John McCain: Republican Enigma

John McCain is a principled man, and he relies on his principles to guide his policy decisions. It is an unfortunate reality of any presidential election season that the candidates move to the poles of each of their respective parties in order to build a solid base to carry the nomination. So, of course, McCain has begun to sell himself as a conservative Republican, when most of the electorate knows he is not a Bush Republican. He is an independent thinker on many issues, and hardly embodies the conservative movement. This is why he has consistently been vilified by the right wing of the party, from Falwell to Limbaugh. McCain is a moderate politician, which is why he scores so well with independent voters. I believe it will be difficult to position himself as "your conservative Republican candidate," and two instances, brought to attention in today's NY Times, offer insight into the psychology of the Arizona Senator, and underscore how one is hard-pressed to really put a political label on him.

Disenchanted with the Republican party after his failed attempt to be its nominee in 2000, McCain deliberated leaving the party and becoming an independent. He had talks with leading Democrats on the matter, and whichever camp you want to believe, that either McCain and his team approached the Dems, or vice-versa, it is a telling sign that McCain was even pondering leaving his party. A proud "conservative Republican" would not seriously discuss this with the rival party. Not three years later McCain had talks with John Kerry about a potential shared ticket for the 2004 Presidential Election. While such a ticket seems ludicrous, what with Kerry's antiwar posture and McCain's hawkish foreign policy, the fact that McCain flirted with the idea means he is not in the right wing of his party. He is a centrist Republican, and in all honesty, I think positioning himself in such a way now that he has wrapped up the nomination will better serve him. With Bush's abysmal polling and the 2006 Democratic Congressional victories, it is apparent America is jaded by the Republican party, especially it's right wing. Selling himself as a moderate Republican will give him a better chance in November I believe, because that's what he is.

He favors deficit reduction to Bush's constant tax cuts (although in this political season he has flip-flopped on the matter, a bad move in my estimation). He originally opposed Bush's tax cuts because of how disproportionately it favored the wealthy, and I think this gives insight to where he stands on tax issues. He has long been a champion of campaign finance reform, he has been at odds with Bush on environmental issues, taking a more regulation-based stance. He has been outspoken about alternative fuels and our need to reduce foreign oil dependence, and has taken a stronger stance on global warming. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he supports stem cell research and has sided with prominent Democrats on immigration policy. A victim of torture himself, he has consistently butted heads with Republicans on America's interrogation tactics, and has been vehement about the US upholding international standards and immediately ceasing any torture being implemented.

While McCain is definitely a Republican, he is hardly the conservative Republican he is now claiming he is, and would be better served by positioning himself as the moderate Republican he is, and not falling victim to partisan hackery that plagues this nation. We need more independent thinkers in Washington, and McCain is a good example of a politician that is not afraid to alienate his party to stand up for his principles.

Why Deny This Man Resident Status In U.S

After having given four years of military service to our country during the U.S. Iraq occupation, Samam Kareem Ahmad sought to become a permanent resident of the United States. Despite “put[ting] his life on the line with, for, Coalition Forces on a daily basis,” the Bush administration said , “No.”

The Department of Homeland Security apparently chose to ignore his patriotic and selfless service in war, and chose instead to consider only his past membership in the Kurdish Democratic Party, a group DHS has now labels an “undesignated terrorist organization,” whatever that means. And, why you wonder would that group warrant that label? Because it sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein!!

So, Samam once belonged to an organization that sought to overthrow Sadam Hussein. Then he joined the Coalition and American Forces that actually overthrew Sadam Hussein, and that's reason enough for the Bush Administrations to label him a terrorist. Is that a bad joke or what.

Sometimes it's almost impossible to understand where our government is at. Seems as though our Fatherland Security Department has lost all common sense, relying instead solely on inflexible rules - that our government repeatedly violates - that serve to hassle, discriminate against, and deny basic rights or humane treatment, to those of us who are born U.S. Citizens, and those who seek to become U.S. Citizens.

Something basic is wrong here. What has happened to our country?

