About Me

Name: Tim Blessing
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Spotlight on Crocker

I have done a lot of Human Resources Management in my time.
 
I think Crocker is a good man in the wrong job.
 
He's not an equal to Patraeus in authority, experience, or prestige.
 
He does not seem to have the right combination of skills for the job.  Specifically, in a war zone.
 
However, he does a lot more experience with Muslims in this situation that could be put to good use elsewhere.
 
I think they should send him to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt.  A man with hard won diplomatic expertise is not the right leader for a war zone.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Spotlight on Hillary Clinton

Hillary's problems seem to continue to crop up.  Like Bill's private donations of $500 Million for his library or Mark Penn's lobbying for the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
 
Bill is simply trading influence for money.
 
He seems to be totally amoral at this point in his life with nothing to show for his time in office of signficant value.
 
Only money seem's to be his most successful pursuit and women.
 
Hillary merely twist's in the wind as a result. 
 
Is she trapped by his escapades, does she condone them, or does she ignore them?
 
Mark Penn is a human resource manager's problem.
 
If a person who break's with the organization's policy then they should be demoted, reprimanded, or fired.
 
Hillary Clinton is a partisan democrat who may or may be trapped by the company she keep's, but it must be embarassing at least.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Spotlight on Irag

What is up with Iraq?
 
It seems to me that Iraq will continue to simmer as a problem.
 
Basra was a test case for Iraq's independence.
 
There are two lessons to draw from this experience.
 
   1) The Iraqi Military has continually shown improvement over time.
 
   2) The Iraqi Police have failed every test over the last 3 years or so.
 
What are the differences in the training and experiences of these two groups that reach polar opposite results.
 
Al Sadr's forces have received a bloody nose, otherwise, he would not be coming to the bargaining table.
 
He may have been undercut by the Muslim Clerics Association.
 
Iraq is a country under fire sort of like the Phillipines were under Teddy Roosevelt.
 
A Muslim Nation held under control by the United States.
 
Eventually, we wore the Filipinos down and Christianized them.
 
Muslims are warlike and some of them are fanatical, but if you have patience you can them over.
 
We may win in Iraq eventually, but the cost has been the consensus that underpinned the terror war.
 
Again, the idiot in the White House is not equipped to deal with the terror war.
 
He say's he's flexible on tactics, but not the goal.
 
His goal of a united Iraq could have cost him his place in history.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #43

What is the fate of China?
 
I have watched and read about China's internal developments since I can remember.
 
China has an unemployment rate at 10%,, which sound's like a lot unless you see the bigger number of roughly 100 Million unemployed.
 
They wonder the country looking for work with no way of settling down.
 
There is tension between the Central Government in Beijing and the Provincial Governments over economic policy.
 
The Chinese speak two main dialects: Mandarin and Cantonese.
 
Economic Development is along the coast and the interior is just starting to grow in the last few years.
 
There were riots in China 3 years ago by College Students that were put down.
 
The key to understanding the Communist Party is Chinese call the Mandate of Heaven.  If the government loses this mandate then a revolt alway's follows.
 
The Chinese Communists fear a word called Chaos.  Meaning, social unrest that may lead to destabilization of the regime.
 
The Chinese have a Middle Class of 300 Million by their standards.
 
There are 800 Million still on the farm.
 
The population number's about 1.3 Billion.
 
They opened up their economy to foreign investment so as to create an economic infrastructure.
 
Outsiders viewed this as a way to moderate the authoritarian tendencies of the Chinese Government.
 
You have in China today what Richard Nixon called Communist Capitalism.
 
Communist Government with a Capitalist Economy.
 
A Contradiction that has never been resolved by any government.
 
In essence, the Chinese Communists sought to advance economic issues and tightly control social issues.
 
That two pronged approach is held together only by the power of the Communist Party.
 
In China, the top man in the government is called Maximum Leader or Paramount Leader.  Right now, that man is Hu Jintao.
 
What he say's serve's as an order an the other members of the party follow his lead.
 
Deng Xiaoping had this title even though he supposedly retired.
 
Jiang Zemin was called Maximum Leader at one point, but for some mysterious reason he was retired.
 
China's provinces each have their own culture.
 
China is supposedly 90% Han Chinese with a lot of other ethnic groups.
 
China has 100 Million Young Males in excess of the female population do to abortion.
 
China is not in charge in North Korea.  North Korea is quietly working with the Russians and the United States.
 
