Well, the worst-kept secret was revealed by U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday: his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy of retiring justice David Souter is New York Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's not terribly surprising to hear the news, particularly since it has been reported that Obama was under intense pressure to pick a woman and also a minority (whether it be Hispanic, Black, Asian, etc.). Obama obviously buckled under the pressure of special interest groups, the two U.S. New York Senators, and left-wing advocacy groups everywhere in making his pick. But that is not unusual, given that Obama likes to play to the media and whatever position is popular (which is usually media-driven). That is not to say that Sotomayor may not be qualified, but it takes a lot of guts to make a decision which may not be popular - it happened with President Bush all the time and he was chastised for it from the media to the everyday Joe, who seems to more often than not form their opinions based on the media (you can rag all you want about Bush, I think that while he did make some mistakes, he is a man who acted on his convictions, most of which were not popular with the secular mainstream - yet he continued to stay the course). You may recall Bush nominated Chief Justice John Roberts, despite the fact that his wife Laura wanted him to nominate a woman. Now, that takes guts, going against your wife!!!
I find the response to the Sotomayor nomination from Hispanics to be laughable. Oh, so much pride! It is an exciting day! And on and on it goes. Sort of like when Obama was inaugurated. I remember being in a conference room at work here where they decided to televise the inauguration for curious and politically minded employees here. The room was packed when Obama took the oath of office and of the 80 or so people who were crammed in the room, I was the only one who did not applaud (got some dirty looks, but I don't care). What I found interesting were these two Black ladies who were crying and cheering and "thanking the Lord - someone's there for us now!" I think from the perspective of going from slavery to having a half-Black man become President, is definitely overwhelming for those older Black folks who had to endure racism and prejudice. But underlying some of the racial relief is a sense that somehow a Black President will make things easier for Black people. Isn't that preferential treatment? Reverse discrimination?
I have gathered the same sentiments in how Hispanics have responded to the Sotomayor nomination. To say that it's nice to see someone who, from humble beginnings, was able to apply herself (hopefully that was the case and not through affirmative action - nowadays, who really knows) and get into prestigious law schools and become a lawyer and then a judge, is definitely something to be celebrated, regardless of the race of the person. But the sentiments and responses I have been reading seem more along the lines of "Now, finally, someone to represent us!" and "Now we will be treated fairly." There seems to be a sense that by having someone of your race, ethnicity or culture in an influential position, that they may be able to offer you opportunities, preferential treatment, and cut you slack, based on race. That is, and always has been, wrong.
Now, if Obama picked her because she was the best qualified, then I don't think people would have much of an issue here. But Obama encompasses the same thing that most corporate companies try to push: "diversity". For "diversity's" sake. In other words, make sure you have women, minorities, or gays and lesbians represented in your workforce (or in Obama's case, in his cabinet). I have railed against our company's policy on "diversity" and have been reprimanded more than once for speaking against it, but I have always been the firm belief that if the person is qualified, hire them, regardless of their race or culture. I have practiced this and have hired my fair share of women, not because they were women, but because they were qualified. BUT the prevailing mentality in most companies nowadays is a reverse of this: start with filling out a racial quota, and then once you find enough candidates of a certain demographic, choose from one of them. No wonder white males are peeved as they are not being considered for anything nowadays. That is wrong, regardless of the injustices that have been inflicted in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Although I am not an American, I am leery of seeing a person like Sotomayor on the U.S. bench. After all, us Canadians seem to be the recipient of trickle-down effects of U.S. laws., and our legal system, while originally derived from the British, is influenced today heavily by what goes on the U.S. So what goes on in the U.S. does have an effect in Canada. Besides, I've always been interested in U.S. politics, even back to when I was a little kid.
If I recall in what I have read about her in the past few weeks, she seems to have had a number of decisions that are racially-based. She is firmly an advocate of affirmative action, which makes me wonder whether she has some biased towards racially preferential treatment towards a certain group. She has been quoted as saying that judges make the law, which is a bit worrisome.
Even though she is a Roman Catholic, she holds a pro-choice position, which gives hard-core Catholics indigestion, but obviously to those of us who are virulently pro-life, it is not a great sign. Further, I have read that in university papers and essays, she has written about the second amendment and that she believes that gun ownership is unconstitutional (I believe her paper was called Deadly Obsession or something like that). I really have no idea how George H.W. Bush originally nominated her, with such clear left-leaning views, even though she was classified as a moderate liberal. It is no surprise that the uber-liberal Bill Clinton elevated her to a higher court.
