Sunday, 11 May 2008
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
OPINION: GIVE ME THE NOMINATION OR GIVE ME DEMOCRAT HUMILIATION
The distortion of Patrick Henry's famous statement, "Give me liberty, or give me death" in 1775 shows my estimation as to the depths Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone in the race for the Democratic nomination. Last night's results in Indiana and North Carolina have killed her candidacy after a long and damaging campaign which has seen her trade principle for her own ambition. Yet still she hasn't ended her candidacy and called for the party to unite.
She has won many of the larger states and has performed admirably in debates, but Obama has won more states, more delegates and more of the popular vote and it is he who has got the the charisma and eloquence which she so badly needs and which is lacking in her political arsenal. She is the calculating politician, he simply is the great inspirer, who else but Obama could get the world watching as a nation shouts "Yes we can." Obama's campaign is built on hope, Clinton uses the Karl Rove guidebook with negativity the soup of the day, Chef's special and dessert on her menu.
Hillary has rejected all the calls from Democratic Party leaders to stand aside and allow Obama to bring much needed Progressive policies back to a White House mired in the shallow regressive Conservative ideals of the Republican Party. If she fails to stand aside soon as decides to go all the way to the convention then it will be the Democrats as a whole who suffer. She could exit the stage gracefully in defeat knowing that senior positions in the Senate or even the Administration could be hers, if she wants them and if the Democrats win big in 2008. However, sadly she seems to be blinkered like too many politicians to the allure of power and is willing to hold her party ransom, even allowing McCain to continue the neo-con agenda in the White House, just so long as Obama doesn't get the nomination. America will lose if she doesn't stand aside till the Convention as she may have been largely responsible for depriving America of possibly its greatest leader since FDR and JFK.
If she does this she may as well turn around tonight and declare to Democrats "GIVE ME THE NOMINATION OR GIVE ME DEMOCRAT HUMILIATION" for that seems to be her campaign's true slogan.
-By Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
She has won many of the larger states and has performed admirably in debates, but Obama has won more states, more delegates and more of the popular vote and it is he who has got the the charisma and eloquence which she so badly needs and which is lacking in her political arsenal. She is the calculating politician, he simply is the great inspirer, who else but Obama could get the world watching as a nation shouts "Yes we can." Obama's campaign is built on hope, Clinton uses the Karl Rove guidebook with negativity the soup of the day, Chef's special and dessert on her menu.
Hillary has rejected all the calls from Democratic Party leaders to stand aside and allow Obama to bring much needed Progressive policies back to a White House mired in the shallow regressive Conservative ideals of the Republican Party. If she fails to stand aside soon as decides to go all the way to the convention then it will be the Democrats as a whole who suffer. She could exit the stage gracefully in defeat knowing that senior positions in the Senate or even the Administration could be hers, if she wants them and if the Democrats win big in 2008. However, sadly she seems to be blinkered like too many politicians to the allure of power and is willing to hold her party ransom, even allowing McCain to continue the neo-con agenda in the White House, just so long as Obama doesn't get the nomination. America will lose if she doesn't stand aside till the Convention as she may have been largely responsible for depriving America of possibly its greatest leader since FDR and JFK.
If she does this she may as well turn around tonight and declare to Democrats "GIVE ME THE NOMINATION OR GIVE ME DEMOCRAT HUMILIATION" for that seems to be her campaign's true slogan.
-By Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Saturday, 26 April 2008
YOUTUBE VIDEO: 3 DUNCES AT THEIR BEST
The video beneath from youtube and Have I Got News For You perhaps sums up the claibre of the Mayoral candidates to a tee. In what has been a tight race one might have expected for a better quality of candidate but all 3 of the main parties' candidates have been woefully inept so far and I am sure they have left Londoners feeling as if they are between a rock and a hard place with the choice given to them:
Friday, 11 April 2008
OPINION: LABOUR’S LIB DEM PLEA SMACKS OF DESPERATION
By Adam Evans
In an election campaign which could play a pivotal role in the fates of Messrs Brown and Cameron it isn’t surprising that when the going gets tough New Labour gets panicking. After all it appears that the once popular Mayor of London, Red Ken, is going to face his stiffest test yet in the Mayoral election next month and London politics’ great survivor may find himself defeated against Boris Johnson a man known more for his clownish antics on TV shows than his real political agenda. With the London electorate firmly split between these two huge personalities it is little wonder that the third party is facing a characteristic squeeze in London opinion polls, but don’t underestimate the importance and quantity of London Lib Dem voters for in such situations they could be the powerbrokers and decide who will wear the chains of office come May 1st.
From reading the Guardian this week it appears that Labour hasn’t underestimated the significance of Lib Dems in this election as can be seen by an open letter from the General Secretary of the Fabian Society to Nick Clegg and his eight strong team of London MPs. This letter shows how nervous Labour insiders are at what could happen, they are on the run and know that Ken is losing ground to Boris. The significance of the Mayoral election is obvious to many, if Labour lose such a powerful position to the Conservatives, to a candidate they have denounced as a clown then Brown will be weakened and Cameron emboldened as these adversaries set out the battle lines for what could be the most fascinating General Election campaign in decades with much at stake for both leaders namely, their survival as leaders of their respective political parties. Labour will be worried that many Liberal Democrat voters in London are seriously considering giving their second preference to Boris and have calculated that such overtures are a risk worth taking, the Tories will have already been planning such moves themselves though probably in a much subtler way.
You may think from what I have written so far that I think that the next General election will be a squabble between the usual suspects, you would be wrong. There is much for the Lib Dems to gain as well from the May elections this year, they already run, either in a minority administration or as the leading partner in coalitions, four of the biggest councils in Wales providing services to one third of the Principalities population and they can take great heart in the fact that their main opponent in all four councils, Labour, suffered its worst electoral performance since 1918 in last years Assembly election. In England they run many councils that will be elected next month and success in holding those councils and taking target wards and councils from both Labour and the Tories will be essential to Nick Clegg’s leadership of the Party. There is much room for a third party at the moment in British politics, it appears that the electorate have grown tired of the same old Labour-Tory bickering and narrow partisan politics, they are tired of centralising Governments eroding liberties and they want politics to be reformed with sleaze cast aside for politicians delivering the services they want and need.
Britain is witnessing the slow but sure stagnation of a meddling, archaic and centralising Government and the time is right for radical ideas to capture the hearts and minds of the British public and make a new politics based on people not petty partisan interests. Lib Dems should reject Labour’s advances and condemn them as a disgusting act of hubris by a party that fails to realise that people can decide for themselves how to live and to vote and that the Labour Party doesn’t have a natural right to rule, safe in the knowledge that if they can seize the right message and agenda they can revive themselves and make the next General Election more than a straight two party fight.
In an election campaign which could play a pivotal role in the fates of Messrs Brown and Cameron it isn’t surprising that when the going gets tough New Labour gets panicking. After all it appears that the once popular Mayor of London, Red Ken, is going to face his stiffest test yet in the Mayoral election next month and London politics’ great survivor may find himself defeated against Boris Johnson a man known more for his clownish antics on TV shows than his real political agenda. With the London electorate firmly split between these two huge personalities it is little wonder that the third party is facing a characteristic squeeze in London opinion polls, but don’t underestimate the importance and quantity of London Lib Dem voters for in such situations they could be the powerbrokers and decide who will wear the chains of office come May 1st.
From reading the Guardian this week it appears that Labour hasn’t underestimated the significance of Lib Dems in this election as can be seen by an open letter from the General Secretary of the Fabian Society to Nick Clegg and his eight strong team of London MPs. This letter shows how nervous Labour insiders are at what could happen, they are on the run and know that Ken is losing ground to Boris. The significance of the Mayoral election is obvious to many, if Labour lose such a powerful position to the Conservatives, to a candidate they have denounced as a clown then Brown will be weakened and Cameron emboldened as these adversaries set out the battle lines for what could be the most fascinating General Election campaign in decades with much at stake for both leaders namely, their survival as leaders of their respective political parties. Labour will be worried that many Liberal Democrat voters in London are seriously considering giving their second preference to Boris and have calculated that such overtures are a risk worth taking, the Tories will have already been planning such moves themselves though probably in a much subtler way.
You may think from what I have written so far that I think that the next General election will be a squabble between the usual suspects, you would be wrong. There is much for the Lib Dems to gain as well from the May elections this year, they already run, either in a minority administration or as the leading partner in coalitions, four of the biggest councils in Wales providing services to one third of the Principalities population and they can take great heart in the fact that their main opponent in all four councils, Labour, suffered its worst electoral performance since 1918 in last years Assembly election. In England they run many councils that will be elected next month and success in holding those councils and taking target wards and councils from both Labour and the Tories will be essential to Nick Clegg’s leadership of the Party. There is much room for a third party at the moment in British politics, it appears that the electorate have grown tired of the same old Labour-Tory bickering and narrow partisan politics, they are tired of centralising Governments eroding liberties and they want politics to be reformed with sleaze cast aside for politicians delivering the services they want and need.
Britain is witnessing the slow but sure stagnation of a meddling, archaic and centralising Government and the time is right for radical ideas to capture the hearts and minds of the British public and make a new politics based on people not petty partisan interests. Lib Dems should reject Labour’s advances and condemn them as a disgusting act of hubris by a party that fails to realise that people can decide for themselves how to live and to vote and that the Labour Party doesn’t have a natural right to rule, safe in the knowledge that if they can seize the right message and agenda they can revive themselves and make the next General Election more than a straight two party fight.
Gordon Brown's Drug Dilemma
by Tomas Hinton
In the last couple of weeks, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has faced a dilemma in the classification of the drug Marijuana. At present, the drug is a Class C drug, and if caught with enough marijuana to deem for personal use, it will simply be confiscated. Having any cannabis in your possession can however, get you arrested depending on your age and the circumstances. Furthermore, having enough cannabis to suggest distribution or Drug Dealing can land you with up to fourteen years in prison. Now, as if this isn’t enough of a charge for a drug that does no serious damage to people in moderation, Gordon Brown wants to make the classification tighter, and wants to “clamp down” on the use of Cannabis, despite advice from the Drug Advisory Committee to allow it to remain the same. In order to make a judgment on this decision; let’s have a look at Cannabis as a case study. Comparisons for political and legal context will be made with a popular illegal drug; Alcohol.
Cannabis is a Class C drug, which we have already pointed out, can have you arrested for possession, and land you with fourteen years in prison for intent to supply. Cannabis, or Marijuana, is a plant that grows naturally on our planet. Marijuana grows naturally on the planet and is harvested and thus distributed to other countries as a drug. The main legitimacy for the fact that Cannabis is illegal comes from its dangers and health risks to the body. The negative effects of Cannabis is the very small risk in the development of cancer through smoking, and the psychological effects that the drug may have on sufferers of serious mental illnesses. If Cannabis was made legal, the taxation could pay for such small sections of society as the mentally ill to receive treatment, in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol are taxed. The idea that Cannabis can have a negative effect on the mentally ill is true, but is also true of all drugs. Surely, any drug could have a negative effect on a person with serious mental illness, including nicotine, alcohol and various prescription drugs.
