Who Am I?

This politician has been mentioned an AWFUL lot recently. Can you guess who he is?

• One former president said of him: "There could not a be a finer candidate for President."
• New York Times named him amongst the "Ten Most Important Living Americans."
• To his critics, he is "Wonder Boy."
• His political career has seen him spearhead a campaign to promote home ownership amongst lower income families and he has promised unprecedented influence of African-Americans upon being elected president.
• He came up with plans to end popular tax cuts by the previous administration.
• He's been accused of "reckless and extravagant" spending plans and "leading the country down the path of socialism."

Who could I possibly be talking about? Answers in the comments section, please, and all commentor's will be entered into my Christmas Competition (since only five people entered the original one!)

Patriotism by the Dashboard Light

Given that both presidential candidates are fairly exceptional and admirable individuals, it's only natural that their detractors have to clutch at straws when it comes to finding 'dirt' to fling at them.

Obama

The perennial issue with Barack Obama is his 'patriotism.' The right wing have attacked him for not wearing a U.S. flag pin on his lapel.

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said in response. "Shortly after 9/11...that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."

I absolutely understand Obama's position. True patriotism doesn't come from wearing a pin, or having a 'God Bless the USA' badge on the tailgate of your pick up truck. Those are merely things and I think it's rather sad that certain people feel they can attack another's 'patriotism' merely because they don't chose to wave the same things that they do.

It's a stupid and inane attack. Now Obama's elected to sport a lapel pin, what's next? Are the right wing going to stick two pins to their lapel and attack anybody who only has one as being 'half as patriotic?'

There are many opinions and actions that make somebody patriotic - but conforming to the dumb mentality of the masses is not one of them. The lapel pin argument is based on St Patrick's day logic. In reality, wearing a green hat doesn't make you Irish.

McCain

In a similarly inane attack, General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO, yesterday attacked McCain's military service record as proof that the senator is 'untested and untried' when it comes to national security.

"He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or his own congressional staff."

As far as lame attacks go, this one is utterly limp.

McCain might not have been a 'great general' like Presidents Eisenhower or Grant. However, he had a distinguished military career, served with great honor and proved himself to be a hero several times over.

Compare that to Barack Obama, who has had no military service whatsoever. Compare it even to George W. Bush, who ducked out of service in Vietnam thanks to his family connections and went AWOL from the 'champagne squadron' he was assigned to.

McCain has a credible record of active military service - but more than that, he has a credible record of making tough decisions and supreme sacrifices.

In 1967, when the aircraft carrier McCain was assigned to was engulfed in flames, the 30 year old Lieutenant Commander suffered serious injuries trying to save the life of a fellow pilot.

In 1968, after spending nearly a year in the hellish 'Hanoi Hilton' as a prisoner of war, the horribly injured McCain was ruthlessly tortured when he refused to accept the offer of repatriation to America and instead stayed with his fellow prisoners.

That decision cost him five years of his life in a brutal prison, suffering torture that has left him with life-long disability. What John McCain endured is beyond the comprehension of most people. I read about what happened to him and know that I could never have survived what he did.

But John McCain didn't just survive it. For the sake of honor and comradeship, he remained a prisoner when he could have had the opportunity to leave.

I don't believe anybody - especially not a fellow Vietnam veteran like Wesley Clark - has the right to attack McCain's qualifications to be president based on his military service. If anything, John McCain's experiences have proven him to be a brutally tough, disciplined, principled man who has experienced the ugly reality of war in a way no other presidential candidate in forty years has.

Whatever weaknesses McCain's campaign has, lack of experience is not one of them. As he himself admits: "I'm older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."

Election Fever 2008!

I haven't had a post about the election in ages - because it's been pretty boring so far.

John McCain might as well be sitting in a hammock drinking cocktails, since his job is done. He's wrapped up the Republican primary and a good job too, since fundamentalist nutjob Mike Huckabee and crazy mormon Mitt Romney would have been scary if they'd been given a shot at the White House.

