Fantasy Politics USA

First Barack Obama was called naive by his own party, and now the Republicans are climbing on the Barack is naive bandwagon. John McCain called Obama naive in comments he made to the newspaper in Columbia South Carolina. McCain was asked about Obama’s comments about going into Pakistan to get Osama, and his comments about talking with tyrant leaders during his YouTube debates. “It’s kind of typical of his naivete,” McCain told the newspaper. “If we go in, and maybe we should depending on the assessment, we would want to do it covertly and we would want to do it in coordination with Pakistanis covertly as well. It wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do to announce to the world we’re attacking another country.” McCain should mention this to Tom Tancredo, who wants to bomb Muslim holy sites.
Alan Cosgrove

Tom Tancredo suggested we should bomb holy Muslim sites if we ever get attacked again. On Tuesday Tancredo told a group that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.” Tancredo has been widely criticized in the past for saying things like this. His campaign backed him up today saying, “This shows that we mean business. There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.” This guy is more dangerous than George W. Bush, and could get us involved in W.W. III. Bombing holy sites would only provoke more anger towards the U.S., and would do nothing to deter terrorist. I’m glad this guy is a bottom feeder, and doesn’t have a chance.
Alan Cosgrove

Barack Obama has been in a week long spat with Hillary Clinton about how to deal with tyrants, so this past week he decided to take a tough stance against them. In a speech on counter-terrorism policy at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Obama said, “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again…. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.” So Obama is saying he is willing to attack Pakistan if they can’t handle it themselves. This comment drew a bunch of criticism from all corners, except from Clinton. In an interview with the American Urban Radio News Network, Clinton said, “I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America.” In a speech Thursday Obama went a little further. Obama was asked if he would use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden. Obama said, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance, involving civilians.” Then Obama added, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.” Clinton couldn’t agree with him twice in a row so she criticized Obama’s comments at a press conference. “I don’t believe any president should make any blanket statements in respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,” Clinton said. Chris Dodd added to the fire by saying, “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.” “It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power,” Dodd also said in a statement.
Alan Cosgrove

Vanity Fair has written an unflattering article about Rudy Giuliani’s wife, Judith Giuliani called ‘Giuliani’s Princess Bride’. It describes Mrs. Giuliani as an opportunistic, mean, homewrecker, who went after a rich married man. The profile is by Judy Bachrach, and she maintains that Mrs. Giuliani feels like she is royalty. According to the article, “There is a reason why she wore that tiara at her wedding: she really does see herself as a princess,” says another former Giuliani aide. “Not as a queen. Queen is her goal. Queen is who she wants to be.” And Bachrach says that, “Queenly is certainly what Judith became, her demands and expectations heightened in large part by her husband’s new affluence.” Bachrah writes that one Giuliani aide, “spoke of the need for providing an entire plane seat for Judith’s “Baby Louis”—a reference to her Louis Vuitton handbag, which sits in solitary splendor on her travels.” The article paints Mrs. Giuliani as being very jealous of anyone close to Rudy. “Anyone supportive of him, close to him—Judith wants them fired. A lot of the senior staff … She just gets furiously jealous and treats them like shit!” Even Rudy has his moments when Judith gets on his nerves according to Bachrach. On the positive side the article said that Mrs. Giuliani was supportive of Rudy during his bout with cancer, and has tried to be nice to the kids. Rudy Giuliani has said he has looked over the piece “quickly,” and called it “very incorrect.” Then Giuliani concluded to the reporters that asked about the article, “One of the terrible prices that unfortunately families pay in a situation like this is that they get castigated and attacked. And, usually, most reporters don’t even ask about it. They actually have more dignity than to ask about it.”
Alan Cosgrove

John and Elizabeth Edwards celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary yesterday at their local Wendy’s in Carrboro, N.C. This is an annual tradition they started on their first anniversary when they were in the middle of a move and too busy to stop for a real dinner. They have gone to Wendy’s every since. This annual event is made easier by the fact that they don’t have to eat food like this any other time of the year. The couple took the day off from campaigning.
Alan Cosgrove

Rudy Giuliani told voters in New Hampshire that if the Democrats are elected then expect your taxes to go up 20 to 30%. “Democrats are kind of falling over each other seeing who can raise taxes faster,” Giuliani said. “It looks like they’re going to raise taxes anywhere 20 to 30 percent. John Edwards just said he’s going to raise the capital gains tax double that. Last time we did that, we lost 40 percent in revenue. The last time we did what John Edwards is discussing, the United States lost revenue by basically discouraging people from making investments.” John Edwards just recently proposed raising taxes for the wealthy to try to create tax breaks for the middle class. Giuliani prefers the trickle down policy made famous by Ronald Reagan. If you cut taxes for the wealthy then eventually they spend more, or hire more people in their small businesses. These tax cuts that Republicans talk about aren’t for you or me. They are for the millionaires. Giuliani wants less taxes, and less government in our lives. “That’s what makes America great, not this nanny government that Democrats want to give us, where government controls your entire life,” Giuliani said. He doesn’t seem to mention the governments intrusion into our lives to fight this war on terror the way he wants to. And he forgets to tell us these tax cuts don’t even amount to a hill of beans to most of us. Or the fact that when taxes are cut like this so are funds to local services to help finance them. Then local taxes go up to make up for the losses from the national level. So if you want Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and Bill Clinton to have lower taxes, then Giuliani might be your man.
Alan Cosgrove

Barack Obama was in Ceder Rapids, Iowa today speaking at Roosevelt Middle School. He told the crowd of 500 at the school, “It’s time to get off of the conventional wisdom and try something new. And that’s what we’re going to do in the Obama administration.” Obama explained that the school’s namesake Teddy Roosevelt, came to office when robber barons and powerful interest groups ruled, and he challenged them, and set about busting then up to level the playing field. “More than a century later, American needs that kind of leadership,” Obama said. Obama also continued his feud with Hillary Clinton by saying the U.S., “should not be afraid to talk to anybody. I am not worried about losing a public relations debate with some tin pot dictator.” Obama also took a few shots at the Bush’s policy of no bid contracts for companies like Halliburton. “When our government gives Halliburton seven billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to put out Iraqi oil fires that don’t exist, when we hand over Katrina contracts to more of George Bush’s FEMA friends, it doesn’t just violate the American people’s trust,” Obama said. “It takes away the tax dollars they’ve earned and the valuable services they need.” Obama also mentioned special interest groups and lobbyist. Obama said that lobbyists “stop us from addressing issues that matter” and that the country needs to “change the way business is done in Washington.” “It’s not our agenda being moved forward in Washington,” he said. “Special interests dominate on a day to day basis in terms of legislative activity. If we can’t change that, we’re not going to change anything.”
Alan Cosgrove