In Bill We Trust?

I think in this upcoming election it will be important for me as a voter to sift through a bunch of the hogwash that our media throws in to the mix. As most of us know there are several important issues that our candidates have to address. Most responsible Americans know that our economy may be going into a recession, the cost of oil has skyrocketed, and the war in Iraq seems to be a plague that is going to haunt us like Vietnam has. It is interesting to see where our candidates stand on most of our issues, but my biggest issue is where their stance has been and will be in regards to Iraq.

Bill Clinton announced recently that he had always opposed the war, but where does his wife stand? When we invaded Iraq she was more than willing to put her vote for yes. Now since she is one of the top GOP candidates she has claimed that she was misled by Bush. She doesn't support the war anymore, even though she did then. I don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that she whole hearted wants to get our troops out of Iraq, but I think she should have said that from the start. If I were to vote for someone, which I will (once I figure out who the best candidate is), I will vote for someone who as a senator or public official whose life has been on public display for at least ten years and has integrity. I think that a leader should display many virtues, but integrity is the most important. I don't want the U.S. to be "misled" like we have been in the past.

In Response

In response to Sarah Kay's blog I would like to offer you a couple of constructive criticisms (not to be confused with arguing or unabashedly demoralizing your point of view). You open with what in my eyes could be a very good start to a strong argument ("The United States national government is viewed as the most powerful nation in the world, the best off. But what did it really take to get there? Manipulation."), but you fail to provide any substantial evidence for your statements. The evidence that you do provide, like when you say that leaders have made and broken many promises, lacks detail. I feel that leaving out these important details can leave a reader asking many questions about where you reference your material.

The second paragraph is opened with another bold statement that the governments problem solving skill are black and white, in my eyes leaving the reader wanting to know more about what makes the government black and white in there problem solving skills. Then a question is asked "What do we do about immigration?", but after the question is asked it is then left open. If I may clarify by what I mean by open; I mean that the lines following the question aren't facts referenced from any thing, but they seem to be broad over generalizations about what the government has proposed to do about immigration.

The final two paragraphs don't do the job of clarifying your point. It can be said that America is a great place to live and that we are not "all bad", but I don't believe that was the point of your editorial.

So what do I suggest? Well I would suggest clarifying your points, having substantial evidence to back your points up and then try concluding your blog with one statement that can tie everything together.

Bush Squanders Rights of Citizens

The Constitution gives rights to foreigners that are living in the United States legally. Well, not according to our lovely President. In 2001, after September 11, President Bush miraculously granted himself the right to detain any person that was considered an enemy combatant of the United States. When Congress allowed the attack on Afghanistan, President Bush saw it as a golden opportunity to squander the rights of American citizens and he put a nice clean label on it too. The war on terror as most of us know it has (supposedly) given the President the right to violate the Constitution. What do I mean?

In short President Bush can and has detained two people on the American mainland Jose Padilla and Ali Al-Mari, labeled them enemy combatants and threw them in military detention. I do believe that the sixth Amendment gives the right to a public and speedy trial where the defendant can have counsel and argue his case, but not in this case. The imprisoned Mari was held "incommunicado" for 16 months then finally he was given the right to a lawyer. The only problem he still is not in a civilian court. Nor is the trial public. Wow what is going on with our government these days?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/01combatant.html?ref=us

House Fails to Overide Veto

Thirteen votes were missing to override President Bush's veto on the Schip bill today. No republicans changed there mind, but six democrats switched from "no" to yes. One of the main arguments that the Republicans made was that the 35 billion intended for the bill could cover illegal immigrant children and middle class families. The Democrats heard this argument and since the bill's veto are planning on revising the bill and making tighter restrictions. The bill is going to be back on the President's desk right before the election in 2008
President Bush seems to want to be financially responsible (probably because of all the mishaps in his current administration), but vetoing a bill to help millions of children and then offering one seventh of what the initial bill would have brought to the table(35 billion).I am sorry to say, but President Bush is really stupid. I mean come on. How can you deny children (ten million to that point) health insurance all in the name of helping poorer children. These were the poorer children. They can't get on welfare, so I guess they don't really count. They can't afford private insurance, so this begs question of what are we going to do when we have ten million kids in our Nation's hospitals who can't afford the health care? That means major bills for their parents never to see the light of a debt free life again. Again I am sorry to say it, but President Bush has no soul.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/19healthcnd.html?hp