Cannabis is a drug that in its effects, tends to expand peoples perceptions, opinions and attitudes to a more relaxed and tolerant state of mind. There has never been a case of a person under the influence of marijuana feeling any forms of aggression or anger, or disrupting the social equilibrium in any way whatsoever. As for alcohol, aggression, fighting, anger and exaggerated emotions are a classic effect of the drug, and most “Friday night” mishaps and social disturbances are down to Alcohol directly. I am not suggesting that Alcohol should be made illegal, nor am I against the use of Alcohol as a drug; but it is obvious and logical to me that if Alcohol is made and distributed freely in our society, then so should other drugs that cause equal, or less negative effects. Brown's classification dilemma with marijuana is not a single issue; it is not a concentrated debate over the legality of Marijuana, but a larger issue of drugs over all, and the human rights behind our freedom in drug use.
LSD is another perfect example of this. LSD is a Class A drug; and you can do as much research as you like into the drug, but it cause little or no negative side effects whatsoever. The only negative side effects to LSD, just like Alcohol, Cannabis, and any other drug, are its effects on the mentally ill, and its effects when used to excess over a long period of time. Again, this can be said for all drugs, especially illegal ones. On a positive side, LSD has proved to be extremely helpful in science, and has advanced psychology to a whole new level in research. Patients in LSD experiments have experienced levels of psychology previously uncharted by scientific research, and the drug has an apparent “link” between the user and a theoretical stream of information, inaccessible by the natural human mind. By making LSD a Class A, the government are saying it is as bad as Heroin or Crack Cocaine- and it simply is not. This “pick ands choose” attitude of the government in drug classification is far more unacceptable than Mr. Brown deems the use of marijuana.
It is in these various different types of advantages of drug use by scientists that we can see the lack of logic behind Mr. Brown’s decision. The fact that he has ignored the advice of 20/23 of the drug advisory committee members is disturbing. Politically, this could be an embarrassment to Gordon Brown, and also, the idea that one (unelected, might I add) man can deem what is “acceptable” to British society is highly disturbing, and Gordon brown should consult his committees and take their advice accordingly instead of following his agenda regardless, which by doing so, he will laugh in the face of democracy. It also disturbs me that Gordon Brown is taking such a moral standpoint on wanting to "crack down" on the use of Marijuana. He seems to use his apparent moral omniscience to legitimise his decision- a morality coming from the same man who was part of starting the illegal war in Iraq, so we should be sceptical at very least about this mans judgement.
Personally, I do not use the drug, but as a liberal I believe that people should be free to use the drug as they wish, as long as it is sensibly and socially controlled. Cannabis should be legal for personal usage, but distribution should be limited to licensed sellers in the same way as alcohol. It would be foolish to immediately legalize Cannabis, but initial steps in the freedom and liberty of humans can be taken, firstly by limiting the criminal offences caused by Cannabis. Making Cannabis “more illegal” can only lead to a further conservative society of oppression, and the intrusion of our liberties and choices. Freedom of choice plays such an important issue here, and we are dictated to by the government and the media on what to believe of these drugs. In reality, we should be given the fair, balanced and unprosecuted choice to make our own personal judgments to discover the real effects of drugs if we choose, Marijuana in particular.
Whenever you see a news article or story on the Television that says “scientific study suggests that…” you would not be wrong in assuming that the following story is true, as scientific research is, after all, the study of fact and what is. However, you must observe these stories with a level of logic and observation that the media does not provide you with. These stories are not direct reports on scientific research; they are interpretations, anchored to you by the media to connote a certain message. The way that scientific research is conducted is that a series of tests on something, for example, the effects of marijuana on the human body, are carried out and reported on. These various tests are tested and re-tested and submitted to committees for revision and are eventually reported officially. It has often been the case that scientific research comes out with various, opposing results. For example, it is possible for a study of Marijuana effects to be conducted in comparison to the effects of smoking cigarettes, and in the first result it is shown that Cannabis is twice as likely to elevate the development of cancer, but in another test it could show the opposite. Which result is picked up by the media and the government for usage is up to them.
This would explain why in high school, I was told by a resident police officer that smoking cigarettes was far worse than marijuana, and there had never been a report of someone dying from the use of Cannabis, and yet thousands die from cigarette smoking related illness every year. Alternatively, not one year later in 6th form at a different, more conservative school, I was told by the same officer that smoking one “spliff” of Marijuana was like smoking five cigarettes at once in terms of its damage to the human body. These stories contradict each other all the time and we should take them with a pinch of salt. Some results of the same tests by scientific research will turn out contradictory, and we need to be aware of this as these results can easily be manipulated by the media and the government when trying to anchor a specific message or ideology.
This scientific context is important in relation to drug classification. The government re-classified Cannabis in the opposite way in 2004, declassifying it as the penalty was dropped from five years in prison, to two for possession. Then the classification was reviewed in 2005, and now again in 2008. This “flip-flop” attitude to classification makes it clear that different political ideologies are the deciding factor in these classification debates, and not necessarily the realistic effects. Tony Blair made Cannabis a Class C drug, and now Brown wants it bumped up to Class B as he deems it “unacceptable”. It is also disturbing that mind expanding drugs such as LSD, and perception advancing drugs such as marijuana are illegal to the point of even being Class A drugs; where as Alcohol - a drug that slows down the development of brain cells and causes anger, aggression and violence in our society is plastered all over billboards, TV advertisements and football club sponsors all nationwide.
When are politicians like Gordon Brown going to stop hiding behind the illusion of morality to mask their political agenda, and start addressing the whole issue of drugs from the view of human rights, and our freedom to choose the drugs we use in our lives? I understand that Heroin and Crack Cocaine and various other drugs are socially dysfunctional and harmful, but there are many illegal drugs that simply are not, or certainly less so than Alcohol. Gordon Brown said that he wanted to put across the message that Marijuana is not only dangerous, but "unacceptable". I say to you, Mr. Brown, that it should not be in the mind of one person to decide what is "unacceptable" to our society; certainly when there are far more harmful drugs such as Alcohol that are deemed "acceptable" by the government.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Dr. No Calls It Quits
One of modern history's most controversial and divisive political and religious figures, Rev Ian Paisley, has announced that he will be retiring as First Minister and Leader of the DUP in May.
Paisley, 82, has come under intense pressure within the DUP in recent months to stand down amidst internal discontent within the party about working with Sinn Fein and the party's fall in popularity. The dissent within the party has heightened in the last few weeks due to the party's loss in a high profile by-election to the UUP and the resignation of Dr. Paisley's son, Ian Paisley Junior, as a Junior Minister in his department following allegations about inappropriate dealings and lobbying of groups for his constituency.
Mr. Paisley will be remembered for many negative things and for many catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland he will remain a despised figure for his hate filled rhetoric including denouncing the late Pope John Paul II as the anti-Christ during the Pope's speech to the European Parliament in 1988, even in announcing his departure date he managed to fit in an attack on Catholicism saying that "This is not the Church of Rome," and that "This is not Apostolic succession and I have no right to say who will succeed me." Despite this, he was willing to take the bold step and incredible political gamble to work with his bitter enemies and try to forge a new peaceful Northern Ireland and to the surprise of many on both sides of the divide, it appeared that he and his Deputy, Martin McGuinness, actually had an excellent working relationship even being called the "chuckle brothers."
Perhaps to some in the DUP that cosy image was incomprehensible and action had to be taken and the DUP, the creature that the Iron Man of Ulster politics formed around 40 years ago appears to have finally beaten its creator and master who had led them to unparalleled electoral success and had taken them into Government in Stormont. What's for sure is that as the race hots up for his successor, he will leave a lingering shadow over politics in the province.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Paisley, 82, has come under intense pressure within the DUP in recent months to stand down amidst internal discontent within the party about working with Sinn Fein and the party's fall in popularity. The dissent within the party has heightened in the last few weeks due to the party's loss in a high profile by-election to the UUP and the resignation of Dr. Paisley's son, Ian Paisley Junior, as a Junior Minister in his department following allegations about inappropriate dealings and lobbying of groups for his constituency.
Mr. Paisley will be remembered for many negative things and for many catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland he will remain a despised figure for his hate filled rhetoric including denouncing the late Pope John Paul II as the anti-Christ during the Pope's speech to the European Parliament in 1988, even in announcing his departure date he managed to fit in an attack on Catholicism saying that "This is not the Church of Rome," and that "This is not Apostolic succession and I have no right to say who will succeed me." Despite this, he was willing to take the bold step and incredible political gamble to work with his bitter enemies and try to forge a new peaceful Northern Ireland and to the surprise of many on both sides of the divide, it appeared that he and his Deputy, Martin McGuinness, actually had an excellent working relationship even being called the "chuckle brothers."
Perhaps to some in the DUP that cosy image was incomprehensible and action had to be taken and the DUP, the creature that the Iron Man of Ulster politics formed around 40 years ago appears to have finally beaten its creator and master who had led them to unparalleled electoral success and had taken them into Government in Stormont. What's for sure is that as the race hots up for his successor, he will leave a lingering shadow over politics in the province.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Monday, 3 March 2008
Clegg claims majority of Britons back him
Liberal Democrat Leader, Nicholas Clegg, has today defended his Party's position over a European Referendum by publishing the results of an opinion poll that the Lib Dems had commissioned MORI to undertake. The poll shows that of over 1,000 people asked a majority of 2:1 backed a referendum on Britain's future in the EU which is the stance taken by the Lib Dems compared to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which has been demanded by I Want a Referendum, the Tories and some Lib Dem and Labour rebels.
Mr. Clegg will be relieved by the findings of the poll following a media attack previously on these proposals and the walk out staged by Lib Dems following Ed Davey MP being ordered out of the Commons due to the refusal of the Speaker to allow a Lib Dem amendment to the EU Reform Treaty calling for a vote.
This poll comes a day after the rival I Want a Referendum campaign announced that 88%of voters wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty according to their private polls which have taken place in Lib Dem and Labour marginals due to those respective parties stance on the Reform Treaty.
Nick Clegg welcomed the MORI poll results and called on David Cameron to support his party saying "It`s still not too late for him to change his mind and support us in giving the public the real choice on Europe that they want." He also commented that he believed a referenum on Britain's place on Europe would "defeat the Eurosceptics for a generation and that he would "relish the chance to lead the Liberal Democrats at the forefront of that campaign."
However, despite Mr. Clegg's overtures to the Conservatives and the results of this poll, the referendum he seeks is unlikely to happen and he will have to focus on limiting any damage his stance may cause in Lib/Con marginals and to stop his party splitting on the issue. That challenge may be greater than any he has faced in political career to date, but these results can only boost him in his efforts.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Mr. Clegg will be relieved by the findings of the poll following a media attack previously on these proposals and the walk out staged by Lib Dems following Ed Davey MP being ordered out of the Commons due to the refusal of the Speaker to allow a Lib Dem amendment to the EU Reform Treaty calling for a vote.
This poll comes a day after the rival I Want a Referendum campaign announced that 88%of voters wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty according to their private polls which have taken place in Lib Dem and Labour marginals due to those respective parties stance on the Reform Treaty.
Nick Clegg welcomed the MORI poll results and called on David Cameron to support his party saying "It`s still not too late for him to change his mind and support us in giving the public the real choice on Europe that they want." He also commented that he believed a referenum on Britain's place on Europe would "defeat the Eurosceptics for a generation and that he would "relish the chance to lead the Liberal Democrats at the forefront of that campaign."