I like John McCain. His age doesn't worry me, since he's only slightly older than my dad and papa is still sharp as a lick of paint. McCain also wins points because the extreme left despise him (labelling him 'McSame' and accusing him of being 'Bush Mk.II) only slightly less than the extreme right of his own party despise him (calling him a 'leftist' and a 'token Republican' for crossing party lines on certain issues.)

If the far left and the far right can't stand him, he's probably doing something right.

As far as the Democrats go... well, that whole scene's a bloody mess, isn't it?

Republicans are rubbing their hands together at Obama and Clinton locking horns. This whole battle should have been over long ago, but plucky old Hillary is refusing to let Obama win and that's dragging the primary on... and on... and on...


On the face of it, Obama's got her licked. He's got the majority of delegates on his side and is clearly the most popular candidate. Hillary isn't going out without a fight, though, and has awkwardly managed to win states like Florida (even if it didn't count) and Pennsylvania, which are the 'swing states' that will win (or lose) a Presidential election.

The more bitter the battle gets, the more damage Clinton and Obama are doing to each other's chances of victory in the Presidential election.

The consensus is that Hillary will have to use her support amongst the 'super delegates' to secure the candidacy - and if she does that, she'll have basically disenfranchised every person who voted in the Democratic Primaries (since she'd have rejected the popular vote and won through political clout alone.)

If Hillary does that, I can't see how she'd hope to win the 2008 Election.

Will Hillary beat the popular vote?

When it came to the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton might have been forgiven for thinking she would lead the pack. As an immensely popular senator and wife of an equally popular former president, she was clearly the top dog amongst perennial also-ran John Edwards and a relatively inexperienced African American senator called Barack Obama.


But right from the get-go, Barack Obama showed Hillary that the road to the White House would not be as smooth as she might have imagined. First winning the Iowa caucuses, the charismatic senator has since been neck and neck with Hillary – threatening to sledgehammer her presidential campaign before it even begins.

But the game isn’t over yet – and although Obama and Hillary are pretty much even in terms of the delegates they have won over in the state primaries, when it comes to the Democratic National Convention (where the Democratic Presidential Nominee will be declared) Hillary has a powerful ace up her sleeve.

The so-called ‘Super Delegates.’

Representing almost 20% of the Democratic decision makers are the ‘Super Delegates,’ including former Democratic presidents (such as Hillary’s husband, Bill) and elected representatives, like New Jersey governor Jon Corzine. In a race that’s so far been evenly matched, when it comes to making the ‘big decision’ it’s likely that these Super Delegates will be the ‘king makers’ who finally decide who gets the crown (and the backing to run for the White House.)

And amongst them, Hillary Clinton has a distinct advantage.

While Barack Obama’s straightforward and charismatic style has made him enormously popular with ‘regular folk,’ politics is a dirty business and Hillary is waist deep in it. She and her husband have long standing political allies within the Super Delegates. Considering what a cunning and tactical politician she is, I’m sure she’s counting on their help to tip the balance in her favour.

What concerns me is that Barack Obama might well win over the popular vote – establishing himself firmly as the Democrat’s favourite to run for the presidency – only to have his chance squashed when Hillary calls in her political favours and steals the nomination right from under him at the National Convention.

That would be a real shame – and a disaster for the Democratic party. Obama has won the hearts and minds of a broad spectrum of American voters and if Hillary cynically sunk his campaign at the last minute, it would be a clear message to the people of America that a Clinton administration would always value political expediency over the voice of the people.

McCain - a Republican to be proud of...

Conservative talk radio hosts hate John McCain.

Nobody can remember which outspoken pundit coined the term 'McLame' (my bet is Mark Levin) but they're all using it. Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. Even foxy fascist Ann Coulter is getting on the Hate McClain Train with her angry article here.

Ironically, the more the right wing rail against their leading presidential candidate, the more I approve of him. The conservatives hate the fact that he's not 'conservative enough.' I celebrate that fact - because it means he's a politician who's capable of making his own mind up, instead of sticking to tired and flawed political dogma.