Bush Vetoes Children's Health Bill To Save The Poor

The president just vetoed a bill that would allow for expansion of the SCHIP program. The SCHIP program allowed families who made too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but couldn't buy private insurance qualify for quality insurance. Each of the States were given an approved plan from the government with a lot of flexibility and the government would match the states funds. In short the states could exercise there rights to qualify needy people for insurance and the federal government would back them up.
The president decided that the government should focus on only the "truly unfortunate" and not those that were left in the gap of not qualifying for Medicaid, but couldn't afford private insurance. The Senate has enough voting power from both republicans and democrats to overturn the bill, but the house is still "on the fence" with the issue. The voting has been postponed till October twelfth so the supporters of the bill could round up enough votes to cancel the veto.
Bush Vetoed the bill so that he could help poor children/less fortunate, but he only intends on spending five billion dollars in contrast to the 35 that would be spent for the expansion of the SCHIP program.
I may be ignorant or wrong here, but is the president really all that bad of a guy? I mean come on he is wasting millions/billions of dollars in Iraq so we can keep our fuel supply going and let the rich keep getting richer. That doesn't really sound all that bad does it? The question I have to ask is "is the president really the monster that the media and all of America, our Senators and Representatives make him out to be?" Is the fact that our president running by his own agenda really not all that American. Pardon the sarcasm, but Bush has seemed to have lost his marbles in his last years in office. I mean really what kind of budget crisis are we facing that we have to cut funding for a good program like SCHIP. Did you know that the income limit for medicaid is 798 dollars for a single person and 1079 for a couple per month.
I have a friend who works at a good company (paid benefits fortunately), but he only makes about 2000 dollars a month. His rent is about five hundred dollars a month and when you factor in car payments, gas, bills and car insurance there really is not much left for medical insurance. He would have to save for half of a year just to cover the deductible on a private insurance like State Farm. So do I believe Bush has once again lost his mind yes. when you seem to be trying to line your pockets or fill your agenda by backhanding the unfortunate then I have every right to call you a bad president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

U.S. Judge Blocks Lethal Injection in Tennessee

Yesterday a federal judge declared that the use of three drugs administered during lethal injections were unconstitutional. Judge Aleta Truager of a federal district court ruled that the state cannot kill a death row inmate because the drugs used would have "a substantial risk of unnecessary pain."
The Governer Phil Breedson put a 90 day hold on executions in February because the states old protocols were criticized as being "confusing."
The inmate Edward Harbison (who beat an elderly woman to death in 1983) appealed his case arguing that the states new protocols were illegal. Judge Trauger agreed with him and has put his death sentence on hold until the state can find a less painful way to die.

This is another case of the federal courts interfering with the states rights. I am for states rights and I believe that the state has the right to decide how a person dies, but this article left many unanswered questions. Like what role should the Federal court play in the execution of a State's inmate? I can understand not wanting to die a painful excruciating death, but in all honestly does the person who is being executed think that his victim received the same consideration when she was beat to death? I do think it is important (especially in a state where our death penalty accounts for half the nations total) that the federal government intervenes when there is a case of someone being wrongfully accused. But this seems like a person using the not so well defined power between the state's court and the federal court to escape his death sentence. I wonder if the electric chair is any less painful.
Just for the record I am not for or against the death penalty because I believe it varies case to case, but is there really a illegal way to die? The end result is usually the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/us/20tennessee.html?ref=us