However, despite Mr. Clegg's overtures to the Conservatives and the results of this poll, the referendum he seeks is unlikely to happen and he will have to focus on limiting any damage his stance may cause in Lib/Con marginals and to stop his party splitting on the issue. That challenge may be greater than any he has faced in political career to date, but these results can only boost him in his efforts.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Campaign "Theme Song's" strike up controversy amongst artists
by Jack Cooper
The chief songwriter and founder of soft rock heroes Boston, Tom Sholz, has slammed Mike Huckabbe for using their classic track “More Than A Feeling” in his campaign.
Huckabee’s band Capitol Offense recently required the services of former short term member Barry Goudreau. What seemed like a chance to capture the hearts (and votes) of middle aged men everywhere, Sholz claims the band has performed the song at campaign events around the country despite his permission.
In a letter to the presidential hopeful he stated “Boston has never endorsed a political candidate and with all due respect, would not start by endorsing a candidate who is the polar opposite of most everything Boston stands for. In fact, although I'm impressed you learned my bass guitar part on More Than a Feeling, I am an Obama supporter.”
Fred Bramante, chairman of Huckabee's New Hampshire campaign, called the allegations ridiculous. He said he attended dozens of Huckabee rallies in New Hampshire and other states and never heard Huckabee play "More Than a Feeling," other than when Goudreau campaigned with him in Iowa in October.
He’s not the only Republican in hot water. Last week, McCain's campaign agreed to stop playing John Mellencamp's songs "Our Country" and "Pink Houses" at his rallies after the liberal rocker complained.
The Democratic candidates have had better luck however. Celine Dion said she was “thrilled” that Senator Clinton has chosen her track “You and I” as her official campaign anthem.
Bono has yet to comment on Obama’s preference of U2’s “City of Blinding Lights” at his events.
The chief songwriter and founder of soft rock heroes Boston, Tom Sholz, has slammed Mike Huckabbe for using their classic track “More Than A Feeling” in his campaign.
Huckabee’s band Capitol Offense recently required the services of former short term member Barry Goudreau. What seemed like a chance to capture the hearts (and votes) of middle aged men everywhere, Sholz claims the band has performed the song at campaign events around the country despite his permission.
In a letter to the presidential hopeful he stated “Boston has never endorsed a political candidate and with all due respect, would not start by endorsing a candidate who is the polar opposite of most everything Boston stands for. In fact, although I'm impressed you learned my bass guitar part on More Than a Feeling, I am an Obama supporter.”
Fred Bramante, chairman of Huckabee's New Hampshire campaign, called the allegations ridiculous. He said he attended dozens of Huckabee rallies in New Hampshire and other states and never heard Huckabee play "More Than a Feeling," other than when Goudreau campaigned with him in Iowa in October.
He’s not the only Republican in hot water. Last week, McCain's campaign agreed to stop playing John Mellencamp's songs "Our Country" and "Pink Houses" at his rallies after the liberal rocker complained.
The Democratic candidates have had better luck however. Celine Dion said she was “thrilled” that Senator Clinton has chosen her track “You and I” as her official campaign anthem.
Bono has yet to comment on Obama’s preference of U2’s “City of Blinding Lights” at his events.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Rock effect crumbling Labour's poll standings
An Opinion poll in today's Independent by Com Res has put the Tories 11 points ahead of Labour enough to get a small majority if an election was held tomorrow.
The poll which places the Tories ahead on 41%, Labour second on 30% and the Lib Dems on 17% will make worrying reading for Gordon Brown, not just because of the overall results but because it shows the Tories ahead of Labour in every region bar Scotland.
The Lib Dems whose overall poll position hasn't changed since the last Com Res poll will be boosted by the fact that 80% of their identifiers say they will vote for the party at the next election.
This poll shows the first sign of a backlash against Labour for their handling of the Northern Rock crisis and its nationalisation and perhaps shows how much of an albatross the bank could become for the Labour Party, with much banking on the success of the bank for the Labour Government.
David Cameron will have to be careful about reading too much into this one poll, but if these polling figures are repeated in polls such as ICM, which generally higher polling figures, and the Lib Dems and Labour does badly in May's local elections, in particular the Mayoral election in London; then Brown could be facing the same fate as Jim Callaghan who dithered over calling an election when it could have been won and in the end lost in '79 to Thatcher leading to 18 years of Tory rule. For Brown it's not too late to save his Premiership, but he'll have to turn the tide pretty fast.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Monday, 25 February 2008
Editorial: Ralph Nader announces his entry into the Presidential Race
by Tom Hinton
Ralph Nader has officially announced his candidacy for the President of the United States as an Independent candidate on an NBC talk show “Meet the Press.” This will be the fifth time that Nader has stood for the presidency; he stood once in 1992, then in 1996 and 2000 he stood for the Green Party, and in 2004 he stood as an independent. Nader has expressed his concerns with the current situation in the United States, stating that a “Jeffersonian revolution is needed”, citing Thomas Jefferson in his belief that you should enter the electoral arena when you lose your government. When logging onto Nader’s website at votenader.org, it is simple to see the kind of concerns this candidate is highlighting. One word comes into mind when thinking of the Nader campaign; Corporate. Ralph Nader gives the impression that he is against all things corporate, and the profit orientated nature of America. He highlights the corporation dominant nature of both the leading parties in the US, and in a list of his most important issues he lists an “Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.”
So who exactly is Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader is a 73 year old Arab-American attorney from Connecticut, who has made his name as a political activist. Nader has ties with the Reform Party, the Green Party and has been known to stand for Consumer Rights, Humanitarianism, Environmentalism, and Democracy all round. If you have never heard of Ralph Nader, you may find it hard to believe that this the man who determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, sued the General Motors corporation for privacy infringement and the man who led an entire generation of inspired investigative writers. These writers were known as the “Nader Raiders”; they published a number of successful books inquiring into the government corruption of Washington D.C. Ralph Nader symbolises a number of things in the USA. For one, he is a symbol of rebellion; he is never afraid to speak his mind and stand up against the corruption present in America and the corporate world. A symbol of environmentalism, Nader is an openly anti-nuclear activist and has various Green Party properties in his agenda. However Nader is less concerned with single issues and seems to address the problem with America from the outside, giving him a sense of distance from the world of politics. This poses as an obvious downside for many voters who seek politically experienced candidates and Washington insiders such as John McCain.
In an election as close as the 2000 Presidential Election, it was, and still is so easy to think of endless ways in which the vote could have been swayed. The first year of the new millennium saw the closest election in the history of US politics, with the decision going to the Supreme Court after stopping re-counts across the board. Obviously, George W. Bush was announced as the winner, but what did this mean for Ralph Nader? At the time, Nader was standing as a green party candidate, and many democrats feel bitter towards him, as his left wing policies attracted sections of the electorate away from the Democratic Party and to the green party, resulting in a loss of voters for them, and in 2000, Al Gore. However, this criticism of Ralph Nader’s is but a superficial one. Democrats fail to remember that their candidate still won the popular vote, and are more concerned in speaking negatively about a candidate that could harm their campaign than address the dubious and suspicious irregularities that really lost them the election in 2000.
In 2004 the re-election of George W. Bush was a questionable one. John Kerry looked like a promising candidate for the Democrats, and the controversies surrounding the presidency of Bush’s first term, as well as electoral irregularities made the Election one of the most interesting re-election campaigns in history. Ralph Nader stood, this time as an independent. Nader expressed his concerns with the bureaucratic Washington of the 21st century, claiming that “There's too much power and wealth in too few hands.” His candidacy was met with great hostility after the delicacy of the 2000 election, and Nader’s part in it, but Nader fought strong and maintained his right to stand. The worries of his election “spoiling” in 2004 were soon proved insubstantial as the margins between Bush and Kerry were considerably larger than the percentage of votes given to Nader, which dropped dramatically from his 2.7% in 2000.
Now, in 2008, Ralph Nader faces the same judgement from The Democratic Party. Republicans welcome his candidacy as they think they can “cash in” on his attraction of left wing voters away from the democrats and take advantage of his significance. This was shamelessly expressed by Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, in which he stated; "[Nader] would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race". What is most concerning for the Democratic Party is the thin margin between candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their contest for nomination is so close, that Nader’s candidacy poses a threat to their nomination as the party is clearly split between the two candidates; resembling the split of the nation in 2000 between Bush and Gore. Both of the democratic candidates have spoken out against Ralph Nader’s bid for the presidency, as they both fear that it could effect their campaigns in a bad way come November. It is disappointing that such inspirational candidates as Barrack Obama have spoken to ruthlessly about Nader’s announcement, with little signs of respect. Credit is to be given to Hillary Clinton in that she has addressed her natural concern for Nader’s candidacy and what it could do for her Party, but also highlighted that “it’s a free country” and he should exercise his right to run.
One of the key attractions to Obama’s campaign is the inspirational and positive atmosphere that has accompanied it. His history as a civil rights lawyer and idealistic compassion combine to create possibly the greatest most motivational speaker that US politics has ever seen. However, over the last week or so, there has been some negative criticism to the methods used in Obama’s campaign when attracting negative criticism to his opponents. In various campaign literatures against Hillary Clintons health care proposals, the Obama campaign have suggested that Clinton will provide health care for all who can afford it, alienating the poorer American. In response the Clinton campaign has angrily back lashed, calling Obama a liar and that his negative campaign against Clinton is completely misleading and untrue. Hillary Clinton herself even compared Obama to former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush, Karl Rove; who is known for his ruthless strategic campaigning for various Republicans.
Obama has said that Ralph Nader “did not know what he was talking about” in 2000, and that Nader is someone who “thinks you’re not substantive” if you “don’t listen to [him], and adopt all his policies.” A harsh judgement from Obama, who has also expressed that Nader “seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work”. Nader’s announcement to run for President should be met with a welcoming smile by the American People, who need to be provided with a suitable alternative to yet another conservative republican who wants to stay in Iraq, and two democrats who cant seem to stop fighting with each other and squabbling over their differences. The candidates need to stop highlighting their differences, and start unifying America and sorting out the real problems on the inside, as well as addressing the endless list of issues put on the table this election. The democrats in particular have been too critical of Nader’s presidential proposal; they need to stop attacking him for his decision and concentrate on compromise, representation and union. Obama still remains a source of primary inspiration for the American People, and it should be highlighted that he is probably the best chance America has of a righteous government.
Ralph Nader’s presidential candidacy seems to have brought out the worst in all the candidates from both parties, and once again he is seen as a controversial figure in yet another American Election. It will certainly be interesting to see how many Ballots he manages to get his name onto, and indeed how many people will be confident to vote for this man in November. Nader should be seen as a symbol of inspiration to voters and politicians everywhere, as a man who is not afraid to stand up to corporate America, a man who will not sit back and allow corruption to take place in the government, and also a man of active professionalism, who can make informed decisions and judgements on behalf of the people.
However, despite what Nader could and could not do, he is seen as simply too radical and his judgements are slated by conservatives across the board. The issues at the top of his proposals include an impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to “cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget”, and “work to end corporate personhood.” These issues are understandably controversial and may be a little over the top, and too activist-orientated to be incorporated into the White House. Maybe this is what is at the heart of Nader’s campaign, the fact that Nader’s activism is seen as incompatible with the American government is surely an outrage in itself. The sad truth is, however, that America is not ready for a liberal such as Ralph Nader, for his activism is too radical. He may stand for what human nature tells us is right, but I’m afraid to say that corporate America will not allow such a candidate to be elected, at least not as long as the people demand conservatism.
