Ron Paul and Israel...

Setting himself far apart from his Republican colleagues, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul on Tuesday night suggested that the U.S. should have less involvement in Israel's affairs.

"I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves," he said.

The statement came in response to a question in a Tuesday night debate about whether the GOP candidates would, as president, support Israel in an attack against Iran.

Paul responded that he wouldn't expect such an attack to take place -- but if it were to, "Why does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way."

The United States sends roughly $3 billion to Israel in military assistance every year.


---
If they were to conduct such an attack, "that's their business, but they should suffer the consequences," Paul continued. He added that Israel has hundreds of nuclear missiles, so "they can take care of themselves."


One of the necessary reasons for the U.S.-Israeli diplomatic and economic relations to continue is because Israel is not part of the non-proliferation treaty and have always kept their nuclear program somewhat of a secret from U.N. officials and American intelligence sources. Intelligence that is publicly known suggests that at one time Israel was involved with testing nuclear bombs in 1979, around the time it is believed that South Africa was.


Our economy is hurting enough, but just because you cut off foreign aid to a place as critical as Israel, a nation that is a nuclear country with a policy for opacity that demands strong control over providing the marketplaces that give to industry and commerce that U.S. companies allow. Industry and commerce that helps other nations struggling in the region to keep peace as they try to form a more stable government. Israeli secrets over weapons technology gives them a strategic advantage in a supposedly de-proliferational global network, a posture that has the capacity to likely puncture vital trade agreements in occpied and unoccupied territories that allow U.S. companies to prosper- and our service epeople in the military to have job. Even sanctioning Iran with tighter restrictions gives Israel more control and influence on the regions' overall political shifts. And also, the ability to manipulate the levels of peace adjoining societies can achieve within themselves, especially in locations that are constantly seeing bombings and social unrest (while they build their nations up using trade relationships with the U.S., 240 billion flows through Israel, per year by some estimates).


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-503544_162-57330050-1.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId=503544&tag=accordionB;commentWrapper#ixzz1elmDssaj

Presidential Campaign Advertising

Mr. Farnsworth and Mr. Parry-Giles spoke about presidential campaign advertising. They focused on Senator Obama's 30-minute television message aired the previous night as well as other political advertisements by Senators McCain and Obama. They responded to telephone calls and electronic mail.

In one of McCain's campaign ads, it questions the lack of experience and judgement Obama has. The McCain campaign does an effective job with an ad of presenting their strongest points and pointing out Obama's vulnerabilities.

Lets take a look at one of the ads:

Obama's political ad

Talks about how President Obamas political Ad was produced. For example: is style, talking into the camera. Obama makes sure he is connecting with Americans and is "less exotic", he tries to make us comfortable through his ads and ensures that he understands us.

CNN Republican debate

Newt Gingrich: His rise to the top of the polls afforded him lots more time to speak. And that’s good for Gingrich, who is a skilled debater. If you went into the debate undecided on Gingrich, you likely came out leaning toward him. One potential trouble spot: Gingrich’s refusal to back away from his belief that we shouldn’t throw out all 11 million people here illegally could come back to bite him in a party that is vehemently opposed to anything that looks or sounds like amnesty.


Jon Huntsman: Given the national security/foreign policy focus of this debate, it was one where the former Utah governor had to do well. And, by and large, he did. Huntsman is still learning the game of presidential politics — he veers off message occasionally — but he gave off an overall image of competency and reasonableness. Combine tonight’s performance with the $1.5 million the pro-Huntsman super PAC is currently spending in New Hampshire and now must be the time the governor makes his move in the state. If his numbers don’t start ticking up soon, it’s time to start looking at 2016.


Mitt Romney: It was far from Romney’s most commanding performance, but the former Massachusetts governor — yet again — avoided any sort of gang tackle from his rivals. Romney seemed content to not force the issue but when he got his questions he was solid (as usual) in answering them. Romney also made a point to ding Gingrich on his immigration answer; if Newt stays in the top tier there will be lots more where that came from.


Herman Cain: The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO seemed lost for much of tonight’s debate. Obviously domestic policy — “9-9-9”! — is his strong suit but Cain also needed to demonstrate a firmer grasp on the foreign policy front in order to be taken seriously as a contender for the Republican nomination. The Cain slide appears to be well under way — if new polling is to be trusted — and he did nothing to arrest it tonight.


Ron Paul: We wondered aloud earlier today if the Texas Congressman might temper some of his national security/foreign policy views in an attempt to court the more mainstream part of the GOP. Nope! Paul’s views on domestic policy are largely in line with the rest of the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination but on foreign policy he is an outlier. It showed tonight as Paul said we should leave Israel to fend for itself, called for disentangling ourselves from Afghanistan and even for an end to the war on drugs. Paul’s base undoubtedly ate up every word. But, tonight’s debate was a case study in just how hard it will be for Paul to be a genuine contender for the nomination


-Washington Post

Obama and McCain's economic plans

Senator McCain and Senator Obama participated in the third of three presidential debates, which focused on the economy and domestic policy. The candidates were seated at a table with moderator Bob Schieffer. Each candidate is given two minutes to respond to questions and there is a five minute period for rebuttal discussion. The debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., was presented in a full-screen format provided by the network pool showing candidates as they spoke with occassional shots as they reacted to their opponents' remarks.