If Taiwan declare's independence and the Chinese Communists do nothing about that lead's to a loss of the Mandate of Heaven.
 
Hong Kong broke away in part several years and the Chinese Communists lost face.
 
China has a growing Christian Movement of some 80 Million Adherents.
 
The Chinese Christians project 500 Million Chinese Christians within 30 years.
 
The Chinese view surrounding countries as their tributary states.  Their word not mine.
 
The only Country they fear is Japan because of WW II.
 
The Indians have opened their border with China in an attempt for trade and cultural exchanges.
 
Russia has closed its borders with China from what I have read and forced the Chinese back into China.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #42

How do you deal with Obama as a Political Figure?
 
I have noticed that Obama's philosophy is a lot like Lincoln's in terms of ideas, approach, and (mannerisms).
 
I have noticed that he quote's Reagan occasionally who was an ideological politician.
 
Each speech is the same with some new ideas added in each town hall meeting.
 
He does not like the microscope of a TV Camera because he cannot relax with it on.
 
Is he a Rascist?
 
I am beginning to think he is something a feminine male with vampire tendencies.
 
His smile and eyes seem to have a hypnotic effect on people including politicians.
 
That's not unlike Reagan had after his assassination attempt.  Folk Hero as Tip O'Neil described it.
 
How to overcome it?  Most African Americans did not like Reagan or they were quiet about their support of him.
 
Reagan was in his element with a prepared speech as is Obama.  However, Reagan was not as formidable without one.
 
Obama is like a chocolate eclair or a sponge.  Bright, able to absorb new ideas, and telegenic.  Under the stress of a campaign without true preparation he's at sea.
 
He is smarter than Reagan, more skilled at manuever, and just as telegenic.
 
Reagan was more personable, more backbone, and better ideas.
 
How do you avoid the Hypnotism?
 
Turn away for a moment and make a determination that I am not going to be ensnared in his charisma and speaking ability.
 
He can't handle interruptions, contradictions, or combativeness of people particularly when it is in his town hall meetings.
 
He fit's in with Star Trek in a lot of ways.  Data pretending to be Human when he's not and Obama pretending to be an everyman when he's a precinct politician.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #41

Church Rituals.  What works and doesn't work?
 
I like the sermon every Sunday since to me that is the most important part of the service.
 
I do not take communion because I view Jesus as a Historical Figure rather than some Demigod.
 
There is evidence to support this thinking in John !:14-17.
 
I feel that he fulfilled the law of Moses and may have lived a great life, but not perfect life.
 
The 4 Gospels follow 4 themes: Royalty, Messiah, Healing, and Philosophy.
 
As a Political Scientist, I view John, which is the book of Philosophy as the most realistic of the four books.
 
I, myself, have been caught in hero worship to an extreme degree with one political figure not unlike Jesusfreaks.
 
When these people come out of this Christ Ideology they suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
 
That gets me back to my main point if you view a Church Service through magical terms then you are not thinking for yourself.
 
At least that's what I think.
 
I am there for the philosophy or ideas rather than the Magic.
 
Some people need the magic and I do not.
 
Communion symbolize's to me a codependence on a magical being from 2000 years ago.
 
I guess my point is the fact that I go to hear the word of God and I do not need an immediary.
 
The question is what do you do for rituals in the church?
 
I follow to a limited extent Norse Mythology, The Soap Opera: Guiding Light, Comic Books, and other avenues of Science Fiction.
 
Are Church Rituals supposed to be optimistic and decadent or grim and cold?
 
A Realistic and Optimistic Approach is best in my mind rather than some utopian vision of a better tomorrow.
 
Trinity: Past, Present, and Future.
 
Batman look's to the Past, Wonder Woman stand's in the Present, and Superman look's to the Future.
 
A Christmas Carol: The Ghost of Christmas Past, The Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas Future.
 
We acknowledge birth, life, and death.  However, we ignore death as long as we can and only deal with it in terms of a funeral.
 
Good Friday is the death, The Last Supper is the Wake, and I am not sure of the funeral.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #40

The Terror War: What is the way to fight it?
 
The terror war from the terrorists standpoint is a generations long conflict that began in the 1970s or so and will continue in the Jihadists collective mind for as long as it will take.
 
The United States and our allies have only been fighting back for the last 7 years or so.
 
It has a domestic component in each country and foreign policy/defense policy component.
 