Let's hope that Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and to a lesser degree, Anthony Kennedy live long lives and don't have any plans to retire any time soon.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Proposed $700 Billion U.S. Economic Bailout
Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down the Bush
administration-proposed, and subsquently signifiantly altered, economic bailout package that was worth up to $700 billion dollars. That is a lot of money and if it makes you uncomfortable, it should. It is a lot of money.
After the bill's failure, the markets went for a huge tumble. The Dow fell in what was described as historic drops. I saw it in my own retirement investment portfolio (RRSP) and how it lost significant value over the span of a day. In looking at mutual fund and stock prices, I doubt anyone's portolio performed any differently than mine. Everything took a dive.
I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I really wonder whether this bailout package is the right thing for the U.S. Bush alluded to it in a prime-time address late last week (I believe) where he says normally he wouldn't consider bailing out those who make mistakes, and I see his point about what would happen if nothing was done, but maybe that's just what needs to be done - let's face it, the American economy is in a recession, and the signs of this have been evident for many years. My wife and I were talking recently and I think she said that it seemed like after 9/11, U.S. investments have been on a continuing spiral. I have picked up more U.S. funds in my portfolio in recent years thinking that it can't get any worse than the price for which I bought my units, but nope, the prices continue to slide.
I tend to agree with those who argue that this sends the wrong message to these companies who for years have been making risky, if not bad business decisions, taking chances on risky investments on a volatile housing market and paying their CEOs exorbitants amounts of money. To bail them out does seem to excuse these decisions, but I do realize it's not just the institutions' leaders that are affected - these firms have thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who would be unemployed, and that, surely cannot help the economy.
Some have said that why should the average Joe have to chip in for the mistakes of Wall street? This is true, and I can empathize with this point, since this $700 billion is taxpayer money. I think that by not doing this, though, it's going to come back to hurt them in other ways such as being refused credit or lending for things like loans and mortgages. With no money to go around, who's going to lend it?
However, while I put the blame on these institutions for not properly vetting their potential borrowers due to greed, I also fault borrowers in general who borrow more than they can afford or take risks in taking on more credit than they can afford. But isn't this the way the culture is right now - we have these stupid payday loan companies who will be happy to lend you money at a ridiculous interest rate to help you cover things until you get your paycheque. People should realize that if you're going to one of these places, you have a bigger problem than needing a quick loan.
To me, the bailout, while stablizing the economy for the short-term, does not really address the long-term issue of pure greed, both from the lender, as well as the borrower. The bill was revamped and passed a Senate vote yesterday, but still needs to go to the house. I hope it's defeated again.
administration-proposed, and subsquently signifiantly altered, economic bailout package that was worth up to $700 billion dollars. That is a lot of money and if it makes you uncomfortable, it should. It is a lot of money.
After the bill's failure, the markets went for a huge tumble. The Dow fell in what was described as historic drops. I saw it in my own retirement investment portfolio (RRSP) and how it lost significant value over the span of a day. In looking at mutual fund and stock prices, I doubt anyone's portolio performed any differently than mine. Everything took a dive.
I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I really wonder whether this bailout package is the right thing for the U.S. Bush alluded to it in a prime-time address late last week (I believe) where he says normally he wouldn't consider bailing out those who make mistakes, and I see his point about what would happen if nothing was done, but maybe that's just what needs to be done - let's face it, the American economy is in a recession, and the signs of this have been evident for many years. My wife and I were talking recently and I think she said that it seemed like after 9/11, U.S. investments have been on a continuing spiral. I have picked up more U.S. funds in my portfolio in recent years thinking that it can't get any worse than the price for which I bought my units, but nope, the prices continue to slide.
I tend to agree with those who argue that this sends the wrong message to these companies who for years have been making risky, if not bad business decisions, taking chances on risky investments on a volatile housing market and paying their CEOs exorbitants amounts of money. To bail them out does seem to excuse these decisions, but I do realize it's not just the institutions' leaders that are affected - these firms have thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who would be unemployed, and that, surely cannot help the economy.
Some have said that why should the average Joe have to chip in for the mistakes of Wall street? This is true, and I can empathize with this point, since this $700 billion is taxpayer money. I think that by not doing this, though, it's going to come back to hurt them in other ways such as being refused credit or lending for things like loans and mortgages. With no money to go around, who's going to lend it?