Take, for example, the criticisms Ann Coulter levels against him.

Ann complains: He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

Liberals disliked George Bush's decision to appoint Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2006 - pointing out that the 'checks and balances' protecting the democratic process were null-and-void when you've got a conservative President backed by a conservative Congress with a conservative Supreme Court keeping them 'in check.' Or, rather. not.

McCain's criticism of Alito says more about his commitment to democracy than anything else.

After all, Alito has hardly eased the Liberal's concerns by his rulings. In United States v. Rybar he defended the constitutional right to own submachine guns, in Chittister v. D. of C & E D he helped the state government wriggle out of their responsibilities when they fired an employee in blatant violation of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.

Ann whines: He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

McCain's policies towards the issue of Illegal Immigration are utterly transparent. Since 2005, he has been one of the leading campaigners for 'orderly immigration' and penned the McCain-Kennedy Bill which offered a practical and fair solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

I don't agree with his policies - as a legal immigrant to the United States, I expect illegal aliens to be subject to the same strict rules and regulations I was. Any form of 'amnesty' is grossly unfair to the people who respect America's immigration rules - and reward those who break them.

However, one way or another, illegal immigrants in American need to be identified and held accountable. McCain's policies are a sensible way to do this. Although offering the 'carrot' of residency doesn't sit well with me, I am intelligent enough to see that it's a solution that would work - and do so in a much cheaper, more efficient and more humanitarian way than anything loud-mouths like Coulter suggest.

Ann cries: He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

McCain-Feingold was a tricky bit of legislation to get passed - since it dealt with some clearly corrupt elements within the field of political fundraising. Elements who have clout in congress.

The law itself prevents certain lobbying groups from enjoying tax-exemption as "political organizations" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527) - while at the same time, remaining independent of lobbying rules and regulations by not registering themselves as 'political organizations' with the Federal Election Commission.

A very clear conflict and one that's been abused for far too long. McCain was absolutely right to stomp this abuse of the rules out.

Ann Coulter's lying when she says McCain-Feingold restricts citizens' rights to free speech. In fact, it merely prevents cynical political groups from bending funding laws - and the only voices they tend to represent are corporations and lobbying organizations.

Ann whines: He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

One of the organizations that fell foul of the McCain-Feingold bill were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I think I'll have to post more extensively about this group of Vietnam vets and former prisoners of war. Their story is an ugly one.

This group lobbied during the 2004 elections to 'expose' the 'truth' of Democrat John Kerry's war record. Instead, they just exposed themselves as liars and political puppets.

McCain, as a former Vietnam Veteran and prisoner of war, quite rightly finds the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be a disgusting, cynical organization comprised of proven liars who turned on their former brother-in-arms for political gain.

Fortunately, some of those gains were mitigated by McCain-Feingold. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were fined $299,500 for abusing the funding loophole exposed by Senator McCain's bill.

Ann squeals: He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

I've already written about how admirable John McCain's opposition to 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is. As the only man in the Republican presidential race to have actually experienced torture, he is the only one who knows first hand what a cowardly and unAmerican act it is.

And while defending America is clearly an important issue for the Senator, he has never minced words when it comes to his condemnation of Guantanamo Bay.

People being held without charge, without trial and without accountability is totally incompatible with the spirit of American society. As long as prisoners are held in Guantanamo Bay, the United States have lost the moral footing which once made us the leader of the free world.

Perhaps we are handicapping ourselves in 'The War on Terror' by refusing to lay down old-fashioned ideas like due process, habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence. But Senator McCain feels that the moment we lay down those things, we become more like the evil that we're fighting. I happen to totally agree with him.

Ann dribbles: He supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

If anybody still clings onto the cynical conservative dogma that Global Warming is not real, I suggest they read this article on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, being written by the very people who read it, tends to offer a more balanced view of issues than the media. Even their articles on hot-button topics like pedophilia offer mitigating opinions from those in support of such disgusting child abuse - as well as those condemning it.