This Terror War will continue for a generation or so and we need to get use to the fact that it is a shooting war.
 
Islam like any religion has moderate and silent majority as well as its radical minority.
 
That mean's we are dealing with Islamic Jihadists, Fascists, or Nazis of some sort.
 
They have been empowered by Saudi Wahabis and Saudi Oil Money.
 
They have spread out from Saudi Arabia over the last 20 years or so because the Saudi Government wanted domestic stability.
 
Ironically, Saudi Arabia may be consumed by its own fanaticism in the long run.
 
We have a problem that the American People have not been thoroughly schooled in terms of all the elements of this Jihadism and how long it will take to win.
 
Bush has chosen what Political Scientist like me call Messianic Conservatism as his approach to the Terror War.
 
Meaning, we will convert them to become Muslim/Capitalist/Democracies.  This is a deliberate attempt through Military Force to change the basic meaning of Middle Eastern Nations from their basic way of life into the contemporary era.
 
Terrorists throughout the Muslim World see this in what they call in their history Crusades.
 
To them the Crusades happened the day before yesterday.  To us the Crusades are a historical curiousity in High School and College History Classes.  Something to be studied once and not remembered.
 
In the book called Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger, he talked of two schools of thought in American Foreign Policy: The Missionary and the Psychiatric.
 
Bush push's The Missionary approach only like Carter, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and Wilson.  Idealism that is not grounded in the hard realities of foreign policy.
 
If you are going to employ the psychiatric approach you look at the causes of the problem and possible solutions.
 
I know the problem come's from Saudi Arabia so that is the focal point for containment and eventual resolution.
 
We have for the most part secured the West, East Asia, and Russia now we work our way into Islamic Countries.
 
First, we need to make economic and military agreements with India, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Sudan.
 
Second, we need to determine the best use of our military forces in the region.
 
You cannot invade Saudi Arabia because it is the Holy Land of Muslims and they may all turn against us as a result.
 
This does not mean we cannot operate within the Arabian Pennisula in terms of covert action.
 
I noticed studying China once upon a time that outside powers keep that country from forming into one whole entity.
 
The Arabian Pennisula, I think, can be best managed through the maintenance of chaos, until the wahabis ideology burn's itself out.
 
In my study of this ideology, the time estimate that it would take for this Islamism to burn itself out would take 50 years.
 
It would not be safe to go in there in any terms, except through, again, covert action.
 
Cntainment plus division through a naval blockade, defense perimeter in southern Iraq, and alliances with surrounding countries.
 
It could be used as a drop off point for the Jihadists in other countries as well as some sort of penal colony for unreformable convicts in other countries.  Australia come's to mind.
 
The Muslim Majority is empowered by their faith upward's of 90% of the total Muslim Population.
 
The Radical Minority adhere's to some religious ideology of Islam that is violence prone for some reason.
 
Is it an economic, social, or military problem?
 
I think it is a social problem mainly rather than an economic problem with military overtones.
 
If it is a social problem then it is best handled by mental health people.
 
A Military Solution like Bush chose is working, but the Jihadists are empowered by war.
 
We need a new mix for the foreseeable future.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #39

Healthcare is alway's a burning issue in American Politics because no one know's how to resolve the structural problems.
 
In the time before Roosevelt II, it was a fee for service where the doctor was concerned.
 
The doctor would come to your house instead of you going to his office.
 
In the WW II era, Employers could not increase the wages for workers due to wage and price controls.  So they began offering benefit plans to workers that was at variance with what developed in other industrialized countries after the war.  Where they developed National Health Care. 
 
In the United States, it became clear as people lived longer and did not work that they were going to need some kind of health insurance and out of a socalled noble motive so were the poor.
 
In the 1960s, Medicare was established for old people and Medicaid was started for poor people.
 
Two programs that grew way out of proportion to their founders original intent.
 
In the 1980s, there was an intent to provide senior citizens with catostrophic health insurance that was later reversed.
 
In the 1990s, healthcare took centered stage again that lead was killed by a Republican filibuster in the US Seante.
 
Since then the only change was the addition of Medicare Part D by a Republican Congress.
 
Healthcare inflation is a perennial problem that everyone seem's to have no answer for.
 
Drugs cost so much do to the fact that Europe and the rest of the industrialize world have price controls on drug purchases.
 
Drug development is a fraud since 85% of the socalled new drugs coming on the market are just recycled variations on the old ones.
 