However, while I put the blame on these institutions for not properly vetting their potential borrowers due to greed, I also fault borrowers in general who borrow more than they can afford or take risks in taking on more credit than they can afford. But isn't this the way the culture is right now - we have these stupid payday loan companies who will be happy to lend you money at a ridiculous interest rate to help you cover things until you get your paycheque. People should realize that if you're going to one of these places, you have a bigger problem than needing a quick loan.
To me, the bailout, while stablizing the economy for the short-term, does not really address the long-term issue of pure greed, both from the lender, as well as the borrower. The bill was revamped and passed a Senate vote yesterday, but still needs to go to the house. I hope it's defeated again.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Great Speech By Sarah Palin At the RNC Tonight - RNC Day 3
You know, left wingers are so fickle sometimes. On some of the political boards that I frequent (some of whom are not overly conservative-friendly), a number of people criticized Republican VP Nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech tonight. I thought it was a fantastic speech, showed that she had the balls to fight with the big boys and that she was not going to be a pushover. Yet, these bleeding heart left-wingers are saying that she played dirty by bashing Obama, Biden, and the Democrats during the speech.
For Pete's sake, did they watch their own convention? Obama, Biden and company were not only spewing out snide remarks about the Republicans, but they ridiculed John McCain as well. So it's OK for the Democrats to insult and rant about their opponents, but when the Republicans address their criticisms and push back, it's now below the belt? Biden's "scrappiness" is generally considered a positive for him, yet if Palin provides the same level (if not more) of being aggressive, it is now wrong? Give me a break. For all the liberal whining about double standards for men and women, let me tell you that they should practice what they preach for a change.
Palin showed in her speech tonight that she wasn't afraid to scrap, and while I will admit, Obama and Biden have been muted in their comments on Palin, I suspect it was because they wanted to tread carefully for fear of sexism, to handle the initial response to her delicately because she is a woman. I seriously believe had she been a man, they would have torn into her at the outset. But Palin is not afraid to call a spade a spade, which may not win her friends, but like everything else, honesty and integrity will earn respect. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, but it means that they know where you stand and that you are consistent.
Critics will say that Palin did not provide much detail about her plan and provide solution specifics - that is true. I don't know if she has a good grasp of McCain's vision, after only 5 days or so of being chosen as his running mate, but whether she did or not is beside the point - I think even if I had McCain's plan committed to memory, I think it would not be proper for the VP candidate to spell out the plan - after all, that sort of takes the limelight away from the presidential candidate, who happens to be making his speech the following night.
Calling her McCain's attack dog is demeaning - it implies she can't think for yourself, and you know, for her to be mayor and governor, those aren't exactly jobs that allow for decision delegation. As I said earlier, she is exactly what McCain needs, to balance out his more quieter demeanor. I think that Palin's presence and her personality will fire up people who think and vote conservatively, but are afraid to let their voice known. I think McCain made an exception choice in choosing her over, say, Mitt Romney. Case in point - my wife, who was watching the speeches with me, indicated that of all the speeches, she absolutely detested Romney's (well, the Hawaii governor's speech was the worst in terms of monotone delivery and lack of excitement and frequent unnecessary pauses). My wife thought Romney sounded too slick and was the caricature of a slimy politician. I don't think that she's that off there. Romney (who was one of the folks on McCain's shortlist for VP) - could you imagine him as the VP candidate - no one would believe anything he was saying - in fact, folks in the crowd were not even paying attention.
I thought Palin's speech really brought out the fact that she was just like everyone else, with her own set of challenges and joys and disappointments. I think she did a good job in introducing herself to the masses, but not spending the whole time in doing so. She highlighted her experience and wasted no time in punching back at the criticisms leveled toward her so-called "lack of experience" that the media and left-wingers seem to be happy dishing out.
Now, speaking of which, my thoughts on the rest of the speeches...or least what I caught starting at around 8:30PM EST.
Carly Fiorina - well, didn't think much of the speech. Didn't draw me at all. Being the former CEO of any company doesn't impress me much - knowing that they got millions of dollars of severance on termination doesn't sit well with me. So I don't have much to say about former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's speech either (I am hating eBay more and more every day and the direction it's going, away from auctions). Mitt Romney's speech I could have done without - he said nothing substantive, and that freaking grin on his face annoyed both my wife and I.
I absolutely loved Mike Huckabee's speech. But that shouldn't be a surprise seeing that I supported him (financially) during the primaries. So for those who say that it's silly for me to comment on any of this being that I am from Canada, is hogwash. I can still contribute to their campaigns and being on several U.S. political forums, I can certainly "spread the word" as a foot soldier for the campaign. Anyway, Huckabee's speech, as usual, was full of animation, tons of humour, and ended with a very positive and moving story about military service and freedoms. Possibly one of the best speeches of the night.
