Author: Jared Fallon

How absurd confused can a nation be? To allow a person who, when reflecting upon their very first major foreign policy experience, lied through their teeth in an attempt to have a worthwhile story to tell voters, become the Secretary of State.The very essence of the decision should be enough to make one nauseous, and yet whenever one brings up the occasional “misunderstandings” on the part of Hilary Clinton listeners tend to shrug their shoulders and cavalierly say, “It’s just politics” or, “she is a bright lady and did what needed to be done.” If Obama really wants the change he touted for 21 months – if the American public truly wants reform, why in the world would we put up with such a foolish decision?

In a biographical sense, there is no doubt that Hilary is known for having her chief energies focused on domestic issues. The amount of candidates with far less political strings attached that would have been much more qualified for the position are off the charts – and yet Obama (?) decides to put his former opponent in charge of international affairs at one of the most pivotal times in US history. We are at a time that demands widespread, foundational change. We haven’t even begun to see the ramifications from a heavily criticized war for which the current US president says he was “unprepared” for entering. We are about to deal with a new wave of financial problems with a breadth and depth never experienced before – as some of our largest trading partners are beginning to turn their policies towards a more regional, free trade agreement focus. More Americans should be asking, “Why Hilary?” Why someone who is the exact opposite of the “change” that was promised to so many Americans…and the world.

If you are disagreeing with this “rant”, with this commentary – I apologize. I am simply taking a stand that too few Americans do for fear of sounding too strong, or due to being concerned about politically correct speech. But what is obvious (and not to strong to state) is if the former First Lady’s most significant foreign policy experience was surrounded and infused by lies, and then after serving in the New York Senate has been put in charge of the nation’s international affairs, there are serious questions that are begging to be asked.

Where is accountability in our system? On a lesser note, how could someone with such a great capability to lie with no apparent remorse be continually allowed to represent our people? To represent our nation on the world stage?

Yes, Hilary is an amazingly bright lady. She was one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the US and earned more money than her husband ever did until his presidency – before she even stepped into the political spotlight. Yet, since when has intelligence and cunningness ever excused one from even the most primitive form of accountability? What happened to the days when Americans cared about the honesty and integrity of those that are chosen to represent us?

If you do not recall, Hilary initially stated she had no intentions of running for president. After her opponent won the position she had “surprisingly” so desperately desired, she said her talents were needed in the Senate to help back the democrats in Washington and that’s were intentions laid. The next thing you know she is offered one of the most intrinsic positions in one of the most significant areas of policy at one of the most direly important time periods in US history. Am I not the only one to point to these oddities?

America, it is time to start demanding honest leaders. It is time to stop rewarding those that use words and influence for no greater benefit other than themselves. The ideals of servitude seem to no longer create any echo of integrity down Congress’ hall. Apparently, the candidate most of the world has supported does not have strong reservations about the bullet-dodging, Bosnia-saving, and fearless Hilary Clinton – is this the change we voted for?

To the stark contrary, substantial evidence may exist proving that Hilary may have actually been under sniper fire during her 1996 trip:

Author: Sarah Riordan

While in the midst of the US recession paired with a historic global financial crisis, Senator Diane Feinstein’s legislative agenda is apparently not so full that she can’t be concerned with ticket scalping. Apparently Feinstein, noting the record clamor for Barack Obama inauguration tickets, sees the potential for some abuse – even to the point of the possible development of an inaugural ticket black market.

Without a doubt, the results of the 2008 Presidential Election were historic.  As the first African American president, Barack Obama broke through a racial barrier which many felt they would never see broken in their lifetime. Consequently, tickets to the inauguration are in huge demand as the crowd is expected to break records. According to aol.com, a projected 4 million people could attend the inauguration. Historically, the largest crowd ever witnessing a president sworn into office was 1.2 million for the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, according to an article by the Associated Press. In addition, CNN has reported that tickets are already being sold for five figures.

The problem is that tickets for a presidential inauguration are not meant to be sold by anyone. As a perk to being a member of Congress, you are given tickets to distribute to whomever you deem important enough to attend. Typically this means awarding tickets to the party elite, significant political financial donors or the “rich and famous.”  In other words, your every day run of the mill citizen doesn’t stand much of a chance in getting a ticket.               

The part of the bill that deals with counterfeit tickets has some validity.  In particular, fraudulent tickets present a security concern for the incoming President. As offensive is the thought, there have already been threats on the President-elects life simply because he is an African American. Controlling who is legitimately admitted to the inauguration should be a priority.  Safeguarding his life needs to be a primary concern. 

