the seat. Allen's lead vanished after he singled out an American student of Indian descent who works for his opponent calling his a North African racial slur "macaca". More recently, he has been accused of using other racial slurs toward blacks calling them the "N" word.
Democrats would have to win six Republican seats on election night to regain a majority, meaning they would have to win nearly every close race. Still, a shift in the Senate was always considered to be a long shot for the Democrats this year. There is no doubt that the Democrats will shorten the current divide with Republicans holding 55 of the seats, Democrats holding 44 seats, 1 seat held by an Independent that sides with the Democrats.
The House is looking more optimistic for the Democrats. The current break down in the House is Republicans holding 230 seats, Democrats with 201 seats, 1 seat held by an Independent and 3 seats are currently vacant. The three vacant seats come from New Jersey's 13th district since January 16, 2006, Texas's 22nd district vacant since June 9, 2006, and Florida's 16th district vacant since September 29, 2006. Even though the Democrats need to pick up 15 seats, this is less of a challenge than that of the Senate.
The ultimate way to speak out against your government is to get out and vote. Remember, National elections for 2006 will be held on November 7th, and I would like to urge each and everyone of you to go and cast your ballot.
Click Here to view some of the emails that Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl.) sent to the 16 year old boy.
Click Here to view the actual instant messages from Foley to the young boy.
In the most recent of scandals on Capital Hill to occur, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl.) of the 16th Congressional District in Florida has resigned from office on Friday, September 29th after it became public that he has sent inappropriate emails to an underaged child. The kid who Foley sent the emails to was a 16 year old boy who worked in Congress as a page.
In the emails Foley asks the boy to "send me an email pic of you as well" and "I just emailed Will...hes such a nice guy...acts much older than his age....and hes in really great shape". Foley also continued to say "what do you want for your birthday coming up...what stuff do you like to do".
The FBI has opened an investigation of Rep. Foley as of Sunday, October 1st. Agents in the FBI's Cyber Division have already begun to examine the texts of some of the emails Foley sent. It is very possible that Foley could be prosecuted under laws he helped enact as the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
I have read the emails in the above link, and they are rather disturbing. I find this very scary to know that even young boys at this age can be targeted by these predators. This kind of behavior is completely inexcusable especially for a person in his position. Not only was he an elected U.S. Congressman but also the co-chairman of an organization to stop this sort of behavior from happen to underaged children. Thank goodness this kid decided to turn these emails in to his parents who handed them over to the proper authorities before something worse could have happened.