Ralph Nader has officially announced his candidacy for the President of the United States as an Independent candidate on an NBC talk show “Meet the Press.” This will be the fifth time that Nader has stood for the presidency; he stood once in 1992, then in 1996 and 2000 he stood for the Green Party, and in 2004 he stood as an independent. Nader has expressed his concerns with the current situation in the United States, stating that a “Jeffersonian revolution is needed”, citing Thomas Jefferson in his belief that you should enter the electoral arena when you lose your government. When logging onto Nader’s website at votenader.org, it is simple to see the kind of concerns this candidate is highlighting. One word comes into mind when thinking of the Nader campaign; Corporate. Ralph Nader gives the impression that he is against all things corporate, and the profit orientated nature of America. He highlights the corporation dominant nature of both the leading parties in the US, and in a list of his most important issues he lists an “Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.”
So who exactly is Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader is a 73 year old Arab-American attorney from Connecticut, who has made his name as a political activist. Nader has ties with the Reform Party, the Green Party and has been known to stand for Consumer Rights, Humanitarianism, Environmentalism, and Democracy all round. If you have never heard of Ralph Nader, you may find it hard to believe that this the man who determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, sued the General Motors corporation for privacy infringement and the man who led an entire generation of inspired investigative writers. These writers were known as the “Nader Raiders”; they published a number of successful books inquiring into the government corruption of Washington D.C. Ralph Nader symbolises a number of things in the USA. For one, he is a symbol of rebellion; he is never afraid to speak his mind and stand up against the corruption present in America and the corporate world. A symbol of environmentalism, Nader is an openly anti-nuclear activist and has various Green Party properties in his agenda. However Nader is less concerned with single issues and seems to address the problem with America from the outside, giving him a sense of distance from the world of politics. This poses as an obvious downside for many voters who seek politically experienced candidates and Washington insiders such as John McCain.
In an election as close as the 2000 Presidential Election, it was, and still is so easy to think of endless ways in which the vote could have been swayed. The first year of the new millennium saw the closest election in the history of US politics, with the decision going to the Supreme Court after stopping re-counts across the board. Obviously, George W. Bush was announced as the winner, but what did this mean for Ralph Nader? At the time, Nader was standing as a green party candidate, and many democrats feel bitter towards him, as his left wing policies attracted sections of the electorate away from the Democratic Party and to the green party, resulting in a loss of voters for them, and in 2000, Al Gore. However, this criticism of Ralph Nader’s is but a superficial one. Democrats fail to remember that their candidate still won the popular vote, and are more concerned in speaking negatively about a candidate that could harm their campaign than address the dubious and suspicious irregularities that really lost them the election in 2000.
In 2004 the re-election of George W. Bush was a questionable one. John Kerry looked like a promising candidate for the Democrats, and the controversies surrounding the presidency of Bush’s first term, as well as electoral irregularities made the Election one of the most interesting re-election campaigns in history. Ralph Nader stood, this time as an independent. Nader expressed his concerns with the bureaucratic Washington of the 21st century, claiming that “There's too much power and wealth in too few hands.” His candidacy was met with great hostility after the delicacy of the 2000 election, and Nader’s part in it, but Nader fought strong and maintained his right to stand. The worries of his election “spoiling” in 2004 were soon proved insubstantial as the margins between Bush and Kerry were considerably larger than the percentage of votes given to Nader, which dropped dramatically from his 2.7% in 2000.
Now, in 2008, Ralph Nader faces the same judgement from The Democratic Party. Republicans welcome his candidacy as they think they can “cash in” on his attraction of left wing voters away from the democrats and take advantage of his significance. This was shamelessly expressed by Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, in which he stated; "[Nader] would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race". What is most concerning for the Democratic Party is the thin margin between candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their contest for nomination is so close, that Nader’s candidacy poses a threat to their nomination as the party is clearly split between the two candidates; resembling the split of the nation in 2000 between Bush and Gore. Both of the democratic candidates have spoken out against Ralph Nader’s bid for the presidency, as they both fear that it could effect their campaigns in a bad way come November. It is disappointing that such inspirational candidates as Barrack Obama have spoken to ruthlessly about Nader’s announcement, with little signs of respect. Credit is to be given to Hillary Clinton in that she has addressed her natural concern for Nader’s candidacy and what it could do for her Party, but also highlighted that “it’s a free country” and he should exercise his right to run.
One of the key attractions to Obama’s campaign is the inspirational and positive atmosphere that has accompanied it. His history as a civil rights lawyer and idealistic compassion combine to create possibly the greatest most motivational speaker that US politics has ever seen. However, over the last week or so, there has been some negative criticism to the methods used in Obama’s campaign when attracting negative criticism to his opponents. In various campaign literatures against Hillary Clintons health care proposals, the Obama campaign have suggested that Clinton will provide health care for all who can afford it, alienating the poorer American. In response the Clinton campaign has angrily back lashed, calling Obama a liar and that his negative campaign against Clinton is completely misleading and untrue. Hillary Clinton herself even compared Obama to former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush, Karl Rove; who is known for his ruthless strategic campaigning for various Republicans.
Obama has said that Ralph Nader “did not know what he was talking about” in 2000, and that Nader is someone who “thinks you’re not substantive” if you “don’t listen to [him], and adopt all his policies.” A harsh judgement from Obama, who has also expressed that Nader “seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work”. Nader’s announcement to run for President should be met with a welcoming smile by the American People, who need to be provided with a suitable alternative to yet another conservative republican who wants to stay in Iraq, and two democrats who cant seem to stop fighting with each other and squabbling over their differences. The candidates need to stop highlighting their differences, and start unifying America and sorting out the real problems on the inside, as well as addressing the endless list of issues put on the table this election. The democrats in particular have been too critical of Nader’s presidential proposal; they need to stop attacking him for his decision and concentrate on compromise, representation and union. Obama still remains a source of primary inspiration for the American People, and it should be highlighted that he is probably the best chance America has of a righteous government.
Ralph Nader’s presidential candidacy seems to have brought out the worst in all the candidates from both parties, and once again he is seen as a controversial figure in yet another American Election. It will certainly be interesting to see how many Ballots he manages to get his name onto, and indeed how many people will be confident to vote for this man in November. Nader should be seen as a symbol of inspiration to voters and politicians everywhere, as a man who is not afraid to stand up to corporate America, a man who will not sit back and allow corruption to take place in the government, and also a man of active professionalism, who can make informed decisions and judgements on behalf of the people.
However, despite what Nader could and could not do, he is seen as simply too radical and his judgements are slated by conservatives across the board. The issues at the top of his proposals include an impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to “cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget”, and “work to end corporate personhood.” These issues are understandably controversial and may be a little over the top, and too activist-orientated to be incorporated into the White House. Maybe this is what is at the heart of Nader’s campaign, the fact that Nader’s activism is seen as incompatible with the American government is surely an outrage in itself. The sad truth is, however, that America is not ready for a liberal such as Ralph Nader, for his activism is too radical. He may stand for what human nature tells us is right, but I’m afraid to say that corporate America will not allow such a candidate to be elected, at least not as long as the people demand conservatism.
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
As Obama wins tenth consecutive primary, McCain starts to criticise his likely opposition for November
by Tom Hinton
Last night saw the last primary in the month of February this election, with northern liberal states Washington and Wisconsin both up for grabs for both party candidates. Hawaii – Hometown of democrat frontrunner Barack Obama also held a democratic caucus.
Going into this election, the northern liberal states were safe territory for Barack Obama, and his campaign has paid off. Obama managed to take his ninth and tenth consecutive win in Wisconsin and Hawaii, further progressing his lead ahead of New York Senator and former First Lady; Hillary Rodham Clinton. These results, and the fact Clinton hasn’t won a primary since Super Tuesday on February 5th, now make winning Texas and Ohio even more crucial to the Clinton Campaign than ever before. Wisconsin is similar to Ohio in demographics, and Obama victory in such a state has proven to be a cause for concern in the Clinton HQ. Clinton and Obama are now focusing their attention on the two delegate rich states of Ohio and Texas in an attempt to secure their likely nomination, and excel them that extra step ahead in a race that is barley past neck and neck status.
Obama now holds a 70 delegate lead past Clinton, including Super Delegates who have stated support for a particular candidate. The Illinois Senator is also swaying votes from sections of society that were secure for the Clinton campaign. Older, Blue collar, working class voters have joined the young, educated and highly paid voters in support for Obama. In Wisconsin last night, Obama secured 53% of the white vote, 48% of the female vote, and 39% of white seniors with a considerable rise in Catholic and rural voters, increasing by a half and a third since Super Tuesday, respectively. Another issue in demographics to take in to account, is the Latino vote that is so important to the state of Texas. In the Virginia and Maryland primaries, we saw Obama sweep up the Latino vote, which have been a Clinton security from day one. With the current demographic trends in Texas, as well as Obama’s success with the Latino vote in other states, Hillary Clinton and her team will need to campaign vigorously in the state to feel confident about walking away with delegate rich pockets. Obama has also managed to detract the economy vote away from Clinton, with 55% of voters declaring the economy as their most important issue this election voting for Obama. These gains on Obama’s part will certainly add momentum to his campaign, but he still needs to focus on Texas and Ohio as crucial states if he expects to maintain his lead over Clinton.
In Hillary Clintons post election speech, she mentioned that Barack Obama was all about rhetoric where as she was more concerned with solutions. She stated that she is the candidate who possesses the solutions for America, where as Obama simply delivers upbeat speeches and lacks specifics. On the other hand, Obama has defended his ground and said that the election is not just about making speeches and promises, but more so reforming Washington D.C into a place better suited for the political ideals needed to save America. “Washington [D.C] has become a place where good ideas go to die” Obama said.
Taking a look on the other side, the GOP is in a state of confused disunity, in which the most popular candidate is suffering from nothing but… unpopularity! Although experienced Sen. John McCain has a considerable lead and grasp on the Republican presidential nomination, conservatives see him as not right wing enough, and have mixed feelings about his ideologies. In 2002, McCain, along with Wisconsin democrat Russell Feingold created the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the BCRA. These changes in campaign finance, along with John McCain’s stances on immigration, have been enough to make some Republicans weary of his almost certain nomination. However, McCain has portrayed himself as the man who can not only best lead the USA, but also unify the GOP in this time of divide. But will this be enough, come November, to stop the Democrat nominee accessing the White House, therefore causing democrat domination of both the Legislature (Congress) and the Executive(The Presidency)?
As for GOP results, McCain took a 55% win in Wisconsin to Huckabee’s 37%, and a 49% to 22% win in Washington; even more substantial gains for the Senator who already holds a largely tight lead on the republican nomination. With Obama’s progressing lead against Clinton, and McCain’s obvious stronghold, it is becoming more likely that White House outsiders will occupy the seat of the presidency in 2009, as Hillary Clintons campaign slowly emerges from a rock road of constant loss, and onto an empty road of un-pledged delegate hope and reliability. As Obama becomes the more likely candidate for Democratic Nomination, Super Delegates also taken into account, John McCain has begun to criticise his likley opponent. McCain told supporters in a victory speech; “I will… make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.” The words of an experienced politician and Washington expert give a foreboding tone to what may very well be to come in October as the two parties campaign for the presidency.