No innovation just different combinations of chemicals for the same old diseases.
 
Health Insurance Companies offer group insurance, individual insurance, and Preferred Provider Insurance.
 
Each one has its benefits and limitations.
 
Medicare has several options with the most prevalent being the fee for service.  Meaning, you chose your own doctor for medicine and pay a deductible and a 50% co-pay.
 
Medicaid from what I understand is lousy in terms of paying for health services, except for drugs for poor people.
 
I think benefit programs in work place environments are no longer sustainable and keep our companies from remaining competitive with foreign companies.
 
I think national health care in terms of the Clinton Model was not well understood or liked by the public.
 
I don't think the Doctor coming to your house of the early 20th Century is realizable do to the massive technology infrastructure in place throughout the healthcare system.
 
I think Medical Malpratice is way out of whack because doctors are prone to make mistakes.
 
I think Health Insurance Companies cater only to the healthy and wealthy because they are not risk oriented clients.
 
I think Medicare has become overly Bureaucratic and unresponsive to the medical profession and individuals.
 
I think people want change, but do not buy into the Medical Savings Accounts of the Right Wing.
 
I think Libertarians would want to end all of these different approaches and let us each deal with our medical issues on our own.
 
Yes, a highly convulted problem that no one has a good answer for and no one is welling to step up to the plate.
 
In an ideal world, I would say that I hate Medicare and Medicaid and resolve to do things myself, but with all the complexities and earnings limits in place I can't see any other way.
 
Libertarian Republicans say pro-choice and leave me alone.  I say let the government take over direct financiang of health care, leaving individual decisions to the patient and doctor, and ending the patent monopoly that health care companies have on innovations and research in medical systems.
 
The idea is to make ourselves more competitive in the world economy, with some mix of individual responsibility, and group health insurance through the government.
 
Health Insurance Companies already offer what's called Medicare Supplement Insurance Policies for seniors.  I do not know why private individuals could not have the mix of government insurance and private insurance (if they want the latter).
 
People have been spoiled over the last sixty years with what appear's to be free healthcare, which lead's to demand's for the latest technology or drug.
 
If you do not see direct cost to yourself then you tend to become use to expecting something for free.
 
If you pay higher taxes and see no benefit then you go elsewhere to say the Carribean for healthcare.
 
Remember, 85% of the American People are somewhat satisfied with Healthcare as is.
 
But ever increasing Premiums, deductibles, copays, restrictions on access, and the termination of benefits due to loss of jobs is putting a crimp in the public;s lifestyle.
 
47 Million people get a freebie by going to the emergency room rather than to the doctor's office.
 
In essence, we have to maintain choice, leave people alone with their doctor, keep costs down, and maintain individual/group responsibility.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #38

What would Barry Goldwater think of American Politics today?
 
The first Conservative Presidential Candidate since before Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
 
He lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, but his ideas lived on with him in the United States Senate and through Reagan.
 
He believed in lower taxes, a mightier military, and self reliance as much as possible.
 
He called Eisenhower's Administration Program a dime store new deal, but Ike was the best all around President he had studied and Ike had able men around.
 
He said that Harry Truman was the best decisionmaker President we had.
 
He said that Reagan was more inspirational than Kennedy, but not by much.
 
He said that the main difference between Kennedy and Reagan is the fact that Reagan had humlity because he lived through Vietnam, Watergate, and the Carter Economic Malaise.
 
What would he say today?  The Terror War need's to be fought to a successful conclusion.  That the Iraq War subcomponent is being run by amateurs.  That we need to maintain our guard against China.  Deal fairly with the Europeans, Japanese, and the rest of our allies.
 
He might have misgivings about the Russians. 
 
He'd say balance the budget by repealing laws that are not needed.
 
He'd consolidate the bureaucracy and fire most of them.
 
He'd end most federal programs even though this would be politically impossible.
 
He'd cut taxes.
 
He'd end regulations on business altogether.
 
He'd get rid of George W. Bush for being too amoral.
 
He'd get rid of Dick Cheney because he's way too arrogant.
 
He liked the Kennedys and had a good friendship with JFK.
 
He was committed to his ideas, but had no charisma.
 
A Radical who did not care what impact his words had on people.
 
He'd get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, and he did vote for and against different civil rights bills.
 
He unified the Conservative Republicans, but contributed to the divisions in the nation.
 
