Brazil: Hugo Chavez is a "Cheap Hitler"

(h/t The News Buckit and Gateway Pundit)

Leaders from both major political parties in Brazil, as well as President Lula de Silva, lashed out at Venezuelan president/dictator Hugo Chavez. Among other things, they called Chavez "a cheap Hitler or Mussolini", a "dictator in disguise", a threat to peace on the continent.

Brazilian Senate president Renan Calheiros stated that if "a head of state can’t tolerate or live with democratic protests, probably he’s against democracy." Many in the Brazilian Senate are now calling for President Lula to end the diplomacy of "excessive tolerance" towards Venezuela.

Chavez called the Brazilian Congress "a parrot that repeats whatever Washington says."

I think Chavez is starting to feel the heat. He's completely alienating himself from the rest of the continent...as well as his own people.

The protests in Venezuela remind me about another civil uprising against socialist/communist regimes that climaxed 18 years ago, today...Tienanmen Square.

2nd Time Around for the Dems...

Watched the Donkey debate on CNN last night, here's what I got from it.

Right off the bat, Wolf Blitzer took a shot at Fox News by saying "there will be no bells, no flashing lights" to signal the end of the candidate's time to speak. In fact, Wolf did a horrible job keeping the candidates all in line, and you ended up with some periods of visual and audio chaos, with cameras attempting to keep up with who was saying what. Anderson Cooper could've done a better job, and CNN did need a bell/buzzer/light of some kind.

Immigration was the shortest-debated issue. I really feel that the Democrats are attempting to let the Republicans tear each other apart on this issue. Politically-speaking, this is a smart move on their part. None of the candidates seemed enthusiastic about the issue, not like they were about Iraq and health care reform.

On to the candidates, and where they stand in the race...

- Mike Gravel is the Democrat version of Ron Paul. He represents a small minority of his party, and is very passionate about what he says and believes. For the first half of the debate, Gravel was pretty subdued and calm, except for a few bursts of "Gravel-mania". The second half of the debate, he let loose the "angry old man" persona. Gravel has been out, but he's at least good for pointing out the problems with all of the other Democratic candidates. Especially when they bring up all of these wonderful new programs, like paying for college educations, and have no plan to pay for it.

- Dennis Kucinich (or as I call him, "The Mistake from the Lake"), is the Democratic Party's version of a really radical Tom Tancredo, a two-issue candidate who needs to speak up to be heard on other issues, because he otherwise gets drowned out. Kucinich looks like a spineless puppet, and I don't think that's what the Democratic voters want. He's fine where he is, one man amongst hundreds in the House of Representatives. Kucinich might find himself as a cabinet member to a Dem president, but that's it. Kucinich is out.

- Christopher Dodd seemed to be debating for re-election to the U.S. Senate. Nothing that stood out to me. He seemed to have the same points of view as your average Democrat, with nothing to distinguish him from the pack. He's a possible VP pick if the Dems can't get two "stars" to work together on a ticket. Dodd has a "talk clock" that shows who got the most speaking time. Dodd, unsurprisingly, is near the bottom...but look at the difference between Gravel and the rest of the candidates. It's good for a laugh.

- Joe Biden was maaaad as hell, and he wasn't about to take it. However, it doesn't seem like the voters are going to take it from him, either. Biden showed fire and intensity, which was lacking in the last debate, which was more of a virtual lovefest between the candidates. However, I don't think Democrats WANT a leader that is this angry. Then again, Biden did draw a lot of attention to himself, and if he can tone back the anger in the upcoming debates, he may draw more support. Many people know that the "D" in Democrat stands for Dark Horse, and I think Biden is emerging into that role.

- Bill Richardson pulled a Tommy Thompson/Jim Gilmore and repeatedly referred to his tenure as Governor of New Mexico. While it's good to lay out your credentials, most voters want to also hear what you plan on doing, not just what you have done. Richardson, who has had some momentum because of his notable campaign ads and his credentials as a politician, did not impress last night. Richardson right now is barely in there, but is most likely vying for VP or a high-ranking cabinet post.

- John Edwards, despite all the praise from the Democratic bloggers, really didn't say much that would appeal to swing voters. He noticeably left his "war on poverty" platform at the door, as many people believe that he doesn't know anything about poverty beyond the trailer park across the street from his sprawling estate. He tried too hard to endear himself to the Clinton and Obama supporters by repeating his apparent praise and admiration for various proposals by the two frontrunners, without pointing out why his proposals are better. Edwards is still in, but from listening to Democratic voters on C-SPAN, they didn't seem impressed. To me, Edwards looked like a boy amongst men.

- Barack Obama did very well in this debate. He was a bit more articulate and detailed than I had previously seen, and seemed poised, confident, and at ease both standing up and sitting down. Obama focused on his credentials, but did not dwell upon them too much (which is smart, given his relatively limited amount of political experience). By formulating his health care reform plan, Obama shows that he can get down to creating actual plans of action, instead of simply speaking in broad tones of "hope and prosperity". I also like that Obama emphasized that by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, he's only letting them rise to Bill Clinton-era levels, and has no immediate plan to increase taxes beyond that (we'll see, Barack, we will see). Obama is definitely in.