Last night saw the last primary in the month of February this election, with northern liberal states Washington and Wisconsin both up for grabs for both party candidates. Hawaii – Hometown of democrat frontrunner Barack Obama also held a democratic caucus.
Going into this election, the northern liberal states were safe territory for Barack Obama, and his campaign has paid off. Obama managed to take his ninth and tenth consecutive win in Wisconsin and Hawaii, further progressing his lead ahead of New York Senator and former First Lady; Hillary Rodham Clinton. These results, and the fact Clinton hasn’t won a primary since Super Tuesday on February 5th, now make winning Texas and Ohio even more crucial to the Clinton Campaign than ever before. Wisconsin is similar to Ohio in demographics, and Obama victory in such a state has proven to be a cause for concern in the Clinton HQ. Clinton and Obama are now focusing their attention on the two delegate rich states of Ohio and Texas in an attempt to secure their likely nomination, and excel them that extra step ahead in a race that is barley past neck and neck status.
Obama now holds a 70 delegate lead past Clinton, including Super Delegates who have stated support for a particular candidate. The Illinois Senator is also swaying votes from sections of society that were secure for the Clinton campaign. Older, Blue collar, working class voters have joined the young, educated and highly paid voters in support for Obama. In Wisconsin last night, Obama secured 53% of the white vote, 48% of the female vote, and 39% of white seniors with a considerable rise in Catholic and rural voters, increasing by a half and a third since Super Tuesday, respectively. Another issue in demographics to take in to account, is the Latino vote that is so important to the state of Texas. In the Virginia and Maryland primaries, we saw Obama sweep up the Latino vote, which have been a Clinton security from day one. With the current demographic trends in Texas, as well as Obama’s success with the Latino vote in other states, Hillary Clinton and her team will need to campaign vigorously in the state to feel confident about walking away with delegate rich pockets. Obama has also managed to detract the economy vote away from Clinton, with 55% of voters declaring the economy as their most important issue this election voting for Obama. These gains on Obama’s part will certainly add momentum to his campaign, but he still needs to focus on Texas and Ohio as crucial states if he expects to maintain his lead over Clinton.
In Hillary Clintons post election speech, she mentioned that Barack Obama was all about rhetoric where as she was more concerned with solutions. She stated that she is the candidate who possesses the solutions for America, where as Obama simply delivers upbeat speeches and lacks specifics. On the other hand, Obama has defended his ground and said that the election is not just about making speeches and promises, but more so reforming Washington D.C into a place better suited for the political ideals needed to save America. “Washington [D.C] has become a place where good ideas go to die” Obama said.
Taking a look on the other side, the GOP is in a state of confused disunity, in which the most popular candidate is suffering from nothing but… unpopularity! Although experienced Sen. John McCain has a considerable lead and grasp on the Republican presidential nomination, conservatives see him as not right wing enough, and have mixed feelings about his ideologies. In 2002, McCain, along with Wisconsin democrat Russell Feingold created the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the BCRA. These changes in campaign finance, along with John McCain’s stances on immigration, have been enough to make some Republicans weary of his almost certain nomination. However, McCain has portrayed himself as the man who can not only best lead the USA, but also unify the GOP in this time of divide. But will this be enough, come November, to stop the Democrat nominee accessing the White House, therefore causing democrat domination of both the Legislature (Congress) and the Executive(The Presidency)?
As for GOP results, McCain took a 55% win in Wisconsin to Huckabee’s 37%, and a 49% to 22% win in Washington; even more substantial gains for the Senator who already holds a largely tight lead on the republican nomination. With Obama’s progressing lead against Clinton, and McCain’s obvious stronghold, it is becoming more likely that White House outsiders will occupy the seat of the presidency in 2009, as Hillary Clintons campaign slowly emerges from a rock road of constant loss, and onto an empty road of un-pledged delegate hope and reliability. As Obama becomes the more likely candidate for Democratic Nomination, Super Delegates also taken into account, John McCain has begun to criticise his likley opponent. McCain told supporters in a victory speech; “I will… make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.” The words of an experienced politician and Washington expert give a foreboding tone to what may very well be to come in October as the two parties campaign for the presidency.
Editorial: A Breadbasket destroyed
As the US elections continue to dominate the media alongside Northern Rock and Castro's resignation, it can be easy to forget about one of the great tragedies of recent decades that is continuing before our very eyes in Africa. Yes, I am talking about Zimbabawe once labelled the breadbasket of Africa and now a desolute, poverty stricken nightmare ruled by the iron fist of a murderous despot, Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe, whose successful guerilla campaign against the leader of the apartheid regime in Rhodesia, Ian Smith, and has led ever since 1980 has overseen a disastrous economic collapse leading to mass poverty, famine and deaths due to an inability of many Zimbabweans to afford treatment for the HIV/Aids epidemic which has mercilessly resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. It is this economic collapse which has led to me writing this post today, why? Because of a BBC News story, entitled "Zimbabwe inflation hits 100,000%". This report shows how torrid life has got for ordinary Zimbabweans, with 80% of the population living in poverty and a mass exodus of 3 million people to neighbouring South Africa.
As we sit down in our warm houses with little inflation, high levels of employment and a relatively prosperous economy it is worthwhile remembering the plight of those people. For them every day is a challenge to survive under a corrupt and malicious dictatorship that has destroyed their country, once the hope of Africa but now the shame of a continent. Mugabe's record on human rights is also appalling with his Government attacking and murdering opponents, homosexuals and even charity workers sent to aid the ailing population.
Next month President Mugabe will be standing for re-election in an election where the results are already known. He faces opposition from Simba Makoni, his former Finance Minister, and the leader of the Movement for Democratic change, Morgan Tsvangirai whose arrest and brutal treatment at the hands of Mugabe's police and security forces caused international outrage. The only people who matter aren't Zimbabweans or even Mugabe himself, it is the South African Government which has failed to use the authority and influence at its disposal to remove Mugabe and ensure even basic levels of human rights and living standards.
As the Presidential race in America moves on and issues of the US economy and Iraq dominate the agenda, the successful candidate must put Zimbabwe at the top of the agenda as well. The people of that tragic land need salvation and their resiliance and hope can only last so long without real action by the world's leaders. If that candidate does take on this mission, they can make their name in history as the person who saved not just the next generation, but a country from the horror of Mugabe and his regime, only then can a continent which has seen so much death and tyranny be healed.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Cuban Chief Castro stands aside
One of the most divisive figures in global politics, the Communist leader of Cuba Fidel Castro, has announced his decision not to seek the Presidency again after years of being the ruler of the American country.
Castro who has been in power for 49 years, since the success of his guerilla campaign against the dictator, Batista, in 1959, has taken the decision ahead of a meeting of the Cuban National Assembly on Sunday to appoint a new President. In a letter to Granma, the Cuban Communist Party newspaper, he pointed to his deteriorating health as the main reason for standing aside after so long in power saying, "It would betray my conscience to take up a responsibility that requires mobility and total devotion, that I am not in a physical condition to offer."
Castro's health has been a major issue since July 2006, when the reigns of power were temporarily given to the 81 year olds younger brother, Raul, to undergo emergency intestinal surgery and since then he has not made any public appearances since. It is Raul who is now favourite to succeed his brother as President though 59 year old Vice President Carlos Lage Davila is also considered to be a candidate for the post.
Fidel Castro's announcement has been welcomed by long term nemesis, the USA with George Bush calling for the announcement "to begin a period of a democratic transition." Gordon Brown mirrored those remarks by stating that he hoped "that a new path will open up after this withdrawal and that there will be more democracy in that country."
Today's announcement marks the end of a reign which has led to both human rights abuses and oppression alongside a high quality universal free health care service and an impressive education system and along the way has divided many not just at home, but across the world.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Monday, 18 February 2008
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! Its Super delegates!
By Tom Hinton
As the days press on, and the nights get shorter, the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination becomes increasingly intense, with an almost neck and neck competition. It has been a great month for Barack Obama, and his constant wins in this favourable last few weeks has just about shot him ahead of Clinton in delegate counts. Despite this, Clinton remains strong, campaigning in delegate rich Texas and Ohio hoping to secure her chance of the nomination. However, the issue of “Super Delegates” has been cropping up in the media quite recently, and it has caused quite a stir. Some people oppose them, others support, and some simply don’t know what they are.
So what exactly is a Super Delegate? First we need to establish that the votes cast in the primaries and caucuses are for delegates; people who are pledged to vote for a candidate on behalf of the public at the National Convention, which for the Democrats, is in the August of 2008. Now, onto Super Delegates; a super delegate is just like a regular delegate, only it does not have to commit itself to the candidate the public has voted in favour of. Twenty percent of the elected delegates are Super Delegates, meaning that 20% of the elected delegates will not have to vote for the candidate the public have voted for. Pretty undemocratic, pretty confusing.
Barack Obama has spoken out against the independent nature of the Super Delegates and has said that he urges the Super Delegates to “respect the voters wishes” where as Hillary Clinton has urged the Super Delegates to use their expertise in making an independent decision. Clinton’s attitude towards Super Delegates is quite an obvious one, as generally the Super Delegate process tends to favour her. However, many of the African American Super Delegates have recently abandoned the Clinton campaign and have been seen to be backing Obama, giving even more of a hopeful lead both in Delegates and Super Delegates. Super Delegates can mean a lot to the candidates in the Democratic race. For one, it is possible with the percentage of Super Delegates at stake, that they may be able to determine the outcome of the election. For example, the popular vote could entail Obama the winner of the Nomination, but Super Delegate votes could tip the nomination over to Clinton, regardless of the publics vote and vice versa; somewhat like Al Gore’s loss of the presidency in 2000.
In the 1984 presidential primaries, the two front runners for the democratic nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Although both candidates won various primaries and caucuses, Hart was just slightly behind Mondale in the number of votes cast. However, Mondale had the backing of almost all the Super Delegates, and won the nomination. Super Delegates are being met with a largely negative response in the media and by the American people. They are seen as a negative because the process of Super Delegate votes undermines the vote of the people, and therefore undermines democracy in the United States. If the electorate feels that their vote can be easily over ridden so to speak, it takes away a lot of the significance of voting, and de-motivates the voter to go out and vote. This can have a negative effect on spirit, turnout and party loyalty, as people may be turned off the Democratic Party in the primary season due to Super Delegates.
In a recent poll, 80% of Democrats have stated that they are more enthused to go out and vote, where as 50% of republicans expressed less motivation. The democrats are experiencing a revolution on social and civil rights, with the two front running candidates being a Black man and a white Woman, the first of their kind, and both running in the same Primary season. Also, the unpopularity of President George W. Bush has urged people to cry out for change, and as we saw in the 2006 Mid Term Congressional Elections; the Democrats have been the alternative for change after the abysmal Republican presidency of the last eight years. This leads us onto the Republican Party; where turnout is dropping as party unity falls to pieces. The party is completely split, and the drop out’s of Huckabee and Romney have shown weakness in the GOP, because the Republicans are left with one front running candidate they are very uncertain about; Sen. John McCain. The scepticism from conservatives surrounding John McCain has further highlighted the split in the party, with conservatives like former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressing his uncertainty on his vote for the GOP. However, one thing the Republicans don’t have to worry about is Super Delegates, as they originate in the Democratic National Convention of 1968, and the separate conventions outline separate rules for each party.
