Friday, October 19, 2007

Clinton vs. Giuliani: "Hillary's already won it..."

Source: Real Clear Politics

As national media focuses even more on the top to candidates as the race gets closer to the early primary states, Hillary vs. Rudy seems to be the topic of every discussion. Giuliani seems to attack Hillary in almost every speech pretty much telling the republican base, I can beat her! As national polls continue to match up Hillary vs. Rudy, even most republicans believe that only Giuliani is strong enough to beat Hillary.

In what seems to be the first attack from the Clinton Campaign against her leading GOP competitor, Mark Penn, leading startegist for Hillary for President, says essentially Hillary has already beat Rudy.

"We started in New York about seven or eight [percentage points] behind; when he dropped out we were seven or eight ahead," Mark Penn said, referring to — and perhaps overstating — polls from Clinton's 2000 Senate race against Giuliani. "We have gone through a cycle with Giuliani."

From Politico Article

This is very interesting attack on the Giuliani as it makes Republicans remember this element of Giuliani's history that Rudy hopes they forget. Nothing would energize the Republican base more than Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee, to them she represents all things Liberal. The Republicans though are in it to really win it, stick it to Hillary and in turn Bill as well, a vision that many conservatives I'm sure dream about. Rudy is suppose to be that guy, being the protector of NY, a vision for a safe terrorist free America and with lower taxes what Republican won't love him? Well as great as all those elements are if there is any light into the fact that the Republcian Nominee CAN'T beat Hillary they will lose hope.

This isn't good for Rudy, with Romney leading in the Early Primary States and Huckabee and McCain growing in popularity I think the schedule works against Rudy from the getgo. Then bringing light to the fact that Giuliani has already lost a battle to Hillary in NY will surely turn off many conservatives. As we continue to move forward what you see is that the Republican race is very much in the air. These next few months really will show if the strong national support Rudy has can translate into key state primaries and with republican heartland voters.


Thursday, October 18, 2007

Brownback Drops Out, Huckabee to Gain?

Several news sources are reporting that Senator Brownback of Kansas is dropping his bid for the Whitehouse. This is the the second recent GOP candidate to drop, the first being Former Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

The race is really starting to enter prime time as the money end of the game is really starting to take over. By Friday Senator Brownback isn't expected to have more than $95,000 cash on hand and although only plays 2% of the polls, really drummed up a great deal of the support with the Evangelical Christians. This foundation of the republican party has yet to find a solid candidate that aligns with their views and identity and it seems that Mike Huckabee is picking up from the demographic.

Huckabee has all to gain from Brownback dropping out in both votes and financial. He has consistently been second to Romney in Iowa polls, whose success is credited to the over 10,000 ad spots his campaign has purchased to raise awareness and profile for Mitt Romney. Huckabee appeals to the conservative voters and as governor of Arkansas can claim to have the executive experience needed to run the country.

Can Huckabee gain from this? What do you think?


Common Ground - By Raj Verma

Back to Fundamentals

In response to last week’s USINPAC Quick Vote on whether the U.S. Constitution and American form of government was founded on Christian principles, the answer must be undeniably in the affirmative. What is remarkable to observe in our society is the degree of outrage and animosity displayed by some individuals and groups when a public official makes a statement affirming the idea that this country was founded on Christian principles. These groups find this assertion offensive and an affront to their own religious expression. More and more, we see an exaggerated sensitivity among various groups who deny the historical facts of this nation’s heritage. To say that this country was not founded on Christian principles and/or beliefs is tantamount to saying that the Apollo space mission to the moon was actually a bogus plot that was captured on film in the desert of Arizona. While the Constitution and American form of government was forged primarily out of a compromise among competing articulations of an effectively governed society and political expediency, nevertheless it is absolutely true that the Constitution rests on Christian principles. In turn, this is not to state that non-Christians in a democratic society cannot be leaders or stewards of democratic principles, nor does it imply that we are strictly a ‘Christian-nation’. It appears that we all too often are over-sensitive to public statements that simply iterate the historical truth about the nation’s heritage and foundation, which by all measures, has been eminently successful. Many times, we attempt to replace statements about faith, principles and values grounded in Christianity as remarks that condemn and submerge other religious groups. This should not and is not the case. Rather, by affirming the intellectual honest answer that the Constitution and American form of government possesses clear Christian principles, we can still have an ideologically diverse society, reconciled by the fact that universally-acknowledged values, albeit Christian values, drive our nation’s glory and not to the exclusion of other religious or non-religious groups.

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution fully recognized, not by their own personal desire, but out of necessity, that a peaceful, organized, and enriched democratic society could not withstand the forces of divisiveness and depravity that exists as part of human nature unless a higher authority was invoked. In devising the Constitution, these ‘wise men’ did not simply grasp principles out of thin air. Rather, the Founding Fathers were entrenched in Christian intellectual thought (even though some of the Founding Fathers claimed to be Deists) and others were Christians themselves. The enormous pitfalls and political devastation in Europe prior to 1776 illustrates the perspective and context by which the American form of government and Constitution was crafted. Although the Founding Fathers were fully aware of the harm placed on a society that constructed government as a purely religious institution, unduly indoctrinating their constituents, the key issue that was to be addressed in crafting the document was recognizing the nature of humanity and what kinds of principles and beliefs accurately reflected human behavior. The Christian principles of human depravity and dignity were extracted from the Bible to influence the Constitution and American form of separate but equal government, precisely because these principles accurately reflected what was observed in the human condition. Furthermore, the written statements of James Madison, John Adams, and Daniel Webster, among others, evidence the principles of Christianity in the Constitution (although the term ‘God’ is not displayed in the Constitution itself, rather, the principles of Christianity are firmly exhibited). James Madison, considered the ‘architect of the Constitution,’ noted, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Whether it be religiously inspired or culturally inscribed, the average and common citizen can agree on universally acknowledged values that the Constitution rests upon. The principles of human depravity and dignity, respect for authority and rule of law, among others, are favorably recognized among many other religious and non-religious citizens. As a result, citizens from any religious or non-religious faith can emerge as leaders of this country, whether it be as board member of the local school district, to President of the United States, as long as that person can be held responsible for safeguarding the democratic and Christian principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.

