Hillary Clinton has made a common retort to Barack Obama’s message of change that she has experience making change, to the tune of 35 years worth. We all know that she’s been a senator for the last few, so that time definitely counts, but I’m not sure how to assess her time as first lady or her career prior. Fortunately, someone checked into Hillary’s claims of “35 years of experience”, and it turns out that the claim seems reasonable.

Although this is article was from Congressional Quarterly, I recommend FactCheck.org to monitor the candidates truthiness. Also, Bill Moyers has featured a series of excellent interviews with political non-pundit Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the author of several books on elections, politics, and the media.

This has been a public service announcement.

America, you made me proud by knocking out Rudy Guiliani, while he drove in circles. Now let’s dump a couple more of these clowns. As much as I enjoy watching Mitt Romney throw money away, you republicans out there have the easy job of voting for the guy you should have been supporting all along.

Democrats have it a bit tougher. Obama and Clinton have similar policy positions. The election of either would be historic. And while I think Hillary would be a good president, it’s time for fresh blood in Washington. Judging by the direction of recent polls, it seems I’m not alone.

And if you don’t listen to me, I’m going voting Bloomberg.

When she first ran for the senate, Hillary Clinton made a mistake by saying she was a Yankees fan despite previous reports that, with her roots in Illinois, she was a Cubs fan. She later explained that the Yankees were her “American League team.” Clearly these comments were designed with the New York voter in mind. Does anyone think that Hillary has very strong opinions on the matter one way or the other? I don’t remember seeing her at either a Cubs or Yankees game. In any case, when asked by Denver reporters about her opinion of this year’s World Series matchup, she answered, “Neither of my teams is in. I’m going to be an interested but dispassionate observer.” She could have very easily said, “As a Yankees fan, I want to see the Red Sox lose, so I’m pulling for the Rockies,” or “I am very impressed by the never-say-die attitude of the Rockies, so I hope they win.” Instead, she gave the answer that most sports fans would have.

On the other hand, Rudy is supposedly a big Yankees fan. He’s always shown at Yankees games. He rooted for the Yankees against the Mets. He’s also very conscious of his status as a true Yankees fan in the political arena:

“I’m a Yankee fan,” Giuliani replied then. “I always believe it’s a sign of my being straight with people, about not wanting to fool them, that I was one of the first mayors to be willing to say I was a Yankee fan.” [Daily News article]

In no universe should a die hard Yankees fan actually want the Red Sox to become champs again. I guess the political universe is an exception.

Rudy Giuliani is carefully changing his opinion on many an issue in his presidential campaign to court the conservative voter. I get that. Does it really matter to Rudy one way or the other what the legality of abortion is? Does it really matter to him if more stringent gun control laws are passed? Unless he has a gay son that we haven’t heard anything about, do gay rights really matter to Rudy? Maybe a little bit, but not nearly as much as national security and the “war on terror.” So he promises to appoint strict constructionist judges and backtracks on his more liberal positions that he held as mayor of New York.

But I don’t understand this:

“I’m rooting for the Red Sox … I’m an American League fan, and I go with the American League team, maybe with the exception of the Mets,” he said. “Maybe that would be the one time I wouldn’t because I’m loyal to New York.” [AP story]

He could have said, “It pains me to say it, but I think the Red Sox will win,” or “Even though I am a Yankees fan, I recognize that the Sox have had the best team all year.” But to say that he will root for the Red Sox is unacceptable.

America, we cannot allow this type of flip-flopping turncoat into the White House. We need someone with strong, unwavering values. I can think of only one person for the job. Which is why I say to you, vote Romney!

I recently posted about the Secretary of Transportation and her opinion of bicycling as a form of transportation. I received the following response today:

Thank you for your e-mail about the importance of bicycling and walking as a form of transportation. I share your interest in a safe, efficient mullimodal transportation system. Your e-mail discussed comments I made during a recent interview regarding the importance of effectively prioritizing major transportation spending decisions. These comments were in no way intended as an indictment of bicycle and pedestrian investments broadly. Rather, they were part of a much larger critique of the processes by which investment decisions are increasingly being made at the Federal level. Too often, political influence and power arc guiding transportation spending priorities, instead of merit, competition, data, and analysis. The U.S. Department of Transportation believes that bicyclists and pedestrians are legitimate and welcome users of our Nation’s transportation system. They are a healthy part of the solution to congestion in our urban areas. We also believe that States, metropolitan planning organizations, and transit agencies are in the best position to understand the unique needs of their own communities, which is why we have continued to strongly support broad eligibility under the Federal-aid program for a diverse mix of transportation investments, including bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. Programs that improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians arc also eligible for Federal safety dollars. Although the number of bicyclist and pedestrian injuries and fatalities has dropped by 10 percent since 1994, fatalities have increased in the last 2 years, and this is not acceptable.