Yet there is no beating around the bush when it comes to Global Warming. It's here. It's real and the people behind Global Warming Denial are exposed as spreading 'disinformation.' There are no attempts to disprove this fact.

If Ann Coulter and the rest of the conservative right want to continue spreading their Climate Change lies, that's their prerogative. However, in recognizing Global Warming and making a commitment to combating it, Senator John McCain proves that he's far more enlightened than the more extreme elements of his party.

McCain 2008?

John McCain is one of the finest presidential nominees the Republicans have fielded in many years. I have great respect for this man and his commitment to old-fashioned American ideals like truth, justice and freedom.

It's ironic that cackling hags like Ann Coulter expend so much energy trying to turn people against 'McLame.' In actual fact, all that hot air helps lift him head and shoulders above his rivals.

I think John McCain's facing an uphill struggle if he goes face to face with Obama or Clinton in the presidential elections this November. However, if he did miraculously take the White House, I don't think it would be a bad thing for America at all.

Super Tuesday

Ironically, the most mediocre day of the week has become one of the most important for the 2008 race to the White House.

Super Tuesday, also known in some circles as Super Duper Tuesday, Giga Tuesday, Tsunami Tuesday, and (my personal favorite) The Tuesday of Destiny is the day in which a whopping 24 American states hold their Presidential Primaries - with the Democrat and Republican party each voting to decide which candidate they want spearheading their campaign for the Presidency.

Some think today might make-or-break the campaigns of key candidates. Others think it's just going to stoke the fires and make the battle for nomination even hotter. Either way, for most of the United States, today is when we first get the chance to make our contribution to the American democratic process.

New Jersey is just one of the 24 voting states - but a hotly contested one. 127 Democratic delegates and 52 Republican representatives are up for grabs. Today, all talk is about who people want rooting for them in the race to the White House.

For the Republicans, it looks like John McCain has the New Jersey election all sewn up. The more moderate of the Republican candidates, his policies appeal to a broad audience across both parties and he also has the backing of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who carries a lot of clout in a state neighboring New York.

The Democratic primary is little less clear. Hillary is a clear favorite, carrying similar weight to Rudy as New York's favorite senator. However, in traditionally liberal New Jersey, Obama is winning a lot of hearts and minds and has growing support from Democratic delegates in urban centers like Newark.

As I drove to work today, a gaggle of Princeton students were hoisting 'Obama' placards in the air at the Lawrenceville junction. The Clinton campaign was noticeably absent.

In fact, she wasn't the only one.

During the Local Elections in New Jersey, I was a little dismayed that none of the candidates had done any campaigning in my area. Despite the stakes being so much higher in this election, I felt largely the same way about the Presidential Primaries. It's very disappointing to have your opinions (and vote) totally ignored because of geography or the demographic of your particular neighborhood.

Rudy Giuliani's campaign came unstuck because voters thought him opportunistic and mercenary (ignoring the smaller states in favor of 'make or break' competitions like Florida.) Candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties would do wise not to make the same mistakes in electoraly important places like New Jersey!

Thanks for playing, Rudy...

Last night's primary in Florida proved to be an enormous disappointment for former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Largely ignoring the earlier primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the Brooklyn-born Republican had placed all his eggs in one basket.

He had hoped the large number of former-New Yorkers sunning themselves in the Sunshine State would back his campaign for the White House and propel him into first place in one decisive victory.

Instead, he trailed in a disappointing third - barely getting half the percentage points of front-runners John McCain and Mitt Romney.

It's a huge disappointment for Rudy - who hoped his 'hero' status and the legacy of 9/11 would put him in a good position to run the country. Instead, his risky campaign strategy has pretty much blown up in his face and effectively ended his run before it really began.

In all honesty, Rudy has nobody to blame but himself.

At the start of the presidential nominations, Rudy was the clear front runner for the Republican nomination. He stood head and shoulders above the other candidates and promised to win over a lot of moderate Democrats and swing voters as well. So where did it all go wrong?