Five Years in Iraq

Five years ago today US and coalition forces began operations to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, thus beginning one of the most controversial wars in American history. Across the mainstream media and the blogosphere, people will no doubt be painting starkly contrasting assessments of this endeavor, from hysterical cynicism to blind optimism. There will be those that broadcast the casualties while muting any successes. And there will be those like Dick Cheney that continue to wear blinders, and refuse to acknowledge the glaring errors made by this administration and pay only lip service to the terrible sacrifices this country has had to make in the name of this war. We invite all opinions on this blog for sure, but in looking back on these past five years and on into the future, I feel a candid and reasoned assessment, avoiding useless hyperbole, is needed.

In critiquing the early stages of the war, there is little to write positive. I, for one, was initially against the war, feeling that the Bush administration had not given enough solid evidence that Hussein possessed WMD, and that we were rushing throwing our troops into Iraq with no legitimate 'smoking gun.' History will write that the administration's grounds for the war was at best unauthentic, and at worst sinister deception. Iraq had no WMD and Saddam was seemingly not an 'immediate threat.' He did have relations with Al Qaeda and other terrorist agencies, but did not coordinate 9/11 nor any other US terror attacks. No one can deny the world is a better place without the likes of Saddam Hussein running nations, but on the same token no one can deny that the Bush administration cataclysmically blundered the initial occupation after toppling Hussein. You can't quell insurgency and occupy without troops, and Donald Rumsfeld should be vilified in history for his appallingly stubborn decisions to not increase ground troop levels throughout his abysmal leadership at the DoD. His actions were indefensible, it should have been obvious that more troops were needed to reduce violence, and should not have taken until 2007's surge tactic to realize this point.

We are a nation divided because of this war. I believe this is in large part due to the way we discuss this war. This should not be a partisan war, this should not be a war dominated by both poles throwing flames at each other. There needs to be practical and useful discourse. So on a day like this, we should talk about the Iraq War's past, but we should focus on the future. I am sick and tired of talk about 'who supported the invasion' and who 'from day one did not.' We are in Iraq. That is the bottom line. Yes it may have been blind arrogance and unfettered hubris that got us there, yes the post-invasion agenda should have been managed better, and yes American lives are being lost everyday. But let's focus on what our next step will be without taking cheap shots at other parties. A stable Iraq is a positive for the entire world, especially an America fighting the cult of terrorism. So while I did not initially support the invasion, I do advocate remaining in Iraq until stability is secured and Al Qaeda is drastically weakened or eliminated from Iraq altogether. I have seen positives from the recent surge, and I rack my brain thinking that maybe so much violence could have been avoided had Bush listened to Powell and utilized more troops from the start. What happens to Iraq if we fully withdraw? For those that desire either a quick or sustained withdrawal, if our next President implements such a strategy, I only hope that he or she fully sees the reality of such a decision, where Iraq is embroiled in chaos. I only hope that such a decision does not mean that the US is right back in Iraq in 5 or so years. Let's hope such a decision is made with extensive contingency planning, and a much better sense of reality than the Bush administration had post-invasion.

Punishment for Bush's Surveillance Cronies?

This past Thursday the House of Representatives convened in secret for the first time since 1983. The purpose of their secrecy was to revise the infamous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This act was put into place in 1978 and then amended by the USA Patriot Act of 2001 to include terrorist organizations that aren't backed by a specific government.

The act has allowed warrentless domestic wire tapping (this use was developed by the Bush administration) as well as created a court that meets in secret to issue warrants. Only the amount of warrants issued must be disclosed, not how they are issued.

I am not certain of all the specifics of the revisions, but one revision has been met with strong opposition from the GOP. It would allow telecommunications companies to be sued if they had participated in any of the warrantless seaches. That doesn't seem fair to me since the telecommunications companies had probably acted under the advice that what they were doing was legal at the time.

I am not as well informed on this topic as I would like to be and am hoping that someone else can take a look at this article and possibly shed some light on what is going on here.

House challenges Bush on surveillance