|
|
|
Written by Jonathan Krohn
|
|
Tuesday, 05 May 2009 22:26 |
|
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is in the United States today, and he is fresh off of angering the more Conservative branch of his country. The Associated Press reports: President Hamid Karzai chose a powerful warlord accused of rights abuses as one of his vice presidential running mates on Monday, hours before leaving for meetings in Washington with President Barack Obama and Pakistan's president. The selection of Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a top commander in the militant group Jamiat-e-Islami during Afghanistan's 1990s civil war, drew immediate criticism from human rights groups. A 2005 Human Rights Watch report, "Blood-Stained Hands," found "credible and consistent evidence of widespread and systematic human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law" were committed by Jamiat commanders, including Fahim. Karzai was "insulting the country" with the choice, the New York-based group said Monday. Fahim served as Karzai's first vice president during the country's interim government put in place after the ouster of the Taliban in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. During the 2004 election, Karzai dropped Fahim from his ticket in favor of Ahmad Zia Massood — the brother of resistance hero Ahmad Shah Massood, who was assassinated by al-Qaida two days before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Under Afghan law, the president has two vice presidents. Did I read that first part correctly? President Karzai hightailed it over here to meet with President Obama, almost immediately after he picked an extremely RADICAL running mate? The answer is yes. A little bit of typical politics, don't you think? At least he will be able to hold off the wrath of his country's media from him directly a little while longer, but the question that remains as we wait to hear about the meetings between the Presidents is if President Obama will confront President Karzai on his RADICAL running mate. Will that be on the roster, or will the Presidents only discuss things suitable to each one's political agenda? I believe it will be the latter. As we know, both President Karzai and President Obama enjoy playing to their base. They enjoy preaching to the choir. Going into the unpredictable territory of confrontation on a controversial issue is a little out of each of their comfort zones, and it is highly unlikely that they will break new ground on this front in their meetings this week. However, we will wait and see. |
|
|
Written by Jonathan Krohn
|
|
Monday, 04 May 2009 12:29 |
|
| WRITTEN BY JONATHAN KROHN | | MONDAY, 04 MAY 2009 12:29 | An update on America's newest Democrat Senator, Arlen Spector. The numbers are in, and we now know why Spector was worried! POLITICO's Congressional blogger Glenn Thrush reports: Over the weekend, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the gory details of that internal Arlen Specter poll that launched him into the Democratic Party. (h/t JMart) Three takeaway points: 1. Specter's vote for the stimulus branded him a traitor with the GOP base, cutting his approval rating in half over a period of weeks. 2. The mass exodus of eastern Pa. moderates has pushed the party far out of Arlen's safety zone. 3. He trailed Pat Toomey by 15 percent in a three-way Republican primary. Ouch. A senior Senator losing by 15 percent in a primary with THREE CONTENDERS. Ouch. Specter was not a loss to the Republican Party, because, as we see in this poll, he would have lost anyway! However, Arlen's woes are not over. POLITICO's Glenn Thrush also reported some other numbers in an early post on his blog: New Democrat Arlen Specter leads Pat Toomey, the guy who drove him out of the GOP, by a 53-33 margin, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. But he only beats former Homeland Security chief/Penn. Gov. Tom Ridge by a three-point margin, 46-43, the poll finds. The poll finds that Democrats, by and large, are okay with Specter's switch. Republicans, on the other hand, hate the guy -- with Specter struggling to hit double-digits with GOP registrants. Details: In the Specter-Toomey matchup, Republicans back Toomey 74 – 18 percent while Democrats go with their new convert 85–4 percent. Men back Specter 47 – 41 percent, as do women 59 – 26 percent. Union households go Democratic 62–27 percent.
In a Specter-Ridge face-off, Republicans go with Ridge 82 – 10 percent, while Specter takes Democrats 78 – 14 percent. Men shift to Ridge 50 – 41 percent, while women remain Democratic 51 – 37 percent. Union households back Specter 57 – 34 percent. -------------------------------- Arlen decision to save his proverbial "political hide" might have paid off after all! However, he has certainly lost respect with, not only PA Republicans, as we saw in the previous poll and this poll, but American's across the country. More importantly, however, is one factor unreachable by the poll numbers; the people's principles. When the people are given the facts, as Toomey will hopefully be able to present them in this election cycle, they may have a better chance of turning on Arlen. The Spector campaign is going to have to fight, tooth and nail, to preserve itself. It is my personal opinion that Arlen will lose, however. Specter is not a loss to the Republican Party, but he will be a loss to Democrats if he loses. They are going to bet it all on Arlen Specter in 2010. They know that if he loses to Toomey their margin of a filibuster proof Senate will die with him. If Specter cannot live up to this 53-33 poll, then it will prove that big name endorsers, who we will definitely see in 2010, and money cannot overcome principle. If Specter wins, however, it will be a victory for the Democrat Party, not Specter.
|
|
|
|
Obama cracking down on...tax evasion? |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Jonathan Krohn
|
|
Monday, 04 May 2009 12:03 |
During another nationally televised press conference, the President of the United States of America told America that he is going to crack down on tax evasion. Really? Nice! Does that mean that he will crack down on Timothy Geithner, a professed tax evader, or maybe he would prosecute Kathleen Sebelius, his Health and Human Services Secretary who forgot to pay her taxes as well! Maybe he would go after former Sen. Tom Daschle, or Nancy Killefer, both of whom failed to pay their taxes as well. However, President Obama seemed more focused on anger at those evil rich folk who have overseas bank accounts. However, I know the best way for Barack Obama to conquer tax avoidance, he could lower taxes. What a radical concept! If the President lowered taxes, tax evaders might have an easier time paying their taxes. Certainly, it won't solve all of our problems, but it will certainly be a step in the right direction on all fronts. It would also be another way to help boost our economic progress because the American people are able to spend money in the areas where they want, meaning that jobs can be created, and economic progress can continue. Hmmm, boosting the economy and helping avoid tax evasion, sounds good to me! |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 3 of 16 |