I believe it was the arrogance of his campaign. The current front-runners, like Romney and McCain, have thrown their all into the battle and are as willing to shake hands and kiss babies in seemingly unimportant states like Iowa and Wyoming as they are the 'crunch states' like Florida.

Romney and McCain have come across as earnest campaigners - putting in the 'hard graft' to get to the White House. More importantly, they've established themselves as statesmen who value the support and opinions of all Americans - not just the ones who'll vote them into office.

Rudy Giuliani made the same mistake as Fred Thompson. He looked at the campaign in a more tactical way and decided to direct his resources into several key states. If he won those, McCain and Romney's minor victories would pale into insignificance.

However, in doing so he immediately changed the public's opinion of him. No longer was he the straight talking, no-nonsense Brooklyn boy who'd fix the country's problems no matter what the cost. He'd suddenly become a cynical political animal who clearly displayed his lack of regard for middle America.

His campaign disregarded the humble people of Iowa and New Hampshire and that made normal, middle-class Americans nervous.

The idea of the American democracy is that every citizen has a voice. Rudy Giuliani illustrated that he wasn't interested in listening to that voice unless he was going to get something from it in return.

The leaders in this presidential race - Obama, McCain, Clinton and Romney - have proven that they're willing to accept and embrace the entire spectrum of American society. They're as willing to court tractor-drivers in Iowa as oil-barons in Texas. That appeals to a society based upon the mantra of 'all men are created equal.'

Obama goes for Broke

The right-wing conservatives have a nick-name for Hillary Clinton - Shrillary.

As it turns out, that derisive term has hit pretty close to the mark.

In recent days, Clinton has launched into a high-pitched attack against her Democratic rival Barack Obama, who shot past her in the Iowa primaries to take the lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Elect a doer, not a talker," she declared. ""You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."

[What does that even mean? Editorial Bear]

Democrats in New Hampshire have met Hillary's criticism with the opposite of her intended reaction. Just one day before the all-important New Hampshire primary, Obama's a wicked 10 points ahead of her in the opinion polls.

At this rate, the Democratic nomination will be wrapped up in no time and the 44th President of the United States might just be the nation's first African-American one.

What's been Hillary's mistake? It's pretty much the same as Rudy Giuliani's.

In September of last year, New York's former mayor was a clear front runner for the Republican nomination, with a 76% approval rating from New York's Republicans. However a 'dirty' campaign attacking his rivals has lost him a lot of the support he'd garnered.

Having his pal Kerik hauled up on 16 counts of tax fraud didn't help.

From his position as front-runner, Rudy found himself standing sixth out of the seven candidates in the Iowa caucus.

What was his mistake? The one Hillary is so gleefully repeating.

Running such a negative campaign.

The fact is, bad-mouthing your rivals and attacking their credibility is a wonderfully therapeutic strategy, but an ultimately unrewarding one. At the end of the day, teacher always said to keep your mouth closed if you can't think of anything nice to say - and that philosophy is just as valid in a presidential election as a classroom.

Barack Obama's greatest strength in the upcoming election may be his positive focus. He talks about his plans and ambitions if he makes it to the White House. In contrast, Hillary attacks his lack of 'experience' in office.

Sure, she had eight years 'experience' in the White House - but only as First Lady. That doesn't mean she's got greater experience in running the country. It just means she knows where the linens are in the Lincoln bedroom.

Unless Hillary can shift her campaign towards telling people what she will do - rather than what her rivals won't - she'll soon find the widening gap between her and Barack Obama stretching so far, even a former President as First Husband won't help her bridge it.

Mitt Romney

In order to make it's caucuses politically significant, Wyoming recently moved them from February to January - and received universal condemnation from the Republicans and Democrats as a result.

In addition, their largely ignored contribution to the presidential nomination process went almost completely ignored as a result.

But if you scan the bylines of your national newspaper, you'll find that the people of Wyoming have spoken too - and stood firmly behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for the presidential election.

