Roger Clemens recently went on the record with ESPN, saying that steroids and HGH are "dangerous and destructive [shortcuts] that no athlete should ever take". He's right, but if a player does take it and is called out in a report by an ex-United States Senator, he should own up to it. Until now, Clemens and Bonds are the only two to deny ever taking HGH or steroids, though both are mentioned in the report. To date, Andy Pettitte, Fernando Vina, Jason Giambi, and others have accepted responsibility and admitted taking HGH. Why does Clemens feel that he has to tarnish his reputation by lying about the Mitchell Report? Is it because he's scheduled to speak in Texas about the benefits of his diet and exercise program that allowed him to play so late into his career? I can't understand why he feels the need to deny all of these allegations. Pettitte has accepted responsibility for his actions, as did Vina on SportsCenter yesterday. It takes a bigger man to accept it and move on than it does to just flatly deny that these allegations even exist. Though the allegations of HGH and steroid use are stunning allegations and rocked the baseball world last week, I am more ashamed by the actions of Clemens and Bonds than I am by those who took HGH. I have more respect for Fernando Vina, who went on national TV and apologized for his actions than I do for the arrogant stonewalling of Clemens and Bonds.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Steroids and Baseball
Roger Clemens recently went on the record with ESPN, saying that steroids and HGH are "dangerous and destructive [shortcuts] that no athlete should ever take". He's right, but if a player does take it and is called out in a report by an ex-United States Senator, he should own up to it. Until now, Clemens and Bonds are the only two to deny ever taking HGH or steroids, though both are mentioned in the report. To date, Andy Pettitte, Fernando Vina, Jason Giambi, and others have accepted responsibility and admitted taking HGH. Why does Clemens feel that he has to tarnish his reputation by lying about the Mitchell Report? Is it because he's scheduled to speak in Texas about the benefits of his diet and exercise program that allowed him to play so late into his career? I can't understand why he feels the need to deny all of these allegations. Pettitte has accepted responsibility for his actions, as did Vina on SportsCenter yesterday. It takes a bigger man to accept it and move on than it does to just flatly deny that these allegations even exist. Though the allegations of HGH and steroid use are stunning allegations and rocked the baseball world last week, I am more ashamed by the actions of Clemens and Bonds than I am by those who took HGH. I have more respect for Fernando Vina, who went on national TV and apologized for his actions than I do for the arrogant stonewalling of Clemens and Bonds.
Monday, December 17, 2007
More on Huck and Romney
Romney Attacks Huckabee on Crime
Romney attacks Huckabee on Immigration
Here are the first attack ads of the Republican Presidential Primary, (if you don't count McCain's push poll calling in Iowa) and they may undermine Huck's lead in Iowa. In a state where the caucus-goers are focusing on immigration and crime, it will remain to be seen if Huck's support is truly based on issues and his elect ability or just an emotional (and religious) response to Huckabee's Evangelical background. By the way, I'm sorry for ripping on Huck so badly, but his surge in Iowa complicates the Republican primary and would ensure a Democrat (Hillary?) in the White House. Huck's soft stance on crime, immigration, and yes, foreign policy place Huck at the top of the Democrat's Christmas Wish List. Again, I am rather reluctantly supporting Romney, but his managerial skills are beyond peer. Beyond the Salt Lake City Olympic "Miracle," Romney's work in Massachusetts is admirable. The issue with Romney is that he is so intelligent, he has a JD/MBA from Harvard, that he often speaks above his audience and plays semantics that confuse the common voter. For example, in Massachusetts, he promised not to raise taxes, ad did not. However, specific use fees were raised significantly, leading to the criticism by some that Romney raised taxes by applying broad-based "fees" that worked as taxes. Romney's explanation on Meet the Press may have made sense to the members of a Senate hearing and those thoroughly involved in politics, but to the average voter, he looked much like Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election, attempting to hide wide policy preference changes under the guise of misunderstanding. On the other side, the endorsements of Robert Bork and Bob Jones show that Romney may be able to appeal to a broader conservative audience. Hope may not be gone for Romney though, if he loses Iowa, where in some polls he now trails Huck by 10 points. By portraying himself as tough on crime and willing to take a stand, he may be able to close the gap in South Carolina, hold onto New Hampshire, and eek out a win in Michigan. The loss to Huck in Iowa may be but a speed bump on the way to a Romney win. The question is whether Romney waited too long to break his plastic mold.