The controversy surrounding Super Delegates could effect the presidential election in November. If the feared does happen, and the Super Delegates do vote against the popular vote, the Democratic candidate will face a legitimacy issue, and their mandate will be questionable. Can the Democrats afford this kind of unrest at such a crucial time in their party’s history? Can the party let the Republicans take hold of the presidency for yet another term? Let’s hope not, because the party divide in the Republican Party is so hectic, that it would be comforting to think there is at least one semi-stable party in the country. In all these senses, Super Delegates do not seem fair at all. However, they are often seen as one of the many reliable checks and balances in American Politics that ensure that no single branch of government can become too powerful. For example, it can be seen that Super Delegates are used to prevent any extremist dictators of such ideologies as communism or fascism getting elected, even if they do manage to captivate the public vote. Although a credible balance, it simply isn’t enough to account for the undemocratic image that Super Delegates have attained this Primary season. Super Delegates have been around for decades, but the unpopularity of the Bush administration has raised interest and therefore awareness into the electoral process, and many corruptions and questionable processes are now being met with some hostility.
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has been seen to be speaking out against the use of Super Delegates, and she has suggested that they should be pledged voters like the rest of the delegates. It would be extremely ideal for all the Super Delegates to vote according to the popular vote, but if this was so, why are they there in the first place? Do we even need Super Delegates? What we do know, however, is that although Obama is ahead in the Polls for both of tomorrows elections in Wisconsin and Washington State, which could push him even further ahead in the nomination; Clinton continues to maintain a likely win on delegate rich Texas and Ohio, and still has many Super Delegates backing her campaign. This brings the candidates back to the neck and neck status they have been in for some time. All we can do is keep waiting and watching to see what happens in August; this contest is long from over, and if anything, it is only just beginning.
As the days press on, and the nights get shorter, the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination becomes increasingly intense, with an almost neck and neck competition. It has been a great month for Barack Obama, and his constant wins in this favourable last few weeks has just about shot him ahead of Clinton in delegate counts. Despite this, Clinton remains strong, campaigning in delegate rich Texas and Ohio hoping to secure her chance of the nomination. However, the issue of “Super Delegates” has been cropping up in the media quite recently, and it has caused quite a stir. Some people oppose them, others support, and some simply don’t know what they are.
So what exactly is a Super Delegate? First we need to establish that the votes cast in the primaries and caucuses are for delegates; people who are pledged to vote for a candidate on behalf of the public at the National Convention, which for the Democrats, is in the August of 2008. Now, onto Super Delegates; a super delegate is just like a regular delegate, only it does not have to commit itself to the candidate the public has voted in favour of. Twenty percent of the elected delegates are Super Delegates, meaning that 20% of the elected delegates will not have to vote for the candidate the public have voted for. Pretty undemocratic, pretty confusing.
Barack Obama has spoken out against the independent nature of the Super Delegates and has said that he urges the Super Delegates to “respect the voters wishes” where as Hillary Clinton has urged the Super Delegates to use their expertise in making an independent decision. Clinton’s attitude towards Super Delegates is quite an obvious one, as generally the Super Delegate process tends to favour her. However, many of the African American Super Delegates have recently abandoned the Clinton campaign and have been seen to be backing Obama, giving even more of a hopeful lead both in Delegates and Super Delegates. Super Delegates can mean a lot to the candidates in the Democratic race. For one, it is possible with the percentage of Super Delegates at stake, that they may be able to determine the outcome of the election. For example, the popular vote could entail Obama the winner of the Nomination, but Super Delegate votes could tip the nomination over to Clinton, regardless of the publics vote and vice versa; somewhat like Al Gore’s loss of the presidency in 2000.
In the 1984 presidential primaries, the two front runners for the democratic nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Although both candidates won various primaries and caucuses, Hart was just slightly behind Mondale in the number of votes cast. However, Mondale had the backing of almost all the Super Delegates, and won the nomination. Super Delegates are being met with a largely negative response in the media and by the American people. They are seen as a negative because the process of Super Delegate votes undermines the vote of the people, and therefore undermines democracy in the United States. If the electorate feels that their vote can be easily over ridden so to speak, it takes away a lot of the significance of voting, and de-motivates the voter to go out and vote. This can have a negative effect on spirit, turnout and party loyalty, as people may be turned off the Democratic Party in the primary season due to Super Delegates.
In a recent poll, 80% of Democrats have stated that they are more enthused to go out and vote, where as 50% of republicans expressed less motivation. The democrats are experiencing a revolution on social and civil rights, with the two front running candidates being a Black man and a white Woman, the first of their kind, and both running in the same Primary season. Also, the unpopularity of President George W. Bush has urged people to cry out for change, and as we saw in the 2006 Mid Term Congressional Elections; the Democrats have been the alternative for change after the abysmal Republican presidency of the last eight years. This leads us onto the Republican Party; where turnout is dropping as party unity falls to pieces. The party is completely split, and the drop out’s of Huckabee and Romney have shown weakness in the GOP, because the Republicans are left with one front running candidate they are very uncertain about; Sen. John McCain. The scepticism from conservatives surrounding John McCain has further highlighted the split in the party, with conservatives like former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressing his uncertainty on his vote for the GOP. However, one thing the Republicans don’t have to worry about is Super Delegates, as they originate in the Democratic National Convention of 1968, and the separate conventions outline separate rules for each party.
The controversy surrounding Super Delegates could effect the presidential election in November. If the feared does happen, and the Super Delegates do vote against the popular vote, the Democratic candidate will face a legitimacy issue, and their mandate will be questionable. Can the Democrats afford this kind of unrest at such a crucial time in their party’s history? Can the party let the Republicans take hold of the presidency for yet another term? Let’s hope not, because the party divide in the Republican Party is so hectic, that it would be comforting to think there is at least one semi-stable party in the country. In all these senses, Super Delegates do not seem fair at all. However, they are often seen as one of the many reliable checks and balances in American Politics that ensure that no single branch of government can become too powerful. For example, it can be seen that Super Delegates are used to prevent any extremist dictators of such ideologies as communism or fascism getting elected, even if they do manage to captivate the public vote. Although a credible balance, it simply isn’t enough to account for the undemocratic image that Super Delegates have attained this Primary season. Super Delegates have been around for decades, but the unpopularity of the Bush administration has raised interest and therefore awareness into the electoral process, and many corruptions and questionable processes are now being met with some hostility.
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has been seen to be speaking out against the use of Super Delegates, and she has suggested that they should be pledged voters like the rest of the delegates. It would be extremely ideal for all the Super Delegates to vote according to the popular vote, but if this was so, why are they there in the first place? Do we even need Super Delegates? What we do know, however, is that although Obama is ahead in the Polls for both of tomorrows elections in Wisconsin and Washington State, which could push him even further ahead in the nomination; Clinton continues to maintain a likely win on delegate rich Texas and Ohio, and still has many Super Delegates backing her campaign. This brings the candidates back to the neck and neck status they have been in for some time. All we can do is keep waiting and watching to see what happens in August; this contest is long from over, and if anything, it is only just beginning.
Yes we can: The success of Obama’s call for change
By Dominic Turner
Three words; Be they “Yes we can” or the resounding chant of “We want change!” sum up the mood and the sometimes exaggerated adoration of Barrack Hussein Obama. He is greeted onto the stage not as a politician, but as a rock star, not as a relic of the 90’s like Senator Clinton but a cult figure engaging in the arena of politics unprecedented since the reverend Martin Luther King Jr. or JFK or RFK. The screams are of “we want change” are whilst utterly sentimental are not always rationalized. Change from what? On policy Clinton and Obama are not that far apart. The Clinton machine, and rightly so is seen as a political dynasty of the 90’s; a pre-historic relic of a confrontational decade where the divisive nature of the baby boomers was bright into the public arena from the most divisive of generations; Clinton v Gingrich, Moore v O‘Reilly, White-water, and ultimately impeachment. As Obama puts it in his best seller book the audacity of hope, “I somehow felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation. A tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses years ago - played out on the national stage”
Here in lies the key to Obama success. Many of America’s youth see this as the defining moment in their short lived lives. The passing of the torch from one generation (the baby boomers) to another (Generation X) The washing away of the detritus of the past 8 years and starting the 21st century fresh with a new age politician. Whilst its easy to get caught up in the emotional rollercoaster of all this it is important to remember however the Clinton machine is still very powerful and is betting on Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to fire her back into the lead with renewed momentum. Something is changing in America however conservatives riled by the selection of Jon McCain are starting to be inspired by Obama. People are beginning to not vote with their wallets or even their brains, which surely tell them to vote in the far more experienced Clinton, but with their hearts. Conservatives as well as liberals are attracted to this guy maybe just as a protest vote but maybe they do actually believe. It is careful to not however that even if Obama were to win a sweep if he made it to November it would not be a huge Liberal mandate for America, but a reconciliation rather; To heal the wound of the 90’s and the 00’s. To engage as Obama puts it in the “politics of hope and unity not fear and division… Brick by Brick, Block by Block, Calloused hand by Calloused hand.”
He will need a lot of luck and the cynics still believe that Clinton will ultimately overhaul Obama but until March 4 when the delegate rich states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania vote. When asked can Obama go the distance, When asked if America is ready to pass the torch, When asked if they are ready to accept that their history is written by them not for them the answer, the same as always is the three immortal words “whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights.”
Yes We Can.
Three words; Be they “Yes we can” or the resounding chant of “We want change!” sum up the mood and the sometimes exaggerated adoration of Barrack Hussein Obama. He is greeted onto the stage not as a politician, but as a rock star, not as a relic of the 90’s like Senator Clinton but a cult figure engaging in the arena of politics unprecedented since the reverend Martin Luther King Jr. or JFK or RFK. The screams are of “we want change” are whilst utterly sentimental are not always rationalized. Change from what? On policy Clinton and Obama are not that far apart. The Clinton machine, and rightly so is seen as a political dynasty of the 90’s; a pre-historic relic of a confrontational decade where the divisive nature of the baby boomers was bright into the public arena from the most divisive of generations; Clinton v Gingrich, Moore v O‘Reilly, White-water, and ultimately impeachment. As Obama puts it in his best seller book the audacity of hope, “I somehow felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation. A tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses years ago - played out on the national stage”
Here in lies the key to Obama success. Many of America’s youth see this as the defining moment in their short lived lives. The passing of the torch from one generation (the baby boomers) to another (Generation X) The washing away of the detritus of the past 8 years and starting the 21st century fresh with a new age politician. Whilst its easy to get caught up in the emotional rollercoaster of all this it is important to remember however the Clinton machine is still very powerful and is betting on Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to fire her back into the lead with renewed momentum. Something is changing in America however conservatives riled by the selection of Jon McCain are starting to be inspired by Obama. People are beginning to not vote with their wallets or even their brains, which surely tell them to vote in the far more experienced Clinton, but with their hearts. Conservatives as well as liberals are attracted to this guy maybe just as a protest vote but maybe they do actually believe. It is careful to not however that even if Obama were to win a sweep if he made it to November it would not be a huge Liberal mandate for America, but a reconciliation rather; To heal the wound of the 90’s and the 00’s. To engage as Obama puts it in the “politics of hope and unity not fear and division… Brick by Brick, Block by Block, Calloused hand by Calloused hand.”