Thank you again for voicing your opinion. I hope to continue to work with bicycling and pedestrian advocates as we face the challenges of meeting our country’s changing
transportation needs.

Sincerely yours,
Mary E. Peters

Mary Peters is the Secretary of Transportation in the United States of America. She said the following on PBS’s NewsHour:

Well, there’s about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails.

I was under the impression that bikes were a form of transportation. When I ride my bicycle to work, I definitely feel like I’m being transported. However, Mary Peters has a degree from the University of Phoenix (you may have seen the commercials for their online degree programs) and is the Secretary of Transportation, so I will believe her.

I spent my lunch checking out the announced 2008 presidential candidate’s campaign websites to see what they had to say about solar energy as a solution to the energy crisis. Here’s what I found:

• Barack Obama: There is no specific mention of solar on his “Meeting Energy Needs” page. Presumably it’s incorporated into “renewables,” but the emphasis of Obama’s plans are conservation and bio-fuel/ethanol.
• Hillary Clinton: There is no specific mention of solar on her “Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming” page, and again I presume solar is included as a “renewable energy” source. Clinton’s plans to spend $50 billion to attack the energy problem, virtually from every direction, but there are no details on how this money would be divided.
• John Edwards: Edwards has a very detailed plan entitled “Achieving Energy Independence & Stopping Global Warming Through A New Energy Economy.” Part of this plan is a $13 billion per year commitment to the energy problem, including increased investment in development and implementation of solar technology. On a local level, Edwards wants to offer tax credits for homes and businesses that generate electricity on-site from solar panels. He also proposes starting a “GreenCorps,” an environmentally directed service program, which would install solar panels among other things.
• Bill Richardson: Solar is not mentioned specifically on his energy page. Richardson wants an increased use of “renewables” (presumably including solar) and a carbon offset scheme established.
• Joe Biden: There is only a cursory, two-paragraph description of Biden’s energy plans on his issues page.
• Chris Dodd: Dodd has a very detailed policy for energy independence. Included is investment of upto $50 billion per year in renewable technology, including solar, paid for by a carbon offset tax. He also proposes tax credits for solar generation of electricity.
• Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich wants to invest in development and implementation of renewable technology by means of a $50 billion “Global Green Deal.”
• John McCain: There is no specific page or section describing McCain’s plans for the energy crisis, let alone solar. There is a transcript of an interview with the National Review where he states, “I’m for solar,” but prefers expansion of nuclear energy.
• Rudy Giuliani: Energy is not mentioned on his issues page.
• Mitt Romney: Romney briefly outlines his thoughts on his energy page, but solar is not mentioned specifically. His proposed policies are aimed at ending the US dependence on foreign oil as a security concern, not an environmental issue.

Winners: Edwards and Dodd have the most detailed proposals for dealing with the energy crisis and climate change with solar as a key component.
Losers: McCain and Giuliani don’t think energy is even worth having on their sites in any capacity.

In contrast to our 16th President, according to our current President: “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”

This is a fine policy if, that is, there are enough people that you can fool all of the time. I don’t know what that number is. Fortunately, PollingReport.com has the answer:

A Quinnipiac University Poll asked registered voters nationwide, “Thinking about the United States presidents we have had since World War II which one would you consider the best president?”

28% – Ronald Reagan
25% – Bill Clinton
18% – John Kennedy
7% – Harry Truman
5% – Jimmy Carter
5% – Dwight Eisenhower
3% – George W. Bush
2% – George H. W. Bush
1% – Gerald Ford
1% – Lyndon Johnson
1% – Richard Nixon
4% – No opinion

I would have thought it was higher, but there you have it, 3% of America is fooled all the time.

Continue reading →