He did not like gay people per se, but what they did was their business so long as it wasn't in his face.
 
He thought a woman had a right to choose.
 
He thought the religious right people needed being kicked in the rear to beat some sense into them.
 
A man of strong views who was too controversial to become President.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Spotlight on the Economy

First and foremost, fire Bernanke at the earliest opportunity since he does not know what he is talking about.
 
Second, pass legislation expanding unemployment compensation up to a year if possible.
 
Three, people in the abstract world of economics say there is a recession.
 
Fourth, people in individual terms feel pretty good about their financial situation.
 
Fifth, we appear to be in a recession based on the indicators, but only the experts and the people at the margins feel it.
 
Homebuilding accounts for 10% of the economy the last time I knew its general economy value.
 
Home Equity Lines, Credit Cards, and other such instruments have been the source for my of our consumer spending.
 
If people are too deep in debt to continue spending then that mean's luxuries will face the ax are houses, then cars, and down the line.
 
Is there any way to prevent this recession, in the short run the answer may be no and we have to wait it out as it work's its way through the economy.
 
This will take a year or two.  It will be painful and will require adjustments by the general public.
 
Movies instead of a fancy restaurant.
 
Patience instead of hitting your head against a wall.
 
Require one job search a week instead of two.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Spotlight on MLK

I have read about the protest movements in the 1960s.
 
I have read about Barry Goldwater's supporters activities from that era.
 
I think civil rights was and is a necessary response to the injustices of the past up to that time.
 
I think those people who salute MLK should salute LBJ, JFK, Malcolm X, Eisenhower, and Nixon for their parts in the process.
 
Martin Luther King symbolized an era of African American Empowerment, but was he the central force in that struggle.
 
From a public relations standpoint, he was the Gandhi of the Civil Rights Movement, but he did not force government to change.
 
That was the Politicians work that did that.
 
Every group needed a hero or a symbol to rally around and Martin Luther King serves this purpose for African Americans.
 
Republicans are in the same boat to a degree:  Lincoln is too distant, Teddy Roosevelt too Liberal, Eisenhower (Passive), and Nixon to self-destructive.
 
So they settle on Reagan and in his hey day of the 1980s.
 
If you intend to remember history through Historical Figures and become fixed  on that point and time then you become frozen in that point in time.
 
I live in the 21st Century and I do not celebrate Reagan's birthday or mull over his times in terms of nostalgia.
 
There were other African American Leaders in the 19th Century, but today their just for the study of Historians and History Classes.
 
If you think people in History have no flaws all you have to do is get a number of books on that individual person, cross reference the information, and you get a better picture of who they are in reality.
 
Martin Luther King was no saint, but he is held up like one.
 
Let me end it this way, what have all of these protests on both sides of the political divide accomplish since the 1960s?  Nothing, at least as far as I can see.
 
In 1969, there was a major protest in Washington by Left-Wing Groups to force further change on the United States.  They wanted Nixon to come to speak to them, but he was busy watching a football game on television.
 
Get a life those of you who go out and protest.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #37

I do not know of anyone who talk's about making the tax cuts permanent.
 
Its not really a handy campaign promise from what I have seen.
 
Cutting taxes is popular with no doubt, but the arcane rules of Congress are widely understood by the Public.
 
Cutting spending for our Military in Iraq would be very unpopular, but the Iraq War's continuance is unpopular.
 
Ballistic Missile Defense seem's to be an idea whose time has come.  If its aimed at China then yes I would agree.
 
Tax Hikes are unpopular with the broad majority of the american people, but the left wing believe's in them.  The question on everyone's mind is does it play well in Peoria, ILL.
 
If I was a member of the House or Senate, I would vote against tax hikes because if you don't the Republican Base will vote you out in the next Primary.
 
Job Creation depend's on economic growth, which is anemic at the moment and is in need of something.
 
Cutting Domestic Spending is good in theory, but in practice its hard.
 
The key is to slow down domestic spending so as to reduce the deficit.  Unpopular, but less Unpopular than budget cutting.
 
I support an expansion of medicare taking on more of health care costs, but not choices.
 
The Veterans of the Terror War are numerous and need to have issues addressed.  A Bipartisan Issue.
 
I am a member of the ACLU, but this is an area of public policy that is still developing.  In essence, its still too soon to tell.
 
ILLegal immigration need's to be addressed.  How do you determine who is legal or illegal.  Republicans get their Base going when they push these issues, but they cost themselves the support of Latinos.
 