Rudy Giuliani's speech - I'd say that was a good attack speech, but it did come out as a bit more negative and scare tactics. But you know, it's like if someone was insulting your wife or friend or family member - unless you had no balls, you certainly wouldn't take it lying down. I know I won't - and if I say something that ends up hurting someone's feelings - oh well. We need more people to tell it like it is, and less wussies who try to employ every sensitivity tactic in the sun. Not sure if the U.S. electorate would appreciate negativity like that. But I thought several parts were brilliant and funny at the same time, while speaking truth. But all that being said, I think you can be aggressive, but there are times when overdoing sarcasm may not exactly aid your argument. I suspect that the Giuliani speech was one of those times. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Lieberman yesterday as well as others have all come to the defence of Palin, against the liberal media and Democrats who have been trying to bash her for the past few days. Good to see them standing side-by-side with their colleagues.
Worst speech of the night was by Linda Lingle (I think that was her name), governor of Hawaii. Yikes, what a bad speech - I thought she was the set up person for Palin - thank goodness she wasn't. Her speech about Palin was monotone, and paused way too frequently to expect applause - and the crowd was seemingly getting tired of the forced applause from this monotonous speaker who was very robotic in her delivery. I heard later that they had to cut out the video intro for Palin due to time, and this, I think, was a major mistake, since video intros are generally received well, invoke an emotional response and right then and there the candidate walks out. Give them credit - the Democrats executed this exceptionally well with the Biden and Obama intros. I only hope that they do one for McCain. But they should have considered Lingle's speaking style, what time of night she would have to speak, and then probably put her on a different day - maybe she was set to go on Monday's lineup, which was (rightfully) shortened due to Hurricane Gustav.
Tomorrow's speech by McCain will, I think, be the most important speech he will ever make.
P.S. I gotta say, the CNN coverage is OK, but man, they are so in Obama's camp, it's not funny. I mean, really, they screen their boards to only put through comments that either praise the Democrats or slam the Republicans. And their polling is biased as well - look at other news site polls - it shows Obama and McCain at a dead heat right now - CNN shows Obama with a sizeable lead - like, if you take your impressionable internet savvy generation and use them as a benchmark, after shoving Obamamania 24x7 on them, I guess that is what the polls will look like. I'm really disappointed how biased CNN really is. But it kinda sucks, since as we don't have cable, the online stream from CNN is really the only way we can watch the convention.
For Pete's sake, did they watch their own convention? Obama, Biden and company were not only spewing out snide remarks about the Republicans, but they ridiculed John McCain as well. So it's OK for the Democrats to insult and rant about their opponents, but when the Republicans address their criticisms and push back, it's now below the belt? Biden's "scrappiness" is generally considered a positive for him, yet if Palin provides the same level (if not more) of being aggressive, it is now wrong? Give me a break. For all the liberal whining about double standards for men and women, let me tell you that they should practice what they preach for a change.
Palin showed in her speech tonight that she wasn't afraid to scrap, and while I will admit, Obama and Biden have been muted in their comments on Palin, I suspect it was because they wanted to tread carefully for fear of sexism, to handle the initial response to her delicately because she is a woman. I seriously believe had she been a man, they would have torn into her at the outset. But Palin is not afraid to call a spade a spade, which may not win her friends, but like everything else, honesty and integrity will earn respect. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, but it means that they know where you stand and that you are consistent.
Critics will say that Palin did not provide much detail about her plan and provide solution specifics - that is true. I don't know if she has a good grasp of McCain's vision, after only 5 days or so of being chosen as his running mate, but whether she did or not is beside the point - I think even if I had McCain's plan committed to memory, I think it would not be proper for the VP candidate to spell out the plan - after all, that sort of takes the limelight away from the presidential candidate, who happens to be making his speech the following night.
Calling her McCain's attack dog is demeaning - it implies she can't think for yourself, and you know, for her to be mayor and governor, those aren't exactly jobs that allow for decision delegation. As I said earlier, she is exactly what McCain needs, to balance out his more quieter demeanor. I think that Palin's presence and her personality will fire up people who think and vote conservatively, but are afraid to let their voice known. I think McCain made an exception choice in choosing her over, say, Mitt Romney. Case in point - my wife, who was watching the speeches with me, indicated that of all the speeches, she absolutely detested Romney's (well, the Hawaii governor's speech was the worst in terms of monotone delivery and lack of excitement and frequent unnecessary pauses). My wife thought Romney sounded too slick and was the caricature of a slimy politician. I don't think that she's that off there. Romney (who was one of the folks on McCain's shortlist for VP) - could you imagine him as the VP candidate - no one would believe anything he was saying - in fact, folks in the crowd were not even paying attention.
