Al Gore, US Grant: Both Deny Presidential Bids

Future presidential campaign hotspot?
Al Gore vs. Ulysses Grant in a coming presidential election?

Both deny it.

Gore was Vice-President 1993-2000, Grant was president 1869-77.

Former Vice President Al Gore denied again that there were any campaign plans in his immediate future, but told CNN Monday that he hadn't "ruled out getting back into the political process at some point" — and that if he did return to political life, it would be to take another shot at the White House.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate, speaking from the Oslo site of Monday's awards ceremony, told CNN's Jonathan Mann that he didn't expect to ever get back in the political process, but that "if I did get back, it would be as a candidate for president."

He added that "the political system as it now operates makes it very difficult" for any of the current crop of candidates to make climate change issues a top priority.

As per usual--for a Democrat--the urge to pimp for a tax proved irresistible for Gore.

"A tax is the easiest and most effective way to deal with climate change"

While Gore is known for his battles against the climate, Grant is well-known for his battles against Confederates.

A distinguished British historian has written of Grant's success at Vicksburg that "we must go back to the campaigns of Napoleon to find equally brilliant results accomplished in the same space of time with such a small loss.

While Gore was in Oslo denying future presidential aspirations, Grant was in New York City. A spokesman for Grant said, "President Grant has no interest or ability to do the heavy campaigning necessary for president."

Grant's spokeman denied recent reports that Grant was "too lazy" for a presidential bid.

"President Grant is as active now as he was 20 years ago."

Despite repeated attempts, Grant himself could not be reached for a statement.

by Mondoreb
[image:larrylivermore]
Sources:
CNN - US, China Must Lead Fight Against 'Planetary Emergency'
Wikipedia - Ulysses S. Grant



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Ron Paul - Get Excited

Ron Paul - Get Excited - Amazing videos are here

Our entry into the 30-second YouTube competition for the CNN debates.



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

McCain: "I'd Shoot Osama": "OK, Maybe I Wouldn't"

[e-graphic]
by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn

Presidential candidate John McCain wouldn't be mistaken for Dog, the Bounty Hunter, but he sounded a bit like him today in New Hampshire.
Boston.com:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain told workers of small weapons factory that he not only wants to catch Osama Bin Laden if elected, but said he "will shoot him with your products".

"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products," McCain said.

After making the stirring soundbite, McCain then issued a statement making listeners think his next stop was breakfast at the Waffle House.

McCain told reporters afterward he was joking when he made the comment at Thompson Center Arms in Rochester.

"I certainly didn't mean I would actually shoot him. I am certainly angry at him, but I was only speaking in a way that was trying to emphasize my point," McCain said. "I would not shoot him myself."

McCain later made a stab at a clarification and backtracked. Daily Pundit, on the other hand, issued no clarification:

I, for instance, don’t need to be elected to anything to want to put a slug through Islamabama’s murderous skull, nor do I need that slug to be from any particular “weapon’s factory.”

Why is it that presidential candidates have this urge, this tender feeling, about not offending anyone? Even if the offended person is a terrorist mastermind holed up in a cave somewhere in Pakistan? Or his apologists and well-wishers?

Sign at the next McCain rally: "Fight the Reflex, John!"



Back to Front Page.

The Military & Campaign Contributions: Paul, Obama & McCain Leaders?

by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn
The story is dressed up to show that anti-war critcs/candidates Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead in campaign contributions from military givers. But is that the story? or is this story from the Houston Chronicle the story?

From the Houston Chronicle:

According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.

Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.

He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush's decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.

The story might just be the Chronicle's methodology in determining it's results. Which is sad, because it throws cold water on what might have been an interesting look at the rates of giving among the military instead of an analysis of Houston Chronicle story contruction. Paul, Obama and McCain supporters have a right to be disappointed when doubts are raised about this story's validity.

No information about the rates of military campaign contributions. No look back at how the military actually votes in presidential election. Not a word of the "Chronicle's analysis" and its methodology. No information on the analytical tools used by the Chronicle.

But the "analysis" was able to determine the dollar amounts of the various candidates was calculated down to the very dollar. Impressive.

No info, just breathless headlines. Must be the Houston Chronicle way.

The Ron Paul Phenomenon:Manufactured or Real?

by Hummmbert
FIRST of Three Parts

No doubt about it: Ron Paul seems to be everywhere in the news these days. If he's not raising one million dollars in seven days, he's taking down a straw poll in another small hamlet or winning online media polls after a Republican debate. But is the Congressman from Texas riding an increasing groundswell of popularity out among Americans? Or does he have an ardent cadre of uber-supporters?

As the only Libertarian in the presidential race from either party, Paul's views on the War in Iraq are probably his best known. He unabashedly wants a troop pull-out and no "foreign adventures". But some of his other positions are positively mainstream conservative.

From Wikipedia:
Paul says that the Republican Party has lost its commitment to limited government and has instead become the party of big government.[2] He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[3] His unwillingness to vote for proposals not expressly authorized by the Constitution, along with his medical degree, have earned him the nickname “Dr. No.

Mainstream conservative positions, check.

Paul supports free trade, states' rights, tighter border security, gun ownership, unofficial and voluntary school prayer

Again, all good conservative positions. It's some of Paul's other stands that have Libertarians cheering and mainline Republicans shaking their collective heads.

