Presidential Debates

A friend asked me to write about presidential debates.

I talked about CPD before. It is not fair that these debates are just two-sided debates. In my opinion CPD rules have to be changed. Their criteria for choosing participants of presidential debates seem unfair. The number of debates is far less than what it should be. Someone like Nader should have the opportunity to discuss those problems that are not important to either of the major candidates, or they don't want to discuss them. Wait! What I'm saying doesn't mean that I'm a Nader supporter. No.No... I'm not. I absolutely disagree with his decision of running for presidency. However I strongly support the change of CPD rules and I discussed some of the alternatives before. Any ways, those changes will not happen very soon and we have to be patient, but we should always have the important issue of changing debate rules and selection criteria in our mind! Lets talk about tonight. mm... I have nothing to say! We should wait and see what happens tonight!

Richard Perle was a political advisor who served in Reagan and Bush administrations.

In September 2003-almost a year ago- he Claimed:

"And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation."

Do you think he can say the same statement right now? Can he guarantee that what he expected to happen now will happen in a year from now? Is he surprised now?!

What Does "Serious Consequences" Mean?

Richard Boucher says the invasion of Iraq was legal since the UN resolution stated that if Saddam doesn't comply he will face serious consequences. This comes after Cofi Annan called the US invasion of Iraq illegal. Here is what he said

From our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal.

I'm wondering why does the US government need this war to be legal! Does it mean that whatever they do is legal and they always respect international laws?

A Quote From Gorge H. W. Bush

"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the UN's mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush Sr and Brent Scowcroft, Time Magazine, 1998

Some questions came to my mind! Did the United States "exceed UN's mandate" by invading Iraq? Is it fair if we say that "other allies" supported the war in Iraq? Isn't US an "occupying power" in Iraq right now? Is "human cost of Iraq war" calculable?

Please...please...please do not be offended by this post!!

There is something that I want to share with you about the reaction of a friend of mine to what happened 3 years ago.

I will not forget what that friend told me some days after the 11th of September 2001.

"Let all Americans understand what is going on in the rest of the world. Let them really feel what they have done to citizens of other countries. Let them understand what others feel when Americans bombard cities of other countries and kill civilians. Let them see what "killing innocent people" means."

I really don't agree with what she said and I am 100% against killing civilians. Let me clarify that 9/11 attack was a shameful act of terrorism and in no way I want to defend the disgusting act of killing 3000 innocent people but what I am saying is that there is "some" truth to her argument!! What do you think? I want to ask you and her if Americans really understood what she wanted them to understand?!

Gallup reports a 2-point convention bounce for Bush. A worth mentioning point is that Bush has a 7-point lead among "likely voters" however his lead among "registered voters" decreases to 1 point. That highlights the importance of voter turnout in the coming election.

Presidential Polls

Rasmussen's daily presidential polls show that Bush is ahead of Kerry by 4 to 5 points. But in two other polls, i.e. Time Magazine and Newsweek, there is a significant difference. They suggest that Bush is ahead by a double-digit. Rasmussen Reports explains why there is such a huge difference in these polls.

I just couldn't believe my ears when a reporter from Iraq told Bill Moyers in Now With Bill Moyers that in average US army is attacked sixty times a day in Iraq! I'm just wondering who in Iraq calls them liberators not occupiers! I'm not blaming those soldiers but the guys who sent them there and didn't control their behavior. If it were the case we wouldn't have abuses in Abu Ghuraib. "No one can undo those images" the reporter said.

Arnold talks about Bush's decision but...

Arnold Schwarzenegger, yesterday's actor and today's governor of California, proclaimed that the majority of Americans actually hadn't supported the war in Iraq before it started! It was really shocking to me when I read that. I really couldn't believe my eyes. Amazingly he said

"The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite."

Every single poll that I am aware of showed that going to Iraq was overwhelmingly popular. Here is what Gallup says about popularity of Bush's decision:

"A majority of Americans supported the idea of the invasion of Iraq before Bush made the decision to commence military action in March 2003. Gallup's March 14-15, 2003, poll showed that 64% of Americans favored "invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power," and 57% agreed that the Bush administration "has made a convincing case about the need for the U.S. to take military action against Iraq." A March 17, 2003, CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to go to war if Saddam Hussein does not leave Iraq in the next 48 hours?" Sixty-six percent of Americans approved; 30% disapproved"

In his not very long speech, this was not the only time that he lied. Just click here to read another shocking lie by the very same person in the very same speech! I don't know what I should call their speeches in RNC. They were full of hatred and personal attacks.

And now look what Arnold said at the begining of his speech:

"Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." It's what the Democrats should have called their convention."

Well, I'm not in a position to defend Democrats but if someone that lies quite clearly at least twice in a speech is not a liar who is a liar then?

P.S.: Some gmail invitations are still left, if you want one hurry up!

Gmails to give away

I have some Gmails to give away. If you want one and dont already have one, just leave a message here and make sure to include your name and email address. I will invite you, so that you can have a 1 GB email. Hope you enjoy using Gmail.

Ian Thorpe

Do you know how much Ian Thorpe trains every day? Here is what the official website of 2004 Olympics says about his training regime:

He does 10 sessions a week, five in the morning and five in the afternoon. His day starts with his alarm going off at 4:17 am and he is in the pool by 5:00 am. He also does two weight training and two boxing sessions each week.

Iranian judoka vs Israeli athlete

An Iranian judoka who won 2001 and 2003 championship withdrew from 2004 Olympics before participating in even a single competition, because he was supposed to fight against an Israeli athlete. The general policy of Iranian government is not to fight against any Israeli athlete since Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a country. In other words Iran doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist. But the interesting point is that if the Iranian judoka refuses to fight against Israeli athlete for political reasons he will face very tough sanctions. To resolve this problem the official reason reported to the International Judo Federation was that he is overweight!!

Filp Flopper

As you know Bush accuses Kerry of being flip flopper. Once Bush said "Thank God that every issue has just 2 sides, otherwise Kerry would take the third side as well!". I was wondering if Bush supporters managed a google bomb or not but actually I faced with Flip-Flopper-in-Chief!! However I'm not sure that is a google bomb since it should be check in different times. You have probably heard of various google bombs in the past. Let me mention some of them: WMD, Worst President, Miserable Failure, Unelectable.

Tom Ridge's Salary!

Although Tom Ridge, Homeland Security Secretary, earns $175700 a year he is not satisfied. He says he needs more money in order to send his children to college. He is considering resignation after the upcoming election. He is going to earn more money in private sector. If he can't afford to send his children to college how can the rest of Americans put their children through college. Your thoughts??

Al Sharpton in DNC

Democracy Now! reports "Sharpton Ignores Bush-Bashing Ban And Slams President For Waging Iraq War". Well, if you still can't believe that just watch his speech and compare that to what he was supposed to say!

Michael Anthony Peroutka

Michael Anthony Peroutka is the candidate of Constitution Party for president. In my opinion he is very right conservative. I don't want to explain his ideas just have a look at his opinions on different issues and see if I'm wrong!

Gun control

I believe that the Second Amendment means what it says. If elected President, I will do everything within my power to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is no coincidence that those jurisdictions which have implemented significant gun control have become cesspools of crime- cesspools which now, sadly, try to blame their problems on freer low-crime pro-gun jurisdictions.

Abortion

I am 100% pro-life, all nine months, no exceptions. In fact, I am so pro-life, that if elected I promise that abortion will end my first day in office.

It is, by the way, within the power of the President to end abortion tomorrow, as I would do my first day in office. Don't let alleged "pro-life" Presidents tell you differently.

Education

Members of the Constitution Party know that the federal government has no business directing the education of children. The United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, provides no authority for the Department of Education or any of its programs. That's right! The whole thing is unauthorized and ought to be disbanded!

As president of the United States, I promise to do what the Republican Party promised but never delivered – close down the unconstitutional federal Department of Education. Count on it!

As President, I would obey the law, in this case our Constitution. I would immediately move to abolish the Department Of Education and stop all Federal involvement in education. Under my Administration, this illegal Department and the “No Child Left Behind Act” would be left behind. That’s a promise!

Same-Sex Marriage Amendment

First, we do not support any sodomy-based policy, let alone marriage, but the Federal Marriage Amendment is wholly unnecessary, dangerous and inappropriate.

Finally, ask yourself, who is the definer of marriage? Certainly it is not the United States government, nor even the State government. The author and perfector of Marriage is none other than the LORD Almighty.

Immigration

As President, one of my top priorities would be to really secure our borders and deport all individuals who are here illegally.

Law and Government

The very first presupposition of American government is that there exists a Creator God, yet our taxpayer-funded schools teach our children that He either doesn't exist or that they can't mention His name. This attack against the right of the people to acknowledge God is disgraceful and it is un-American. The Constitution Party is committed to an American understanding of law and government- that rights come from God and that it is the purpose of government to secure and defend them.

Taxation

So, if you want the biggest tax cut in history, then I ask you to vote for me. I am the only Presidential candidate who means it when I say: I will obey the Constitution, so help me God...

As President, I would work to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, abolish the IRS, eliminate the income tax and other Godless forms of taxation such as the property tax and the inheritance tax.

War in Iraq

I, like President Bush, hope that the Iraqi people, and all people, will be free from tyranny. But, unlike President Bush, I realize that, Constitutionally, as President, it would not be my job to use our military to spread 'freedom' everywhere in the world. Unlike President Bush, I, as President, would realize that I had been elected President of the United States, not President of the World.

If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging.

Except for his opinion on war in Iraq his other ideas are far more conservative than that of Mr. Bush. Am I right?! Hmm... maybe he is just Constitutional. I don't know.

Michael Moore's Open Letter to George Bush

Michael Moore invited George Bush to a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 in a place near Bush's Ranch. None of cinemas in Crawford, TX allowed Moore to screen his movie, however he decided to screen it at the Crawford Peace House. The screening will be in the parking lot of a football stadium.

Just have a look at the last statement of the letter. It's sooo funny.

Thank you for considering this invitation, and enjoy your vacation, for however long it may last.

Commission on Presidential Debates

CPD is a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization. Its main purpose is to organize presidential and vice presidential debates. It sponsored all presidential debates since 1988. Obviously it is impossible to have every presidential candidate in a debate. CPD has a criteria for selecting candidates for the presidential debates.

Here are their selection criteria:(source)

1. Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility

The CPD's first criterion requires satisfaction of the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The requirements are satisfied if the candidate:

a. is at least 35 years of age;

b. is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

c. is otherwise eligible under the Constitution.

2. Evidence of Ballot Access

The CPD's second criterion requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2004 general election. Under the Constitution, the candidate who receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College, at least 270 votes, is elected President regardless of the popular vote.

3. Indicators of Electoral Support

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination

There are some organizations trying to put 3rd party candidates into presidential debates. They offer alternative criteria which seem more reasonable.

Their alternatives are:

1. Ask people who they want to see in the presidential debates and see who gets support of 50% or more, OR Having 5% of votes in a national poll.(source)

2. Let every candidate who is on enough state ballots that mathematically can win the election be in the debates. (source)

It seems that their alternatives are more reasonable than what CPD does right now! However CPD says that presidential debates are where the people get to know candidates who have logical chance for being elected. They argue that a presidential debate is not a place that candidates start launching their campaigns.

By the way, here are the sponsors of CPD's previous debates.

Did you know that Lance Armstrong actually opposed the war in Iraq?

Fox advertises its news as "fair and balanced". MoveOn.org put together this piece of movie to show how "fair and balanced" Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is. Check it out it's interesting.