I thought Palin's speech really brought out the fact that she was just like everyone else, with her own set of challenges and joys and disappointments. I think she did a good job in introducing herself to the masses, but not spending the whole time in doing so. She highlighted her experience and wasted no time in punching back at the criticisms leveled toward her so-called "lack of experience" that the media and left-wingers seem to be happy dishing out.
Now, speaking of which, my thoughts on the rest of the speeches...or least what I caught starting at around 8:30PM EST.
Carly Fiorina - well, didn't think much of the speech. Didn't draw me at all. Being the former CEO of any company doesn't impress me much - knowing that they got millions of dollars of severance on termination doesn't sit well with me. So I don't have much to say about former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's speech either (I am hating eBay more and more every day and the direction it's going, away from auctions). Mitt Romney's speech I could have done without - he said nothing substantive, and that freaking grin on his face annoyed both my wife and I.
I absolutely loved Mike Huckabee's speech. But that shouldn't be a surprise seeing that I supported him (financially) during the primaries. So for those who say that it's silly for me to comment on any of this being that I am from Canada, is hogwash. I can still contribute to their campaigns and being on several U.S. political forums, I can certainly "spread the word" as a foot soldier for the campaign. Anyway, Huckabee's speech, as usual, was full of animation, tons of humour, and ended with a very positive and moving story about military service and freedoms. Possibly one of the best speeches of the night.
Rudy Giuliani's speech - I'd say that was a good attack speech, but it did come out as a bit more negative and scare tactics. But you know, it's like if someone was insulting your wife or friend or family member - unless you had no balls, you certainly wouldn't take it lying down. I know I won't - and if I say something that ends up hurting someone's feelings - oh well. We need more people to tell it like it is, and less wussies who try to employ every sensitivity tactic in the sun. Not sure if the U.S. electorate would appreciate negativity like that. But I thought several parts were brilliant and funny at the same time, while speaking truth. But all that being said, I think you can be aggressive, but there are times when overdoing sarcasm may not exactly aid your argument. I suspect that the Giuliani speech was one of those times. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Lieberman yesterday as well as others have all come to the defence of Palin, against the liberal media and Democrats who have been trying to bash her for the past few days. Good to see them standing side-by-side with their colleagues.
Worst speech of the night was by Linda Lingle (I think that was her name), governor of Hawaii. Yikes, what a bad speech - I thought she was the set up person for Palin - thank goodness she wasn't. Her speech about Palin was monotone, and paused way too frequently to expect applause - and the crowd was seemingly getting tired of the forced applause from this monotonous speaker who was very robotic in her delivery. I heard later that they had to cut out the video intro for Palin due to time, and this, I think, was a major mistake, since video intros are generally received well, invoke an emotional response and right then and there the candidate walks out. Give them credit - the Democrats executed this exceptionally well with the Biden and Obama intros. I only hope that they do one for McCain. But they should have considered Lingle's speaking style, what time of night she would have to speak, and then probably put her on a different day - maybe she was set to go on Monday's lineup, which was (rightfully) shortened due to Hurricane Gustav.
Tomorrow's speech by McCain will, I think, be the most important speech he will ever make.
P.S. I gotta say, the CNN coverage is OK, but man, they are so in Obama's camp, it's not funny. I mean, really, they screen their boards to only put through comments that either praise the Democrats or slam the Republicans. And their polling is biased as well - look at other news site polls - it shows Obama and McCain at a dead heat right now - CNN shows Obama with a sizeable lead - like, if you take your impressionable internet savvy generation and use them as a benchmark, after shoving Obamamania 24x7 on them, I guess that is what the polls will look like. I'm really disappointed how biased CNN really is. But it kinda sucks, since as we don't have cable, the online stream from CNN is really the only way we can watch the convention.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Digesting Super Tuesday in the U.S. and Beyond
Well, what a week - aside from the New York Giants beating my at-the-time undefeated New England Patriots, this week had lots of excitement from the U.S. political front with Super Tuesday results. I wasn't feeling well that evening, so unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to follow the web results as they flowed in. Though I got up in the middle of the night to grab a Pepto-Bismol and quickly glanced at the results.
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)