He will need a lot of luck and the cynics still believe that Clinton will ultimately overhaul Obama but until March 4 when the delegate rich states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania vote. When asked can Obama go the distance, When asked if America is ready to pass the torch, When asked if they are ready to accept that their history is written by them not for them the answer, the same as always is the three immortal words “whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights.”
Yes We Can.
Caught between a rock and a hard place: Darling announces nationalisation of Bank
Northern Rock, the troubled highstreet Bank, is to be nationalised the Chancellor announced to the House of Commons in a statement today following months of speculation about its future after huge market falls led to massive government investment and safeguards in the firm.
In his statement the Chancellor defended the move as in his words the two other proposals from the private sector, including the Virgin Money bid, didn't offer "sufficient value for money to the taxpayer" with sums of £55 billion of tax payers money already invested by the Government to safeguard the depositors and mortgage holders in the Bank.
The decision has already proved controversial with many Labour MPs from the North East having been hostile to the very idea of nationalisation, the Conservative Party is also hostile towards the plans and has accused the Government of overseeing "months of dither and delay" which has worsened the situation and have called Nationalisation a "catastrophic decision" and have promised to oppose the emergency Bill to nationalise the Rock tomorrow alongside calling on the Chancellor to resign or be sacked from the Treasury with David Cameron saying "I don't think this chancellor has any credibility left and that's not good for the country and not good for the economy."
However, the Government will be able to rely on support from the Lib Dem benches due to their Treasury Spokesman, Vince Cable, being a long term advocate of this solution who had previously said that it was "clearly preferable to take this bank into temporary public ownership rather than have a bad private sale to somebody like Sir Richard Branson under which the taxpayer would continue to have all the risks and the liabilities and a private owner would take all the benefit."
It is expected that taxpayers investment in the Bank will rocket from around £55 Billion to around £110 Billion, a cost of £3.5 thousand per taxpayer, with the Chancellor stressing that this is very much a short term and temporary situation with the private sector as the place where "the long-term ownership of this bank must lie."
The Prime Minister has also announced the former Lloyds of London CEO, Ron Sandler, who is widely respected in the City will become the new Chief Executive of Northern Rock. Mr Sandler, who met with staff of the Bank today,promised that he will be "getting on with the job" and said that despite all the problems and challenges of the post it was an "exciting" one.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Saturday, 16 February 2008
George W. Bush orders missile launch to destroy a broken US spy satellite
by Tom Hinton
Everybody’s favourite chimpanzee, George W. Bush has ordered the pentagon to begin plans on bringing down a broken spy satellite with a missile. This action by Bush is ringing bells of familiarity to anyone aware of China’s controversial actions last year in shooting down one of its own broken satellites without the consent of any other countries and their heads. This action was met with great hostility from the US and various other nations, so it is interesting that Bush has ordered the shooting down of one of his own broken satellites, especially considering it’s a spy satellite. So far, so Star Wars, but it has been legitimised in the reasoning for its destruction; that the rocket fuel could cause potential harm to people.
There has not been an official date set by the DoD, but it is expected that the operation will be over with, with the satellite hitting earth in the first weeks of March. The Missile will be shot from a US Navy ship, with a “window of opportunity” for the operation opening up in the next couple of days, and lasting for approximately one week according to the vice chairmen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright. The order is a controversial one for a number of reasons. Not only because of the similar actions of the Chinese last year, but this is also the first time the US have ever used a tactical missile on a spacecraft, and it is likely that there could be faults in the operation. The timing of the missile firing is crucial. The missile is to be fired as an interception with the satellite as it briefly re-enters the earths atmosphere, at any other time, the satellite will be near impossible to hit.
There is also a second motive in the execution of this operation. The US also aims to destroy the fuel tank on the spy satellite in an attempt to minimise the amount of fuel on its re-entry and return. This decision is not something that has been taken lightly by the US, and there will have to be a careful second decision made if the first attempt at shooting down the satellite fails, Cartwright stated in a press briefing.
Another controversy surrounding this take down, much like that of the Chinese mission last year, is the falling of the debris of the satellite. The debris is said to fall in pieces over a space of 100 yards, but of course it is difficult to pin point a specific location for the impact.
This being the last year of his presidency, GWB doesn’t seem to be laying off the controversial decisions! Some might say that the destruction of a “broken” spy satellite is a tad suspicious; could his satellite contain any secret information the US don’t want the rest of the world to see? Who knows! The launch will be in the coming weeks, so keep watching the skies!
Everybody’s favourite chimpanzee, George W. Bush has ordered the pentagon to begin plans on bringing down a broken spy satellite with a missile. This action by Bush is ringing bells of familiarity to anyone aware of China’s controversial actions last year in shooting down one of its own broken satellites without the consent of any other countries and their heads. This action was met with great hostility from the US and various other nations, so it is interesting that Bush has ordered the shooting down of one of his own broken satellites, especially considering it’s a spy satellite. So far, so Star Wars, but it has been legitimised in the reasoning for its destruction; that the rocket fuel could cause potential harm to people.
There has not been an official date set by the DoD, but it is expected that the operation will be over with, with the satellite hitting earth in the first weeks of March. The Missile will be shot from a US Navy ship, with a “window of opportunity” for the operation opening up in the next couple of days, and lasting for approximately one week according to the vice chairmen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright. The order is a controversial one for a number of reasons. Not only because of the similar actions of the Chinese last year, but this is also the first time the US have ever used a tactical missile on a spacecraft, and it is likely that there could be faults in the operation. The timing of the missile firing is crucial. The missile is to be fired as an interception with the satellite as it briefly re-enters the earths atmosphere, at any other time, the satellite will be near impossible to hit.
There is also a second motive in the execution of this operation. The US also aims to destroy the fuel tank on the spy satellite in an attempt to minimise the amount of fuel on its re-entry and return. This decision is not something that has been taken lightly by the US, and there will have to be a careful second decision made if the first attempt at shooting down the satellite fails, Cartwright stated in a press briefing.
Another controversy surrounding this take down, much like that of the Chinese mission last year, is the falling of the debris of the satellite. The debris is said to fall in pieces over a space of 100 yards, but of course it is difficult to pin point a specific location for the impact.
This being the last year of his presidency, GWB doesn’t seem to be laying off the controversial decisions! Some might say that the destruction of a “broken” spy satellite is a tad suspicious; could his satellite contain any secret information the US don’t want the rest of the world to see? Who knows! The launch will be in the coming weeks, so keep watching the skies!
Friday, 15 February 2008
Brown's plan to give benefits for training
Gordon Brown is to use his first address to the Welsh Labour Party as PM at their Llandudno conference set out plans to give poor families extra benefits if they do extra work/training.
The plans are based on a US scheme operating in New York which gives money to those from the poorest backgrounds to stay in work/training schemes. Mr. Brown will be hoping that this can be used successfully in the UK to improve employment and training figures for those who are the poorest in society and as a remey for poverty. It is believed that pilot schemes will be announced shortly to see how effective these plans could be, however the Tories have denounced the Prime Minister of "chasing headlines" by adopting a policy which has only just begun in New York with no real results of effectiveness.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Latest: Romney does endorse McCain
Fmr Governor and former candidate for the GOP nomination,Mitt Romney has official endorsed John McCain to be the Republican nominee for the Presidential elections later this year. McCain who has 843 delegates already according to BBC estimates will be incredibly boosted by this decision and Romney's call for his 280 delegates to back John McCain which is already just a 347 delegates away from the 1191 needed to get the nomination.
Romney’s announcement gives both McCain and the GOP a precious item against the Democrats: time; time for McCain to try to unite the party probably via Romney or Huckabee as the Vice Presidential nominee in order to make sure the right are satisfied to some degree alongside a promise to serve just one term and aid a right wing candidate in 2012. It also gives the GOP time not just to unify, but to work out how to campaign effectively against a rejuvenated Democratic Party who could be deciding for months yet whilst the GOP are planning and plotting how to burst their dreams.
As I said in my previous post this could be the key day in the election, but all is still to play for in both parties, but for different reasons as for the Democrats it is a choice between two candidates, the GOP on the other hand are divided on the future direction of the party.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent
Is the Stormin’ Mormon going to endorse Big Mac?
Press reports appear to suggest the Fmr. Gov Mitt Romney who’s well funded campaign ended last week will now be endorsing the frontrunner Arizona Sr. John McCain.
This is significant in two important respects if it does happen: firstly it will help McCain reach across the "aisle" in the GOP to the Conservative right as Romney who touted himself as the "conservative's conservative" will give McCain's candidacy real credibility with the right wing of the GOP and would mean that his place as nominee would be practically ensured as it would knock the wind out of Huckabee's sails who has successfully been seen since Romney's departure as the conservative choice in the GOP fight and it appears that Romney will free his delegates whilst calling on them to support McCain giving him around the number of delegates needed to win. Secondly, this would be significant as it could lead to a McCain-Romney ticket rather than a McCain-Huckabee one which did seem quite possible recently. Such a ticket would be important as it could mean an end to the moderate-conservative split in the Republican Party that would be electorally disastrous and could challenge the very survival of the "Big Tent" party that has existed since the days of Lincoln. Indeed such a ticket could be a very appealing one to the electorate at large with McCain's foreign policy expertise and Romney's business success making him a respected voice on the economy.
For the Democrats they are aware that such a ticket could be devastating to their chances while their two frontrunners slog it out in a race that could go all the way to the convention, they know how dangerous the GOP can be at even the worst of times and if Republicans can unite behind these two men it could be another Republican inhabitant in the West Wing. However, at the time of writing this is still speculation and the GOP is at a crossroads on where to go next. As always keep your eyes on the race and expect the unexpected.
-Adam
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
State of the race: For the Democrats it aint over till the fat Yankee sings
The 2008 Presidential election has already proved to be a compelling and divisive one for both parties with the Democrats at the moment appearing to be split 50:50 between Obama and Clinton and the GOP facing an even deeper division between moderates and the conservative right on the future direction of the party. So with the results of the Potomac Primary at hand let’s reflect on how the race for the Democrat nomination has developed.
The early front runner, the clever political veteran and former First Lady, Sr. Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), whom many believed last year would have already sealed the nomination has found the battle a lot more difficult against the young, talented and captivating junior Senator for Illinois Barack Obama, in fact out of 34 contests Obama has won 23 and is narrowly ahead of her in the number of delegates. So why is she still hanging on in the race? It is because on Super Tuesday the “national primary” she managed to win the delegate rich states of California, New York and New Jersey on a night when Obama won most other states. She still has a good chance because she has been up to now the candidate who has won the “beer vote”: elderly, women, Hispanics and blue collar workers all of whom represent the base of the Democratic Party and are influential sections of the electorate who have found her campaign based on experience and a knowledge of how to use the machinery of Washington. Obama, on the other hand, has been successful with the wine vote: independents, highly educated, better off, blacks and young people which have allowed him to build a solid base in order to gather more and more votes, but they are not as big a chunk of the party electorate as Clinton’s base, however he has energised them and a great deal of other Americans through his charismatic oratory and message of change, hope and of a united America.