I am using one example to show how a debate usually goes.
The question is "Why is your economic plan better than your opponents?"

A little about presidential debates

During presidential elections in the United States, it has become customary for the main candidates (almost always the candidates of the two largest parties, currently the Democratic Party and the Republican Party) to engage in a debate. The topics discussed in the debate are often the most controversial issues of the time, and arguably elections have been nearly decided by these debates (e.g., Nixon vs. Kennedy). While debates aren't constitutionally mandated, it is often considered a de facto election process. The main target for these debates are undecided voters; those who usually aren't partial to either political ideology or party.

Debates are broadcast live on television and radio. The first debate for the 1960 election drew over 66 million viewers out of a population of 179 million, making it one of the most-watched broadcasts in U.S. television history. The 1980 debates drew 80 million viewers out of a 226 million. By 2000, about 46 million viewers out of a population of 280 million watched the first debate, with ten million fewer watching the subsequent debates that year. In 2004, 62.5 million people watched the first debate, while 43.6 million watched the vice-presidential debate

"You're no Jack Kennedy"

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/300569-1&start=1099

Program not embeddable. But the time frame I would have liked to have on my blog is 18:00 to 22:00. I will also post a YouTube video.



One of the most famous moments in US political history. 1988, Vice Presidential Debate, Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen.

Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" was a quotation used during the 1988 United States vice-presidential debate by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle. Jack Kennedy was a reference to John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States. Since then, the words "You're no Jack Kennedy," or some variation on Bentsen's remark, have become a part of the political lexicon as a way to deflate politicians or other individuals perceived as thinking too highly of themselves.


I don't think what Quayle said was a direct comparison. You can see he is only comparing years served. But by using JFK's name, he made an implied comparison. It no longer was simply years to years. It was quality of years, and in that case Bentson got the better of him.

I give Quayle credit, he was trying to make an impactful statement that he was ready for the job at hand, and he had.  But his comparison left a big opening for a counter and Bentson leveled him.

Perry's awkward momemt..

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made the worst stumble of the presidential campaign on Wednesday, struggling awkwardly to remember the name of a third federal agency he would eliminate if he became president.

“It is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone,” he said, beginning to lay out one of the staples of his stump speech. “Commerce, Education, and the — what’s the third one there? Let’s see,”

a dark mood awaits Obama and GOP rival

One year out from the 2012 election, President Obama faces the most difficult reelection environment of any White House incumbent in two decades, with economic woes at the center of the public’s concerns, an electorate that is deeply pessimistic and sharply polarized, and growing questions about the president’s capacity to lead.

Those factors alone portend the possibility that Obama could become the first one-term president since George H.W. Bush, who was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992 at a time of economic problems and similar anger with the political establishment in Washington. To win a second term, Obama probably will have to overcome the highest rate of unemployment in an election year of any president in the post-World War II era.

Last year’s midterm election victories have made Republicans eager for 2012. But public disaffection with the party and a muddled battle for the GOP nomination leave open the possibility that Republicans will not be able to capitalize on the conditions that have put the president on the defensive. Failure could produce the kind of disappointment that would trigger recriminations and an examination of the party’s priorities, tactics and leadership. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney remains the candidate to beat, but so far he has not been able to consolidate support or generate enthusiasm in a party that is more conservative than he is.

What can be said at this point is that, after three years of pitched battles between Obama and congressional Republicans, the country is heading toward a high-stakes contest. Election 2012 will be a contest not just between two candidates but also between two starkly different views of the role of government that underscore the enormous differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Herman Cain raises $2 million, heads to late-night TV

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has raised $2 million in campaign contributions in the week since sexual harassment allegations against him became public, his spokesman J.D. Gordon said today. By comparison, the Georgia businessman collected $2.8 million in political donations in the entire June-to-September fundraising period.

The release of the fundraising numbers came as Cain's GOP rival Jon Huntsman urged Cain to disclose all the information about the allegations, which have dominated the GOP contest in recent days.

"It's got to come out in total," Huntsman said, during an appearance earlier today on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Legitimate questions have been raised." Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to China who trails in the polls, said the allegations have "taken all the bandwith" in the primary.

Cain has repeatedly denied allegations he sexually harassed women in the 1990s when he headed the National Restaurant Association. During an appearance Saturday in Texas, Cain refused to answer reporters' questions about the issue. "We are getting back on message," Cain said. "End of story." Gordon blamed journalists for the controversy, saying "not a single shred of evidence" supports the allegations. "The American people see it for what it is, a malicious smear campaign," Gordon said in an email today. "And it has not impacted Mr. Cain's poll numbers."