He favors changing the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy to only discipline heterosexual or homosexual behavior if it is disruptive. Paul opposes the Iraq war.

He is against the War on Drugs (a Death by 1000 Papercuts' position, as anyone perusing this site will soon discover) and "an unshakable foe of abortion".

Andrew Sullivan, predictably, says Paul is the real deal.

The conservative pundits are now referring to Ron Paul as a "crackpot." Hannity predictably savaged him last night (see above). The Hewitt site has an image of a man in a tin-foil hat; Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt both call for removing Paul from the debates, when he has been the best thing about them so far. Bill Benett wants him out. I'm getting the usual ridicule for taking him seriously from the usual GOP apparatchiks. They're scared, aren't they? The Internet polls show real support for him. Fox News' own internet poll placed him a close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers. We have a real phenomenon here - because someone has to stand up for what conservatism once stood for.

And here's at least one source accusing CNN of deleting information from their website that's beneficial to Paul.

[A blog] mysteriously disappeared from CNN’s website and redirected to the June 3rd democratic debate after overwhelming support for Ron Paul. From GNN

Google "Ron Paul" and one finds over 43 MILLION results. So something's going on. However, until all this Internet and "soft support" translates into hard electoral gains--in a real election, with real voters--Paul won't be taken seriously by many.

There's much to like about Ron Paul--and much to dislike. His position on the War in Iraq remains a deal-breaker for many in the G.O.P.

One prediction: he'll remain controversial, stirring as many jeers and he does cheers. He's going to have to show that he's truly popular with 'Main Street' voters, just not his hard-core supporters who range the internet and call-in polls. Until he moves beyond that second tier of Republican candidates, and challenges the front-running four of Romney, Giuliani and Thompson and McCain, he and his supporters will be on the outside looking in.

But still the question remains: Is this apparent Ron Paul support real or just a result of zealous supporters? And if the support is real, will it continue to grow? Can he move into that Top Level of candidates?
We'll take a look at that in Part Two.

First in a three-part series examining the "Ron Paul Phenomenon".
NEXT PART: Is it Real?

DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.


Back to Front Page

Health Care: Little Baby Ginn Interviews JOHN EDWARDS?

YOU SAY "MANDATORY", I SAY "NANNY STATE"

by Little Baby Ginn

I’m sitting here thinking about John Edwards and I’m thinking what the heck is he? I know for a fact that he’s loves to run for office, he’s turned his bid for the Democratic Presidential hopeful into his “occupation” and why not? He gets to go out and schmooze people while they fork over their money so he can keep going out and schmooze more people. A “perpetual schmoozing” machine with perhaps an Oval Office prize at the end. The press follows him around, the gullible fawn over him, and if for some reason Hillary and Obama were to fall out of the race, then, hey, who’s the Dems gonna call? Johnny On The Spot Edwards.

Avast ye, Johnny! Yarrr! I'll run ye through!


So I wonder, here he is, out campaigning, and saying stuff. Is anyone paying attention? Did anyone happen to catch Johnny’s latest Deep Thoughts on “Mandatory Health Care.” Here’s what Johnny had to say:

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

More here.

I decided to sit down and have an imaginary question and answer session with Johnny Edwards.


Me: So John, I read your statement about your plans for a national health care system and all I can say is, cool beans, John!


John: Why thank you very much, Little Baby Ginn and I can tell by looking at you that you’re in perfect health.


Me: Why thank you, John Edwards, and yes, I am. Let me read what you said the other day. You said about your proposed national health care plan, “It requires that everybody be covered.” This is slightly different than say, everyone is covered, right?”


Johnny: Well, that’s not true, Little Baby Ginn, see, under my plan, everyone is covered, so if you get sick, you have medical care, the finest medical care.”


Me: “Well, that’s terrific but you also said this:


“If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."
That kind of sounds to me, you know, if you don’t choose a doctor then you’re out of luck?”


Johnny: I wouldn’t put it that way, Little Baby Ginn, I said, you need to pick a doctor…”


Me: Yes, you said from “birth to death.”


Johnny: That’s right, from birth to death, the whole idea is continuum of care so that you will be able to prevent a future illness. Everyone has to be healthy.


Me: What if you decide you don’t like the idea of being forced to see a doctor? That you’d prefer to see a doctor, say, when you got sick?”


Johnny: Well, (laughs), that’s a bad decision, you need to have a doctor and see one regularly in order to prevent illness.


Me: Well, this, on its face, is true. But some would like to have a choice on whether or not they’d want to have to go see a doctor. To some, this smacks of Big Brother and the way I see it, you say that if someone doesn’t choose to see a doctor then they forfeit their right to health care.


Johnny: This is true, either you’re in the program or you don’t get the benefits.


Me: So if someone pays taxes which funds this program and they decide not to follow your rules then they will be locked out, right? Even though they paid for it?”


Johnny: I wouldn’t look at it that way, Little Baby Ginn, that’s too cynical.


Me: But true, right? No follow your rules, no health care?”


Johnny: No, not true, again you’re being misleading.
Read the rest of LittleBabyGinn's grilling of John Edwards


DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to Front Page.