However, the dynamics of the race since Super Tuesday are beginning to change for both candidates, Clinton pulled off the big wins but failed to use a night which should have greatly favoured her to pull clear of Obama and perhaps deliver a knock out blow and since then Obama has won 8 contests in a row and actually becoming the candidate with the most delegates. Clinton has seen her base of support shrink with the white vote evenly split in the Potomac Primaries last night and she is beginning to lose the votes of females while Obama is starting not just to attract a significant number of Hilary’s supporters but is in fact gaining more voters from within his base of support with 9/10 blacks voting for him in Virginia. Clinton is also suffering in the money game with Obama taking around $1million a day in January scooping over $30million dollars for that month, Hilary on the other hand had to give $5million of her own money in order to compete. That is a worrying sign for Clinton as money is a key component of modern US politics and the lack of people willing to back her currently isn’t a vote of confidence in her candidacy. She may also be in peril due to her relying like fellow New Yorker and now former GOP candidate, Rudy Giuliani, on the big states to reward her handsomely with big wins now imperative on big states such as Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania in order to remain in the contest.
So, from that you might think it is all going Obama’s way and he’ll end up as the Democrat nominee. Well it isn’t that simple, he has momentum which should lead to him winning Wisconsin on the 19th, but never rule out a Clinton, she has showed what she can do when as the supposed underdog she pulled off a shock win in New Hampshire and unlike Obama she has the support of a majority of Hispanic voters which will be vital in Texas where they make up a significant proportion of the electorate. However, this reliance on the Hispanic vote could be her downfall if Obama can woo them onto his side at the last minute. In truth nothing is certain in the Democrat race apart from one thing: it could go either way and there are plenty more twists and turns in the road ahead.
- Adam
Obama ahead in delegate counts; as McCain maintains stronghold for GOP
by Tom Hinton
Barack Obama has been projected as the winner of all three Democratic primaries in Washington D.C, Maryland and Virginia today, giving him enough delegates to surpass Clintons preceding lead. At least for now…
Clinton has fought an incredible campaign, gaining much of the advantage from Super Tuesday, along with Republican John McCain, who has also been projected as the winner of all three of today’s Republican Primaries.
For a candidate whose Presidential Campaign was pronounced dead in the July of 2007, John McCain has certainly come a long way in winning over the American people. Before the invisible primary had even began, and before the media had started le cirque d'Amérique, John McCain looked like he was losing momentum. He attended the British 2007 Conservative party conference here in the UK, which started an initial buzz around McCain’s shot at the presidency in 2008. It was this buzz that has seen a pleasing resurgence since Super Tuesday.
Super Tuesday, Super Duper Tuesday, or the Tuesday of Destiny; (Feb 5th 2008) saw 24 of the 50 states of the USA hold their primaries and caucuses. These states included significant, conservative southern states like Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama, as well as delegate rich California and Illinois. As far as the Republicans could see it, McCain had this in the bag. His strong patriotism and war hero history won him many votes across the states, including Oklahoma, California and New York; but the Evangelical Christian vote had stuck like a magnet to his intra party opponent – Mike Huckabee. Huckabee was a name that kept cropping up into the early hours of the morning as I watched CNN live online. I started to make notes on the winners of each state, and the first to be called was the state of West Virginia; going to none other than Mike Huckabee. He followed shortly with Georgia, then Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama. Huckabee was so confident on Super Tuesday, in fact, that he boldly stated that “it is! [a two man race] and we’re in it!”
He was right. Despite his second place success on Super Duper Tuesday, Mitt Romney was soon to pull out of the presidential nomination race for the Republican Party. Romney quickly chose to back the McCain campaign, further strengthening his stronghold, post- Super Tuesday. During republican debates and speeches, a name from the past has been echoing throughout. That name, is Ronald Reagan. Reaganomics has been spoken about by every candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, and Romney even went as far as to announce his plans to raise Government Military funding to 4% of the GDP, if elected. The conservative idolisation of the economics of Ronald Reagan is interesting at a time of economic crisis for America. The GOP candidates seem to be rallying the American People into a pack of flag waving army soldiers, as they try to promote some sort of appeal into staying in Iraq.
This may be the key to John McCain’s success in his campaign as of recent. He is almost 600 delegates ahead of Huckabee, and his nomination looks almost certain. As I write this, Maryland exit polls and projections from various news programs and websites announce John McCain as the winner of the Virginia, Washington D.C, and Maryland primaries, all being held today. This result has pretty much secured the nomination for McCain, especially as super delegates are a low percentage; 89 to his 812.
As for the Democrats, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has prevailed over Hillary Clinton today in a three state sweep of delegates, allowing him to surpass Clinton by a mere 23 delegates. The race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is closer than we have ever seen, and the race in question being between a Woman and a Black man, adds whole new meaning to the progression of the attitudes in the USA. As Obama wins more and more states, Hillary Clinton has not won a single state since Super Tuesday, and this is proving to damage her campaign. However, Clinton is concentrating much on the remaining delegate rich states such as Ohio and Texas, which she is sure to win. If Clinton does win these delegate rich states on March 4th, it will be up to Obama to secure such states as North Carolina and Pennsylvania in order to hold on to his last chance of the Democratic Nomination. It would be foolish to rule out Obama as the nomination winner, despite Hillary’s ties in Texas and Ohio, as well as her un-pledged Super Delegates. Obama has already surprised us in states such as Georgia, Alabama and more recently Virginia.
A question that has plagued the minds of election enthusiasts over the last few days is who will be pushed to drop out. In a race so close between Clinton and Obama, someone could drop out before the convention in Denver this coming August giving us a definite knowledge of a nominee. Though it is not likely, a close eye should be kept on the actions of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party as August comes closer. The same can be said for the Republicans, although the gap between Huckabee and McCain is so considerably large at the moment, there would be not much change in political projections between McCain and Huckabee as there would with McCain and Ron Paul, who seems to be acting like a Third Party in the battle for the GOP Nomination. Its all well and good guessing what could happen on the run up to the Conventions in August and September, but what we must concentrate on at the moment is what is happening now. As McCain further strengthens his hold on the lead for the Republican Nomination, Obama has taken a delegate lead over Clinton, but only by a very narrow margin.
If one thing is certain, it is that tonight will be a long night for the Obama campaign. The recent victories spur up a whole new buzz for the Illinois Senator, and his youthful charisma mirrors that of great presidents like JFK. His compassionate connection with the people of America creates an irreplaceable sense of communication and loyalty, which I think will help him in the final months of the Democratic Primaries. In the months to come, and certainly on March 4th, we are likely to see some interesting results for the Obama campaign. Until then, keep a close eye on your screens, because at the moment, anything could happen!
Barack Obama has been projected as the winner of all three Democratic primaries in Washington D.C, Maryland and Virginia today, giving him enough delegates to surpass Clintons preceding lead. At least for now…
Clinton has fought an incredible campaign, gaining much of the advantage from Super Tuesday, along with Republican John McCain, who has also been projected as the winner of all three of today’s Republican Primaries.
For a candidate whose Presidential Campaign was pronounced dead in the July of 2007, John McCain has certainly come a long way in winning over the American people. Before the invisible primary had even began, and before the media had started le cirque d'Amérique, John McCain looked like he was losing momentum. He attended the British 2007 Conservative party conference here in the UK, which started an initial buzz around McCain’s shot at the presidency in 2008. It was this buzz that has seen a pleasing resurgence since Super Tuesday.
Super Tuesday, Super Duper Tuesday, or the Tuesday of Destiny; (Feb 5th 2008) saw 24 of the 50 states of the USA hold their primaries and caucuses. These states included significant, conservative southern states like Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama, as well as delegate rich California and Illinois. As far as the Republicans could see it, McCain had this in the bag. His strong patriotism and war hero history won him many votes across the states, including Oklahoma, California and New York; but the Evangelical Christian vote had stuck like a magnet to his intra party opponent – Mike Huckabee. Huckabee was a name that kept cropping up into the early hours of the morning as I watched CNN live online. I started to make notes on the winners of each state, and the first to be called was the state of West Virginia; going to none other than Mike Huckabee. He followed shortly with Georgia, then Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama. Huckabee was so confident on Super Tuesday, in fact, that he boldly stated that “it is! [a two man race] and we’re in it!”
He was right. Despite his second place success on Super Duper Tuesday, Mitt Romney was soon to pull out of the presidential nomination race for the Republican Party. Romney quickly chose to back the McCain campaign, further strengthening his stronghold, post- Super Tuesday. During republican debates and speeches, a name from the past has been echoing throughout. That name, is Ronald Reagan. Reaganomics has been spoken about by every candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, and Romney even went as far as to announce his plans to raise Government Military funding to 4% of the GDP, if elected. The conservative idolisation of the economics of Ronald Reagan is interesting at a time of economic crisis for America. The GOP candidates seem to be rallying the American People into a pack of flag waving army soldiers, as they try to promote some sort of appeal into staying in Iraq.
This may be the key to John McCain’s success in his campaign as of recent. He is almost 600 delegates ahead of Huckabee, and his nomination looks almost certain. As I write this, Maryland exit polls and projections from various news programs and websites announce John McCain as the winner of the Virginia, Washington D.C, and Maryland primaries, all being held today. This result has pretty much secured the nomination for McCain, especially as super delegates are a low percentage; 89 to his 812.
As for the Democrats, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has prevailed over Hillary Clinton today in a three state sweep of delegates, allowing him to surpass Clinton by a mere 23 delegates. The race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is closer than we have ever seen, and the race in question being between a Woman and a Black man, adds whole new meaning to the progression of the attitudes in the USA. As Obama wins more and more states, Hillary Clinton has not won a single state since Super Tuesday, and this is proving to damage her campaign. However, Clinton is concentrating much on the remaining delegate rich states such as Ohio and Texas, which she is sure to win. If Clinton does win these delegate rich states on March 4th, it will be up to Obama to secure such states as North Carolina and Pennsylvania in order to hold on to his last chance of the Democratic Nomination. It would be foolish to rule out Obama as the nomination winner, despite Hillary’s ties in Texas and Ohio, as well as her un-pledged Super Delegates. Obama has already surprised us in states such as Georgia, Alabama and more recently Virginia.
A question that has plagued the minds of election enthusiasts over the last few days is who will be pushed to drop out. In a race so close between Clinton and Obama, someone could drop out before the convention in Denver this coming August giving us a definite knowledge of a nominee. Though it is not likely, a close eye should be kept on the actions of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party as August comes closer. The same can be said for the Republicans, although the gap between Huckabee and McCain is so considerably large at the moment, there would be not much change in political projections between McCain and Huckabee as there would with McCain and Ron Paul, who seems to be acting like a Third Party in the battle for the GOP Nomination. Its all well and good guessing what could happen on the run up to the Conventions in August and September, but what we must concentrate on at the moment is what is happening now. As McCain further strengthens his hold on the lead for the Republican Nomination, Obama has taken a delegate lead over Clinton, but only by a very narrow margin.
If one thing is certain, it is that tonight will be a long night for the Obama campaign. The recent victories spur up a whole new buzz for the Illinois Senator, and his youthful charisma mirrors that of great presidents like JFK. His compassionate connection with the people of America creates an irreplaceable sense of communication and loyalty, which I think will help him in the final months of the Democratic Primaries. In the months to come, and certainly on March 4th, we are likely to see some interesting results for the Obama campaign. Until then, keep a close eye on your screens, because at the moment, anything could happen!
The Pork Barrel
The Pork Barrel is a blog that aims to provide you with information and discussions concerning the politics of the world today. From the USA to the Middle East and across Europe; we aim to provide you with the latest in world news and political events across the globe.
Watch this space.
Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