- Hillary Clinton actually did pretty well, in my opinion. She moved herself closer to center than the rest of the Democratic candidates (which isn't saying much, really), and stated that although she plans to increase taxes, she too doesn't plan to go beyond the levels of her husband's administration at this time (as I said with Obama, we'll see if that continues to remain true). However, she has enough appeal to pull moderate voters in the primaries...but she may very well lose those voters in an election if the Republicans put up a good candidate against her. Nonetheless, Hillary is definitely in.

I got what I expected from this debate. A lot of near-unanimous finger-pointing at Bush, tons of gaggle over attempts to create universal (read: Government-run) health care, and promises that taxes will go up.

What did you think?

Weekly Podium: "The Immigration Bill Controversy"

(cross-posted at The New Dominion)

Unless you’ve been under a rock for the past few weeks, you know that there is a very controversial immigration bill that is being formulated and finished in the U.S. Senate right now. The general feeling among many, including myself, is that this bill creates a program that, for all intents and purposes, grants amnesty to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in our nation. This bill concerns me as both a conservative and the son of an immigrant.

I am concerned as the son of an immigrant, because the legal path to come to America, as well as my mother’s legal path to citizenship, will be tossed aside for these immigrants who chose to come into our country by violating American law. I do not find it right to diminish the legacies of the families whose ancestors came through Ellis Island or other venues of documented, legal immigration.

We need stronger border security, and have the flow of illegal immigrants from our nation’s southern border reduced as much as possible. Also, we need illegal immigrants that are arrested for other crimes committed to be handed over to I.C.E. and deported, as well as any other illegals caught in our country.

What message does it send when we say “ok, you broke the law…now, here’s your path to citizenship.”?

To me, and my mother, and many other immigrants and their descendents, the message they receive is, “Well, thank you for obeying the law, following the legal process to come to America, and thank you for your hard work. However, that was then, and this is now, and it’s too bad you couldn’t have waited a few decades to take advantage of this.”

Those who support this bill, or support providing the reward of legal status in our nation to illegal aliens, will tell you stories of families that are scared to be deported. They’ll report about how they do the jobs that no American will do. However, they’ll totally ignore the fact that these people blatantly ignored American law in the first place.

I know why most people come to America. They come here for a better life, to prosper and to enjoy the fruits of capitalism and American democracy. Legal immigration is great and needs to be encouraged and made more efficient.

However, to reward someone who did not come here legally completely circumvents the purpose of having these laws.

I am concerned about all of this as a conservative, because this bill is being backed by some members of the Republican Party, including George W. Bush himself. Many key Bush appointees and supporters are verbally attacking other conservatives who are concerned and/or completely outraged at this bill. Among those attacking conservatives against this bill are Linda Chavez (former nominee for Secretary of Labor), Michael Chertoff (Secretary of Homeland Security), and George W. Bush himself.

Peggy Noonan asked an excellent question in a recent op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal.

“Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives?”

That is an excellent question. This is a question I do not know the answer to. However, this may actually signal the most significant shift in the Republican base in quite some time. Conservatives, who once rallied behind Bush, now feel that he has directly alienated the wishes of his core base of supporters.

This is causing a severe fracture amongst conservatives, Republican and Independents alike. Some, who have staunchly supported President Bush, are not quite ready to give up on him. Then, there are those who believe that Bush is not listening or even caring about what those who have supported him to this point, despite all of the problems with the Iraq War that have alienated some moderate and anti-war conservatives.

Up until this point, I’ve supported the majority of President Bush‘s policy initiatives. I have believed for a long time that many in his cabinet and in the intelligence departments (people he trusted to give him good advice and the right information) provided bad or misguided advice to him, and this is part of the reason why the Iraq War has had it‘s problems. Facts have proven those thoughts to be, to varying degrees, correct. I believe that President Bush has done some good things to keep the economy strong during a wartime period, and that his tax cuts have helped more Americans than the media would like you to believe.

However, I also believe that on this immigration issue, President Bush pretty much stands alone.

He has shown a lot of initiative in getting this exact immigration bill formulated and passed. He has denounced the criticism of those who oppose this bill. Donations to the Republican National Committee are off 40% from where they should be, this is mainly due to dissatisfaction with this proposed legislation and Bush’s criticism of those who oppose it.

In a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, only 16% of Americans believe this bill will reduce illegal immigration, which is supposed to be the point of this whole piece of legislation. Only 26% of those polled actually support the poll. 74% believed that this bill would do nothing to help eliminate illegal immigration, and 41% believed that illegal immigration would increase under this bill.

The Iraq War has more support and more optimism amongst Americans than this proposed piece of legislation.

The Democrats have been noticeably quiet during the heated debate about this bill. Even in the June 3rd Democratic Party debate on CNN, there was a question posed to the candidates about the immigration bill, and while the candidates gave their thoughts on the bill (most agreed with it to some extent), it was not dwelled upon too heavily.