Say, we know we have a problem and were going to put it into deep study mode of our staffs and will report back after November.
 
Education is a national priority, which the voters do not identify as a Republican Issue.  I guess you would need to reintroduce Libertarian Republicanism to the voters to educate them on the fact that there is a dramatic alternative to the NEA's approach.
 
Majorities in both Houses would be great, but Bush has cost Republicans dearly with the Public in terms of his bullheadedness on the whole range of issues.  Particularly, the Iraq War, which is the American Public's greatest criticism of Republicans.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #36

I have followed politics for 36 years and I have studied this current election cycle with interest.
 
It seems to me that there's an outside chance for Republicans to pick up control of the Senate, but will fall far short in the House.
 
House Republicans have 25 or so retiring Congressmen, which is an uphill to climb for any party especially when you are the party out of power with a President whose popularity rating is 30%.
 
That leaves the U. S. Senate as the one place Republicans have a chance of taking control.
 
I count 5 weak democrat seats and 6 contested races on the Republican side.
 
Senator Pryor of Arkansas appears to be a good shot of a Republican takeover.
 
Senator Landrieu of Louisiana appear's to be not a shoe in for reelection.
 
Both of these seats are in the South, which is a Republican stronghold.
 
Senator Baucus of Montana is a weak candidate based on polls of I seen once or twice.
 
Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey should be a weak candidate, but he is an institution in New Jersey, probably has wide name recognition, and money.
 
Senator Johnson of South Dakota normally would not have an easy time in being reelected, but he will have a sympathy vote due to his recent illness.
 
Colorado is an open seat that could remain Republican if McCain help's out on all levels and other Republicans pitch in.  It is nominally a Republican State, but Republicans have had a bad few years.  How's the economy doing in Colorado, is the Iraq War a negative, and what the popular ratings of McCain and Schaffer.
 
Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota will be up for reelection and will face Al Franken who is a mean comedian.  Is the mood in Minnesotat positive or negative.
 
Future Senator Mike Johanns should be able to hold this seat in Nebraska, which strongly pro-Republican.
 
Senator Sununu face's former New Hampshire GovernorJeanne Shaheen for this seat.  I am noticing more and more that these national women like the substance of politics, but do not like the football approach most male politicians apply to this bloodsport.
 
Wyoming is a safe seat.  I can't think of any Democrat winning statewide in that state going back as far as I remember.
 
These are not precise predictions, but it look's like in my opinion the Republicans will net 3 seats in this organization.
 
Enough to control the United States Senate and give Republicans a better hand to play in Lawmaking.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Republican #35

Vice Presidents have limited responsibility and carry the burdens of their President.
 
A VP Candidate well versed in economics, social issues, and foreign policy would be ideal.
 
A VP Candidate not of the Senate is necessary so that McCain isn't playing favorites.
 
That leave's Governors, Congressmen, and former Cabinet Officials.
 
A woman or minority is more useful politically, but such an individual is not prevalent in the Republican Party at present.
 
A Crossover Candidate would not go down well with the Base and it might tear the party apart.
 
A younger candidate would be preferable so as to bring in new blood to the Republican Party.
 
A CEO has no business in government after what I have seen with Cheney.
 
It would serve McCain well if picked someone from the West Coast, Industrial Midwest, or Florida.
 
Someone who is not a Southerner or Rocky Mountain State since he will have most of those states locked up.
 
Someone who can bring in personnel for the administration if he win's.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Spotlight on Pres. Mathups

McCain will probably face Obama in the fall.  I could be wrong, but things seem to be shifting toward's a McCain vs. Obama matchup.
 
McCain win's in most of the south, rocky mountain states, and some New England/Industrial Midwest States.
 
McCain has a better shot than Obama does, but McCain has a lifetime of service whereas Obama is just starting.
 
McCain seem's to be prepared to carry out his campaign in good order.
 
Obama has more money at the moment and this may help him with commercials and such.
 
Could Obama win? Yes, but you do not know how the NASCAR people will vote and there are 70 million of them.
 
Talk Radio has 50 million listeners a week.
 
The Internet is full of information consumers, providers, managers, and decisionmakers.
 
The question is will Obama or McCain make a mistake so damaging to render themselves nonoperative in the end.
 
Which one will be the better information provider to the public?  That's where this campaign will be decided.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive