Presidential Debate

The next presidential election is still about nineteen months away. Apparently the Democrats believe they had better get started.

Last night MSNBC broadcast a debate between the democrats. My wife and I would have loved to have watched, but I was unaware of the program and my wife forgot until after it had ended. I assured her that the network would rerun the debate, and then promptly forgot to look for it again.

On one hand, the election is nineteen months away. There will be many, many more debates and speeches in the meantime. On the other hand, I love this stuff and it would have been fun to watch.

It has been awhile since I have written about the candidates. I still encourage everyone to read as much as you can and listen and find your candidate. I have not yet solidified my choice for next fall. We do not have to vote until the spring 2008 primaries, so I am taking my time.

I am keeping my eye on the obvious contenders, including Barack Obama, John Edwards (who gave a great speech recently that is available as a podcast from www.johnedwards.com) and Christopher Dodd on the democrats’ side. I am also keeping my ears open to Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain among the republicans.

I would love to consider people like Joe Biden and Tommy Thompson, but both have let themselves down by uttering foolishness. Biden attempted to praise Obama and ended up offending previous African-American candidates. Thompson recently offended people of the Jewish faith while attempting to compliment them. If they cannot properly offer words of simple praise to the people of our country, in relatively non-stressful circumstances, are we going to allow them to speak to the leaders of the world?

Then there is Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (who hasn’t officially announced but acts like he has). These two continue to spout statements that in my mind fuel the fires of hate within this country. Romney has made clear his beliefs regarding the rights of those wishing same-sex marriages. Gingrich is notorious for his attitudes toward women. Neither is worth our time.

Have the candidates I have mentioned favoring uttered foolishness? Occasionally they have, but they have not taken positions that fall totally in my disfavor, although McCain does support the war, and their statements have not done undo harm to their campaign. In the cases of Biden, Thompson, Romney and Gingrich, their past statements will make them easy targets as the months fly by.

I love a good presidential campaign. There is a lot of good information on the internet and some bad information. Never take what I say as gospel. Take what the candidates say and scrutinize it carefully. Understand what they stand for and decide who you would like to see as our next president. If you can choose soon enough, consider volunteering for a campaign, even if typing a few words of support on someone’s blog is all you can afford.

If there is anything you disagree with here, let me know. I would love to hear what you think.

Thank you for reading. We will talk again soon.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont has always been a favorite of mine. He just turned 67 so he is likely too old to run for U.S. President, but I would not have minded.

Leahy has been in the Senate since 1974. He understands how things work and how they are supposed to work. Rarely has he stepped into the limelight, quietly accomplishing things in the background. Only when he gets a sense that something is so important he needs to be seen, does he step out and speak.

This appears to be one of those times. Or maybe the Senator is just doing some Democratic Party footwork.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did something foolish. He probably did it at the insistence of Karl Rove or someone else in the Bush administration. Remember, the Bush White House has never been one to think things through. Once again, they blundered in without an exit strategy.

The firing of federal prosecutors is not unusual. Most administrations take the time and mass remove prosecutors from office. The problem here is that most administrations do the deed during the first few months of gaining office, not six years later. Not after the prosecutors have told them they will or will not pursue legal issues that are purely for the political gain of the White House and/or the Republican Party.

Gonzales could have avoided this mess. There are ways this could have been handled that would have been neat and tidy. Still, when has the Bush administration every done anything “neat and tidy”?

Instead of having a plausible reason for the firings ready for anyone who asked, he tells the public that the prosecutors were fired for doing a poor job. Even Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania will tell you that such a statement is ridiculous.

A statement that they wanted to start fresh with their own people would have been an honest statement and one that likely would have gone unnoticed.

The good news is that this whole debacle is strictly a show. Whether Gonzales stays or goes does not really matter. You know that Rove is not going to appear under oath. Much like the immigrant issue of times past, this is to distract us from important issues, such as the conditions at Walter Reed and the war in Iraq. If we give our attention to a non-issue, such as whether prosecutors were fired correctly, the politicians have more time to play the real war games.

Keep in mind that the older Senators are the ones involved. Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter are the ones in the public eye. Neither is running for higher office. They are simply being the “magician’s assistant”, keeping the audience distracted while the magician is doing the real deception.

If you notice, Gonzales has not stepped down yet. Much like the departure of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he will likely wait until the discussion dies down and then make a big show of leaving. All in the effort to distract the pundits and buy the White House more time.

Nicely played, Karl. Nicely done.

Christopher Dodd

Since we have so much time between now and the primaries, let alone the Presidential Election Day, we have time to look at all the candidates. Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is worth a good look.

I have written about other candidates and we are a long way away from making final decisions, but I like to write about people who impress me. Dodd currently is not even close to keeping up with Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, etc. Dodd is keeping closer company right now with Dennis Kucinich in the polls.

Yet Christopher Dodd, and people like him, is the reason I do not consider running for office. Dodd has a lifelong history of public service that would make me look like a complete slacker.

When I think back on my professional career, I see that I worked as a radio announcer, salesman, administrative assistant, hotel manager and currently a customer service specialist. Looking at Dodd’s professional career, I see that he worked in the Peace Corps, joined the Army Reserve, studied and became a lawyer, served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently a U.S. Senator.

My biography pales when compared to Dodd. Come to think, most people’s biography pales compared to Dodd.

When looking at his thoughts on the issues and his accomplishments, Dodd has strong views on improving education. In the past he has helped shape the Head Start program. He is already working on increasing the funding and improving the “No Child Left Behind” act. I am not a big believer in NCLB, but we do need something in this country. If Dodd and others can work together, we might see a program that could actually work.

Dodd has the standard Democratic line regarding issues such as Energy and Health Care. I do appreciate his recent comments regarding our involvement in Iraq. In a speech last October at Providence College, he stated, “After more than three years of conflict, anywhere from 60 thousand to 400 thousand Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.

“How can we expect the Iraqi people to put their faith in democracy, when democracy has given them this? Democracy isn’t only—in fact, it isn’t even mostly—about elections for the sake of elections. Democracy is the acceptance of rights and obligations for everyone, a robust debate, a free press, an independent judiciary, and stable, effective institutions that serve the well-being of people.”

He finished his speech by challenging the students, saying: “Our country needs your voice and your intelligence; and while your civic engagement won’t bring an end to all our problems, they can be the beginning of the solutions. So when your sons and daughters ask you what you did at the outset of the 21st century to make America safer, stronger, a more just and prosperous nation, I want each one of you to be able to say, at the very least—‘I told the truth, and demanded nothing less.’.”

I like a candidate who has ideas, who does not tell me what to think, and who challenges us all to become involved. Although I have not committed yet to a single candidate, I like Christopher Dodd. Take a look at his website, www.chrisdodd.com. Read what he has to say and let me know what you think.

Walter Reed, Continued

Yesterday I posted several questions about the issues regarding Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. An anonymous reader posted a response which was very helpful to me in understanding more about the situation.

The whole situation peaked my interest so I went back and read the two-part series written by Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull. In paragraph three of the first article, published on February 18th, they write, “The common perception of Walter Reed is of a surgical hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely -- a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients.”

Reading the articles provide more questions, including: “If the hospital is overflowing with patients (‘…they take up every bed and spill into nearby hotels…’), how can the government consider either closure or merger?”

One of the problems pointed out by the Post articles is that bureaucratic tangle that envelopes most of the soldiers. Again, Priest and Hull write, “Life beyond the hospital bed is a frustrating mountain of paperwork. The typical soldier is required to file 22 documents with eight different commands -- most of them off-post -- to enter and exit the medical processing world, according to government investigators.”

My next question is: “Why is the Armed Forces medical system not run like a corporation?” I have been through several mergers for the large telecommunications company where I spend more than forty hours each week. Each company had its own system for its customers. It takes time, but the company is able to merge systems in a way that is nearly invisible to the customer.

Why does the United States Armed Forces have sixteen different information systems that fail to communicate with one another? It appears to be inefficient and the soldiers are the ones who are suffering.

There are a couple of points that need to be made. It would be easy to point fingers at the current administration and say that they caused this situation. The facility is nearly a hundred years old, having opened in 1909. The present situation, including horrible building management and mind-blowing bureaucracy, was not achieved in just six or seven years. There are many administrations that can be blamed for ignoring a poorly managed situation.

What this administration can be called to task for is escalating the seriousness of the problem by engaging in a long term military conflict. U.S. Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, weighed in this past Sunday on Meet the Press, saying: “Why did that happen at Walter Reed? It happened because the resources are so much in, in Iraq. They’ve spent so much money over there, ignored the very thing that’s so important to our troops at home.”

The next point to be made is that the rodent infestation and rotting structures are not common to all of the buildings at the facility. Much has been made of “Building 18”, but you will notice that the President and the Congressmen tend to visit Ward 57 and other well-kept units. As with many situations in life, there appears to be money enough to care for some, but not for all.

The President and others continue to say that our soldiers deserve the best, but actions speak louder than words. Considering the poor training, lack of equipment and now poor medical care, our fighting men are being shown a genuine lack of respect.

According to Murtha on Meet the Press, “We’re the ones—they, they want us out of there; 64 percent of the public in Iraq wants us out of Iraq.”

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham on the same program said, “I’m no expert, but here’s what I think’s going on, based on conservation talks in South Carolina, is that people are frustrated.”

The government is relying on polls and making interpretations based on what they want the outcomes to be. The only way to get your thoughts and feelings across is to be vocal.

This situation is not solely the responsibility of one person, or one group of people. As members of society, we need to listen closely to what is being said and respond accordingly. If you do, or do not, agree with what is being said, respond with a letter or an email to your representative. If you hear of an action being considered that you support or oppose, let the government know.

Anyone I have spoken to personally or heard about in the media opposing the war is quick to praise our young men and women. People are proud of those who have served our country during this conflict. Today’s soldiers do not have to fear those who oppose the war. The biggest fear today’s soldiers face is from those who say they support it.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center

There are several things I do not understand about the recent fiasco regarding Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

1) Mississippi Senator and minority whip Trent Lott stated on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that Walter Reed was on a list of possible base closings. At the same time, Walter Reed was described as the “crown jewel” of hospitals serving our wounded military personnel. How could the “crown jewel” wind up on a list of base closings?

2) I understand why our government was closing military bases. Walter Reed is a hospital. Why is a hospital on a list of “base” closings?

3) Lott says that those in charge were reluctant to put too much money into the hospital facility because it was on the list. If Walter Reed was prestigious, why would anyone be concerned about “the list”?

4) If you were in charge at Walter Reed and saw your name was on a potential closing list, wouldn’t you do what you could to make the hospital too important and respected to close?

5) If Walter Reed did close, where would the wounded soldiers who continue to be brought in from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., be sent to be treated and/or recover?

6) I have read about various politicians visiting the wounded at Walter Reed. Was Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel the first to notice the poor conditions?

7) In a White House briefing on February 21, 2007, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters that the President was aware of the dismal conditions at Walter Reed. If he knew, why did he choose not to do anything?

These are just a few quick questions I have about the mess that is Walter Reed. There is a lot of finger pointing going on, and will continue for weeks to come.

There are problems in Washington today. It seems like every month or so, another proverbial “hole appears in the dike”. What will be the next crisis? Will it be enough for Congress to take action?

Al Franken

So Al is off and running. Run, Al, Run.

Franken’s books are hilarious and thought provoking. His radio program was fun to listen to before Air America began to charge for downloads. Franken is witty, and more importantly, intelligent.

Minnesota likes to vote for underdogs and odd sorts. They elected a wrestler for a governor. Why not put a comedy writer in the Senate?

That seems to be the gist of Franken’s candidacy to date, now just a few short weeks old. You can find more at www.alfranken.com. Franken has always been more cerebral than the rest of the world, which is why he never quite made it into the upper echelons of comic superstars.

If you examine his career, it is a series of failure and modest accomplishments. He and his writing partner, Tom Davis, were hired to write for "Saturday Night Live". Both were included in the 1980 mass exodus from the show, only to return with Lorne Michaels in 1985.

The most successful bit of television comedy Franken contributed was the character Stuart Smalley. Stuart will always make me laugh. The poor fellow is doing his best, but having a hard time. Sketches with Michael Jordan and a young Macaulay Culkin will always have me in stitches.

He parlayed the Smalley character into a film and appeared in a few other films. He did a sitcom for NBC titled “Lateline” about an evening news program. He also did a series of specials for Comedy Central before becoming a radio show host.

Franken’s best success has been as a writer. Starting with a Stuart Smalley diary, Franken has been writing a book every couple of years. The most recent, “The Truth (with jokes)” includes, among other things, a detailed case regarding the sins of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff long before any of the scandals hit the mainstream media.

If anything, Franken is sincere in his desire to make the world a better place. He believes in the system and wants to see it work. The only difficult part is that he is a comedy writer. He enjoys a good joke and is good at portraying a good-hearted loser. Time will tell if that works for him or works against him.

Richard Daley

No matter how you feel about Chicago mayor Richard Daley, Chicago residents still vote for him. Seventy-one percent of Chicago voters agreed that Daley should continue as mayor of the third largest city in the United States.

After listening to WBBM’s At Issue (as a podcast), I thought there may be more of a battle. Dorothy Brown and William “Dock” Walls were both interviewed on the program. Both put up strong arguments for their election.

Neither stood a chance.

Part of me misses the days of the mid to late 70’s and 80’s when the Chicago mayor’s office was a battle. Jane Byrne and Harold Washington really shook up Chicago after the passing of Daley’s father. Today, it is business as usual in Chicago politics.

Not that having Daley for a mayor is bad. Daley has done a lot of good for the city, although I was unhappy about the closing of Meigs field and hate to hear about the contracting scandal.

It is a shame that Byrne and Washington, each ran into criticism and scandal. Both had to scramble to repair their image. Daley seems to consume criticism and scandal and make his image stronger because of it.

On this first day of March 2007, there is no new mayor in town. Any election excitement is going to have to come late next year. In the meantime, I hope he lives up to his promise of more money to public education. That needs to be a 21st century focus throughout the U.S. Chicago, especially, needs to be a part of it.