Now after my condemnation of ridiculous evangelical Mike Huckabee, you might think I'd be equally scathing about Mormon Romney. After all, he is a Mormon - and Mormonism is one of the most absurd and ridiculous religious cults of recent history.

I feel awfully guilty about writing that, because I have a friend who is a Mormon - and she's one of the most lovely, intelligent and talented people I know... If she's representative of the Mormon community as a whole, maybe we should pack our bags and move to Utah.

But we won't and we shan't.

Because while people condemn Mitt Romney for being a Mormon, you can't really blame him. Mormonism is in his blood. It was Romney's great, great Parley P. Pratt (appropriate name, as it happens) who helped found the Church of the Latter Day Saints way back in 1830. His family has been Mormon for five generations and after that long, paying lip service to to citizens of Zion makes about as much sense as kissing the Pope's pinky ring.

Here's what his opponents don't want you to know - his Mormonism isn't really a big deal.

Oh, sure, he doesn't smoke or drink - but nor does President Bush. When it comes to the big picture, though, Mitt Romney neatly avoids the normal Mormon stereotypes by not having multiple wives (actually, that was officially banned in 1890) and if he goes round knocking from door to door, it's to demand your vote rather than pass round copies of The Watchtower. [That's Jehovah's Witnesses - Editorial Bear]

He actually seems like a pretty evolved guy - much more so than creationist Mike Huckabee - who's convinced the world is only 7,000 years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens.

That being said - do we really want Mitt Romney as our next president?

Well, I'll give the man his due. He's a fearsomely effective businessman. He managed to reverse the fortunes of sinking Bains & Company back in 1990 in less than a year - without any layoffs or partner defections. He was CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and turned a $379 million shortfall into a $100 million profit. A true fiscal conservative, as Governor of Massachusetts, he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus. Compare that to former governor Mike Huckabee's record in Arkansas and you can see that Mitt Romney knows how to stretch a dollar better than our evangelical friend.

He's even fairly broad minded, as far as social issues go. No friend of the common or garden gay person, he at least admits he'd back Civil Unions if the only alternative was legalised Gay Marriage. He has sensible ideas about tackling illegal immigration (when the Mormon guy starts telling you that 'the big fence' idea is dumb, it's really time to listen) and he is opposed to the use of torture in questioning terrorism suspects.

He does support the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' but not the use of torture. Just to make that clear.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet.

So all in all, he does seem to be a much better bet than Mike Huckabee.

For a start, he's likely to credit the republicans of Wyoming for his nomination, rather than Huckabee's quaint manoeuvre of thanking Jesus (who is not registered to vote.)

Plus the guy can balance a chequebook and that's a trait the Republican party has been sorely missing for the last thirty years.

But there is one ominous facet to Mitt Romney that should warn us all off backing him in the race to the White House.

He hates eggplant.

Call it eggplant, aubergine or brinjal (that's what they call it in India) this delicious potato/tomato perennial is a regular in my kitchen and if Mitt Romney doesn't like it - something ain't right.

I mean, we all know it's 'cool' to have presidentially vetoed vegetables (Bush senior hated broccoli) but eggplant is a queer choice. Yet as Mitt shamelessly admitted, he dislikes “eggplant, in any shape or form.”

Is that the kind of man we really want running this great nation?

And my final reason for doubting the follower of the late nutcase Joseph Smith Jnr is Mitt Romney's rather frightening facial similiarity to legendary horror movie actor Bruce Campbell.

Do we really want to have a man in the White House who could, at any time, be replaced with a chainsaw-weilding time traveller brandishing his 'boomstick?'

I think not...

Mitt Romney, eggplant hater and potential 44th President of the United States versus Bruce Campbell, star of Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Or is it the other way around?

A Grim Day for Politics

The Iowa caucuses are the first post in the marathon run to presidential nomination - which makes them incredibly important.

In both 1996 and 2000, the results of the Iowa caucuses accurately predicted which Republican candidates would run for election that year. If that accuracy is repeated, it puts former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on the bill to stand for election as the 44th President of the United States of America.