It is important, as a nation, not to become overly-sensitive to comments made by public officials or private citizens who remark about the foundation of this country’s heritage as ‘Christian-based’. Hindus, Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, and atheists should not feel alarmed or threatened when a statement is made that ‘this country is founded on Christian principles’. The statement is a recognition of what is (a fact)-good or bad- and in that sense can only be good, because this country has progressed over the course of 200 years to fully accommodate the different views, perspectives, and beliefs of a variety of people, without compromising its foundational elements. Of course, it is entirely appropriate to condemn and exercise outrage when public statements about a particular people and their beliefs are made in condescending fashion, such as the case with political candidate George Allen’s reference to Indian-Americans as ‘Maccaccas’. But to smuggle in the course of discussion legitimate statements made about this country’s Christian heritage into the category of Allen’s reprehensible remarks is misguided and unworthy, because it debases the truth and historical facts to that of lies and half-truths. The interpretation of many non-Christian groups about public statements made about the country’s heritage as an assault on their own beliefs is quite odd, and sadly, unnecessary. In the final analysis, we need only agree that the principles of this country, whether or not one believes are derived from Christianity, are effective and have successfully produced excellent citizens, and that to continue on this positive trend, we need moral and virtuous leaders (Christian or non-Christian) to safeguard these principles and values- the very principles that make this country unique and enriched.

Raj Verma, JD/MPA
Blog Contributor

Raj Verma is the President of the Future Leaders Council for USINPAC. He currently resides in Washington DC.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Bobby Jindal – for President?

While the 2008 presidential election is just a few months away from primary season, the race for Louisiana’s governorship is coming to a close with Indian-American Bobby Jindal leading. If Jindal can pull off a 50% victory this Saturday, he’ll be planning his move to the Governor’s Mansion in Baton Rouge a little earlier than expected. If he fails to get 50%, the race will result in a runoff on November 17th. Either way, Jindal is a clear favorite with the most recent poll giving him 50% of the vote and his closest rivals 9%.

Jindal has been a bright star in this rather low point of a year for the GOP. In some ways his political career is reminiscent of Barack Obama. Some conservative commentators have labeled him the Obama with actual experience. Could Jindal run for president? Well for one he was born in the US and two, he certainly has the resume having been a Rhodes Scholar, President of the University of Louisiana system, Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services, and most recently serving as a Congressman. All this accomplished by the age of 36.

Being elected governor would pay off significantly for a White House bid. There has been a trend of governors (southern state governor anyone?) winning the national election, the last person who was a Senator prior to President was JFK. Being a minority Republican candidate could also help Jindal gather more media attention and expand the party’s voter base.

Politics and race aside, the one issue that could make a presidential run successful for him is healthcare. With the first Baby Boomer applying for Social Security yesterday, 4 to 8 years from now healthcare for aging and retiring Americans will be a bigger issue than ever and Jindal who has spent much of his career focusing on public health issues will have a significant influence on policy. Perfect timing for a healthcare savvy governor looking for the next step in his career.

Anay Shah

BREAKING NEWS: Nuclear Deal Broken? Part II: Hope Remains

The Times of India just recently reported that the US has not given up hope. It seems that President Bush has expressed that he still has faith in PM Singh in getting the opposition on board and although it would be better sooner rather than later, it is more important that it just gets done!

"It's up to the Government of India to talk about their efforts. Again, I think we're going to continue to work on our part and we assume they're going to continue to work on theirs and it'll be done in a time that is appropriate for both sides," Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey told reporters after the two leaders spoke over phone.

That is great news for the Indian side showing the importance of India in future of US foreign policy.

As developments break we will keep you posted but word has come that the next major developments will be October 22nd.



BREAKING NEWS: Nuclear Deal Broken?

Tomorrow's Washington Post will report that the initial bump in the road dealing with the nuclear deal may finally be falling off the cliff. The Prime Minister himself has expressed little optimism in the success of the historic treaty between the nations. The leading opposition is using the bill, which they initially supported, as political leverage to disrupt the strong control of the Congress Party.

BJP's actions on this are a serious mistake and sometimes political parties across the world tend to trade in leadership for games and ploys to gain majorities. When will parties think more for the country they supposedly seek to represent and forget what they can do to destroy there nemesis.

This is a developing story and we will keep you up to date. Story Link

Monday, October 15, 2007

Fred Thompson Hires Mr. Macaca

I just saw this interesting blog post that our Macaca friend, George Allen, is back into the political world as Fred Thompsons National Campaign Co-Chair. Mr. Thompson have you not been keeping up with the world again? Recently Fred was quoted as saying

"I’m afraid that the Soviet Union & China are not ever going to do anything that’s going to hurt them that badly but we need to ratchet those up if at all possible." Link to transcript

Mr. Thompson also couldn't recall details about the Teri Schaivo case which really was on every tv channel, even cutting into reruns of Law & Order! This is a great way to start off a candidacy by picking Mr. Macaca himself as your national campaign co-chair. George Allen LOST his senate seat going from a presidential hopeful to a political zero due to the comments he had said to a Young Indian American, working for his opponents campaign. (watch a video of the event below!)

The community has not forgotten Mr. Thompson and if you keep this up you too will be around just like the Soviet Union.

Jay Shah