While that is true, the other part of the bill dealing with the “selling” of tickets does raise some questions.  Just who exactly is Feinstein foreseeing will scalp legitimate tickets? The party elite? Political donors? The rich and famous?  What is the caliber of the people to whom members of Congress give these tickets? While I am sure that Feinstein is not intending to insult political party supporters, who else would this bill be addressing? The Senators and Congressmen themselves?  At a minimum it calls into question the judgment of the members of Congress.

The political truth of the matter is that there will always be the party faithful who, once rewarded with tickets, will forgo witnessing history to make a fast buck. Feinstein, if she really has some worries, should limit the scope of this bill to security concerns. That is a more legitimate use of her legislative time.

Author: Jared Fallon

Does anyone remember when presidential candidate John McCain called for a Gas Tax “Holiday” in April of 08 as Americans were priming themselves for the most expensive fuel prices experienced yet? We can’t help but imagine what our current policies would look like now, how McCain’s campaign would be affected, and whether or not such a shallow, short-term policy would have truly garnered any extra respect for this Arizona Senator. What I am proposing over this Presidential season is an “Election Holiday” – a break from the constant bombardment of details on the 08 Presidential Campaign and its affairs. A break that will allow us to recharge in the same manner that gas tax alleviation would have been appreciated, if only for a short amount of time. The logic between the two is actually quite similar.

McCain was simply looking for a near sighted relief to a growing present problem – one that affects a widespread population and tends to distract from greater economic and political goals. Why wouldn’t a break from the Presidential Election mumbo jumbo not equally be appreciated? This is not to undermine our political system or our adapted form of democracy, but to instead propose a new break along the same line of thought that many politicians seek short-term relief policies for – a time to reset, reflect, and recharge. In the haste and intensity of such a historical election it is important to not get lost in partisan politics nor details that are less consequential (i.e. Palin’s granddaughter scandal or Obama’s contagious smile). At such a crucial crossroads in American politics, we need not stray from our grander goals for reform – ranging from our current burdensome military policies to our aging infrastructure system, to our increasing tensions with our not-so-friends overseas. Let’s work for reform. Let’s work to not lose sight of our more intrinsic need for meaningful policies and get America where she needs to be.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/election-relief-holiday/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/5-great-presidents-who-had-less-experience-than-barack-obama http://www.statesurge.com/news/5-great-presidents-who-had-less-experience-than-barack-obama#comments Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:07:09 +0000 admin http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=38 We've been hearing a lot about experience in the presidential campaign this year, and we've been told that experience is the most important qualification to be President. Well here's a list of five great American Presidents who, before the job, has less experience in government than Barack Obama will have had if he wins in November.]]>

AUTHOR: Billy Skid

We’ve been hearing a lot about experience in the presidential campaign this year, and we’ve been told that experience is the most important qualification to be President. Well here’s a list of five great American Presidents who, before the job, has less experience in government than Barack Obama will have had if he wins in November.

Andrew Jackson

Prior to becoming President, Andrew Jackson had been military governor of Florida for one year, Congressman for one year and a Senator for three years. Of course, he’d also been a general, and Americans do love their general presidents, but before becoming President he had a total of five years in government service. Obama will have twelve.

Abraham Lincoln

It’s almost bizarre, but before becoming our greatest President, Lincoln had served only two years in the House of Representatives, during which he vocally opposed the Mexican-American War as a war of imperial aggression. (Sound familiar?) Just two years of government service. The rest of the time he spent lawyering around the state of Illinois. (Sound familiar?) Oh yeah. To win the nomination, he had to defeat an immensely popular New York senator in the primaries. (Sound familiar?)

Teddy Roosevelt

Two years governor of New York, six months Vice-President of the United States. That’s it. He was also only 42 years old when he took the job, four years younger than Barack.

Woodrow Wilson

Just two years as Governor of New Jersey. Prior to that, he’d been a college professor, much like Barack has been a college professor, and a college president. And, like Barack and Teddy Roosevelt, he’d written some books, though neither Wilson nor Roosevelt wrote a book nearly as good as either of Obama’s.

Franklin Roosevelt

The guy who rivals Lincoln and Washington for the title of the greatest president, FDR, before taking the job, had been Governor of New York for four years, state senator for two years and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for seven years. All right, so that’s one more year of experience in government than Obama, but only a year.

The point is that while McCain and Clinton keep harping on experience as a crucial ingredient to being a great President, our own American history has shown that experience in government doesn’t really matter. What matters is wisdom, judgment, empathy and compassion. And Barack Obama has no shortage of any of those.