Which is a disaster.

I don't heart Huckabee

My major reason for disliking Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate is his slavish devotion to Christian evangelicalism. Now there is nothing wrong with being devout - but from the birth of the American nation to the present day, there has always been (in theory) a policy dividing church and state. Mike Huckabee doesn't want any part of that policy.

"Let's take this nation back for Christ." So said Mike Huckabee in 1998 - and on December 31st 2007, he stood by that comment on NBC's 'Meet the Press.'

Here is a man who believes that the bible is the literal 'word of God,' defiantly supports Creationism (and believes it should be taught in schools) and proudly declared that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle."

How on earth did this man win the support of the Iowa GOP?

"There's only one explanation for it," he proudly declared, "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

Divine intervention, apparently.

Blatant Hypocrisy

Although Huckabee claims to believe that the bible is the literal word of God (including that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' bit) he's still a grudging supporter of the death penalty.

Despite being a Republican (supposedly the party of 'small government' and fiscal responsibility) his tenure as Governor of Arkansas saw a 65% increase in spending and an explosion in the state's debt to a whopping $1 billion.

His 'dedication' to democracy is clear - in 1999 he attached a 4% tax increase on diesel fuel in the state of Arkansas without voter approval, in direct violation of his oath of office.

And his attitude towards government? In 1998, Huckabee proudly declared: "Government doesn't have the real answers. The real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

Jesus is not on the Electoral Roll

There is nothing wrong with being religious. The tenants of Christianity offer excellent moral guidance in how to live our day-to-day lives and interact with other human beings with kindness and tolerance (well, as long as they're not homosexual, apparently.)

However, a heavily edited, oft-translated, trimmed, tweaked and tailored manuscript written two thousand years ago DOES NOT offer an effective basis for running the most powerful nation on Earth.

America requires leadership dedicated to humanity, rationality and logic - and Mike Huckabee can offer the United States none of those things.

If Mike Huckabee wins the 'ticket' to run for the presidency, even the most devout Christian would be best off praying for a Democrat to win the election.

Howard Dean and Al Gore

Just tonight, I watched two interviews with former Presidential candidates.

First was Al Gore - who is an utterly charming, clever, sharp and highly capable man. I mean, he's won an Oscar and (part of) a Nobel Prize. Given that the man who beat him in the 2000 election can't even pronounce the word 'nuclear' it's kind of a sharp indictment of American society that he's not in the White House right now.



Second was Howard Dean, former presidential candidate (he lost the Democratic nomination to John Kerry) who now runs the Democratic National Committee. He again struck me as a clever, considered man who delivered sharp, quick responses to difficult questions.

Given that the Democratic nominees seem to be tied up in infighting and bitchiness - plus the fact that both front runners (Hillary and Obama) are up against discrimination regarding their sex and race, it's a real shame that neither of these two apparently capable men are throwing their hats into the ring.

I don't doubt either front-running Democratic candidate's abilities. I'm just not sure America is as ready for them as the world is.

Fred Thomspon on Immigration

My presidential hopes are pinned on Stephen Colbert at the moment - who is running in the South Carolina primaries as both a Democrat AND Republican.

But on the off chance Comedy Central's finest can't pull a win out of the hat, my general feelings are still pointing in the direction of the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani is an excellent 'moderate' choice, seeing as he's supportive of gay rights and other issues which the evangelicals get their knickers in a twist about, but make very little actual difference in the grand scheme of things.

If two gay men want to get married, how does that negatively impact my life? It doesn't - not one jot - and it makes two gay men happy at the same time. Win / Win. Further evidence that religion and politics need to be ruthlessly separated.

But Rudy has always been soft on immigration. As mayor of New york City, he fought hard for the rights of illegal immigrants and won them schooling for their kids (fair enough) and the right to avoid questions regarding their immigration status from city employees (not really right.)