This is a smart move by the Democrats. They’re letting the GOP tear itself apart over this issue, which helps to ensure victories in the 2007 and 2008 elections for the Democrats. To some writers, pundits, and analysts, this is the culmination of 4 years of self-destruction by the Republican Party, and this will lead to a 20 year dominance by the Democrats in our government.

However, I see it differently. I see this as the majority of Republicans are regrouping and reforming the party’s stances. They’re not going to stand for compromises that compromise national security and reward breaking the law. I wrote a few weeks ago that the GOP was in the process of refocusing itself as a party, and that refocusing is taking place amongst politicians and voters alike.

Maybe that’s why we’re seeing conservatives floating towards candidates like Fred Thompson, who are seen as conservatives without leaning too far right or too close to the center to represent the majority of the GOP base, as well as be attractive to independents and swing voters.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that most Americans don’t have confidence in this immigration bill. Sometimes, both Congress and the White House have to do things that are unpopular with the general population, because it’s what is good for our nation. However, in this case, I cannot see where this bill will do much good for the illegal immigration problem. In fact, you can read the bill yourself here.

I’ll let you make your own conclusions on this piece of legislation. Hopefully, you’ll see the reasons why the American public, Democrats and Republicans alike, are largely against this bill.

Fred Thompson Speech on C-SPAN

(h/t SWAC Girl)

Fred Thompson's speech at the RPV Gala last night in Richmond will be televised on C-SPAN's "Road to the White House" at 9:30 and 12:30 tonight. Apparently, Thompson's speech was a very positive one for him, and was extremely well-received. I know I'll have my DVR set to record this speech, and you should do the same :)

UPDATE

I just watched the speech...this man simply makes a lot of sense. He speaks to the average American like nobody else in this presidential race, and he has all the right ideas for America.

When the time comes, America...please, VOTE FRED THOMPSON.

Couric's Ratings Speak Volumes About Image

The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric has suffered tremendous ratings downfalls since Couric took over for Bob Schieffer on September 5, 2006. Her first broadcast drew in 13.6 million viewers. During the week of May 20-26, the news program averaged 5.96 million viewers (credit Bloomberg.com for the statistics).

Many believe that this is a case of "older white male domination" of the media, and so forth. However, I'm not sure how a few older while men in suits control the remote controls of millions of Americans, who switched over to other news programs on other channels.

In fact, what I think this proves is that America has no problem with middle-aged to older white males broadcasting, or in any position of power, as long as they have substance.

Not to say that Katie Couric is a bad anchorwoman, but she simply isn't seen by many Americans as a journalist with high credentials and substance...at least, not enough to be anchoring the evening news on one of the big 3 networks.

This tells me that those decrying the idea of "jowly, older white men" shouldn't be running for political office, because they don't have the right "look" is somewhat bogus. When you boil things down to the bare-bones basics, substance is what eventually motivates Americans in one direction or another. Whether it be moral substance, ethical substance, or political substance...there has to be something beyond the image and the flair.

JFK Terror Plot - Blind Eye Turned by the Left?

Well, the "cool kids" over at Daily Kos believe that the U.S. Government is lying and making up the bust of the terrorist plot to blow up JFK Airport (caution, tons of foul language in the Daily Kos post...which is not surprising, though).

Really, this post is more of a blast at the conservative blog Little Green Footballs for noticing that many popular leftist blogs had remained completely silent after this news broke, including Daily Kos..who only responded after the post at LGF brought this point to light.

The News Buckit echoes LGF's sentiments, and is one of the first blogs to bring up the reports of active Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the Caribbean.

Why is it hard to believe that we're breaking up terrorist plots all the time? Especially considering how much attention our Intel organizations are focusing on terrorism. I love the fact that the Daily Kos post also states that the recent Fort Dix plot is another "made up" terror plot by the U.S. Government.

There is a growing sense of delusion amongst some blogs, that's why many feel that Daily Kos has "jumped the shark", and is simply heading nowhere by down from here.

Media Spin on the Venezuela Uprising

Wuzza Dem has an interesting take on the mainstream media coverage of the intense civil uprising in Venezuela against Hugo Chavez's hard-line socialist government

He mentions that some of the article titles he has read were completely ambiguous and do not really capture the real story at all.

For instance, two headlines he mentions are "Venezuelan TV Station Shutdown Sparks Criticism" and "Venezuela TV Station Shuts Down". Yes, those headlines capture the scene of thousands of protesters filling the streets of Caracas each and every day for several days now.

Check out the video at the Wuzza Dem link above, and tell me it doesn't remind you of Tienanmen Square, circa 1989.

All Candidates On The Issues

Check out every political leader on the issues here.

You can see where they stand on many important issues.

Scroll to the bottom to see their political leanings as defined by their votes and comments. Also, take the "Vote Match" quiz to see your political philosophy and what candidates you most closely match ideologically speaking.

Out of the presidential candidates, I match closest to Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter...go figure. My ideology is defined as a Populist-Leaning Conservative. I found that to be somewhat true, but there are those who say this test is flawed, so take it with a grain of salt.

Have fun.