Since he threw his hat into the ring, Rudy has flip-flopped about immigration. He's done an about-turn and come more in-line with the Republican party's official policy. That doesn't mean he buys it, however.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, seems to know exactly where he stands on illegal immigration and he won't let the Republicans or Democrats tell him any different. Today he released his 'presidential' policies regarding the thorny topic and they make for compelling reading. Read them here.

My highlights include: "Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States." Hooray! My one major gripe with illegal immigrants. Why should they be patted on the back for skipping over the border while I obey the rules and get stiffed out of three years of my life and thousands of dollars in 'fees.'

"Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home." If illegal immigrants were unable to work, companies would have to rely on American labour - and pay them appropriately. The minimum wage in some states is barely $5 a hour. If a company is too cheap to pay an American citizen even that pifling sum, they have no rights employing anybody in the first place.

"Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas." I waited nearly four years for the right to enter the United States because the immigration process was so backlogged and inefficient. If the systems were in place to give immigration hopefuls a 'yay' or 'nay' within a few weeks - instead of years - maybe there would be fewer incentives for illegal immigration to take place.

"Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs." If people are talented, dedicated and hard working - and can really contribute something to the American economy - give them a shot at working there. If the opportunities are available, people will choose legal immigration over illegal - and aliens would enter American based on their skills and knowledge, rather than their ability to scale fences.

"Make English the official language of the U.S. to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status." Are you reading this, Bank of America? Quit sending me stuff in Spanish just because you saw the 'non-American citizen' box was ticked on my application.

These are all sensible, reasonable and - most importantly of all - effective policy suggestions that could positively transform the dismal state of American immigration as it currently stands.

Fred Thompson? You have scored some brownie points today.

Osama Bin Laden

I am trying to avoid getting political in my blog, since there are many people, equally as unqualified as me, who think that their opinion is more worth listening to. I ought to give them space to rant. I don't know anything either. Opinions are like noses - we all have them.

However, who can ignore Osama Bin Laden's sixth anniversary present to America? A video in which he suggests the only solution to the war in Iraq is that America embrace Islam.

An entire nation convert. And not just to 'Islam.' To an approved TYPE of Islam. After all, the only thing the Shi'a hate more than Americans are the Sunni.

Osama Bin Laden (if it really is him and not some stooge in a fake beard and a wig) is a dick.

He's been given so much ammunition. A quagmire in Iraq. A nation split between support for it's cowboy president and unmitigated hatred. If ever there was a time for Osama Bin Laden, the most hated man in America (closely followed by George Bush, if you follow certain news channels) to make a statement that the American people would listen to, this was it.

And what happens?

The bastard makes a clearly impossible demand that firmly reestablishes al-Qaida's commitment to chaos. He has no aims apart from continuing the Jihad against America. As far as Osama Bin Laden is concerned, there can be no peace while a sovereign American nation continues to exist.

His demands are deliberately unobtainable. He doesn't want to win. He only wants to fight and kill and lead thousands of martyred sheep to their doom.

It's a pretty depressing thought, but also a sobering one. America can't find a diplomatic solution to this crisis no matter what it does, short of ceasing to exist.

Many Americans consider themselves divided. In actual fact, they're more united than ever. Whether liberal or Conservative - red or blue - they're all equally despised in the eyes of al-Qiada.

Nothing any of us can do will ever 'win over' the enemy. Whether we stay in Iraq or flee, the war against democracy and freedom will continue.

The jihad is here. It's now. And it's not going away in a hurry no matter who you vote for, which radio station you listen to or what political pundit you support.

Presidential Foresight

Today I watched an episode of Law and Order filmed in 2000. In this episode, the District Attorney Arthur Branch (played by 2008 Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson) is replaced by Nora Lewin.

And who introduces the new District Attorney? None other than 2008 Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani, in a brief cameo.

One potential president backs out. Another appears alongside his replacement. The episode is called 'Endurance.'

I wonder if life will imitate art. With Fred Thompson announcing his intent to run for the White House, the two Law and Order stars are going to cross paths sooner or later.