Romney attacks Huckabee on Immigration
Here are the first attack ads of the Republican Presidential Primary, (if you don't count McCain's push poll calling in Iowa) and they may undermine Huck's lead in Iowa. In a state where the caucus-goers are focusing on immigration and crime, it will remain to be seen if Huck's support is truly based on issues and his elect ability or just an emotional (and religious) response to Huckabee's Evangelical background. By the way, I'm sorry for ripping on Huck so badly, but his surge in Iowa complicates the Republican primary and would ensure a Democrat (Hillary?) in the White House. Huck's soft stance on crime, immigration, and yes, foreign policy place Huck at the top of the Democrat's Christmas Wish List. Again, I am rather reluctantly supporting Romney, but his managerial skills are beyond peer. Beyond the Salt Lake City Olympic "Miracle," Romney's work in Massachusetts is admirable. The issue with Romney is that he is so intelligent, he has a JD/MBA from Harvard, that he often speaks above his audience and plays semantics that confuse the common voter. For example, in Massachusetts, he promised not to raise taxes, ad did not. However, specific use fees were raised significantly, leading to the criticism by some that Romney raised taxes by applying broad-based "fees" that worked as taxes. Romney's explanation on Meet the Press may have made sense to the members of a Senate hearing and those thoroughly involved in politics, but to the average voter, he looked much like Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election, attempting to hide wide policy preference changes under the guise of misunderstanding. On the other side, the endorsements of Robert Bork and Bob Jones show that Romney may be able to appeal to a broader conservative audience. Hope may not be gone for Romney though, if he loses Iowa, where in some polls he now trails Huck by 10 points. By portraying himself as tough on crime and willing to take a stand, he may be able to close the gap in South Carolina, hold onto New Hampshire, and eek out a win in Michigan. The loss to Huck in Iowa may be but a speed bump on the way to a Romney win. The question is whether Romney waited too long to break his plastic mold.
Mike Huckabee... Pastor or President?
Is this guy serious?
It makes sense that this guy is the front-runner in Iowa and struggling in New Hampshire, an obviously more secular state. With ads like this it's hard to believe it's endorsed by his campaign. With all the fallout over Romney's comment at College Station that "freedom requires religion" and Russert's subsequent grilling, it is surprising that Huck let this thing leave the producer's head. It's a sad day for a country that professes to have no litmus test for office, when an ad like this can be run by a presidential campaign. Actually, it's downright scary. I may not fit with a lot of conservatives on the ideas of church and state, but there is no place for this in presidential politics. I worry more about what impact Huckabee may have on the White House than the impact this ad will have on the Republican Primary. Church and state have their respective spheres of influence, as Romney reminded Russert on Sunday, but I wonder if Huckabee sees the importance of keeping the two separate. It is important that they be separate not only for the sake of minority rights, which poses a significant case in and of itself, but for the sake of religion itself. If we allow our religious beliefs or lack thereof to be drudged through the secularity of politics and government, both will be irreversibly altered for the worse. We will then have a litmus test for public office, and unpopular church doctrines will be altered so as not to offend. Is this really what we want?
It makes sense that this guy is the front-runner in Iowa and struggling in New Hampshire, an obviously more secular state. With ads like this it's hard to believe it's endorsed by his campaign. With all the fallout over Romney's comment at College Station that "freedom requires religion" and Russert's subsequent grilling, it is surprising that Huck let this thing leave the producer's head. It's a sad day for a country that professes to have no litmus test for office, when an ad like this can be run by a presidential campaign. Actually, it's downright scary. I may not fit with a lot of conservatives on the ideas of church and state, but there is no place for this in presidential politics. I worry more about what impact Huckabee may have on the White House than the impact this ad will have on the Republican Primary. Church and state have their respective spheres of influence, as Romney reminded Russert on Sunday, but I wonder if Huckabee sees the importance of keeping the two separate. It is important that they be separate not only for the sake of minority rights, which poses a significant case in and of itself, but for the sake of religion itself. If we allow our religious beliefs or lack thereof to be drudged through the secularity of politics and government, both will be irreversibly altered for the worse. We will then have a litmus test for public office, and unpopular church doctrines will be altered so as not to offend. Is this really what we want?
Friday, December 14, 2007
Beginning of the End?
I have been following thePresidential primaries closely, not sure of who gets my vote. In the Republican primary, there's not one that really gets me excited. I almost jumped on the Huckabee bandwagon for a couple days, until I learned about his love of the regressive flat tax and realized how really unelectable he is. A Huck nomination would be the Dem's Christmas present for the next four years. And while Hillary has had Republicans trembling in their shoes with the possibility of the Dems extending the Clinton dynasty, it appears that the trouble for the Republicans is just beginning. Truth is, Republicans should be more concerned with an Obama nomination, which they might just be getting. Howard Fineman of MSNBC said today that the Clinton campaign could be in major danger of losing all four of the key early states despite a double-digit lead in national polls. What does this mean for the Republicans? Obama's surge means that the Republicans better get serious soon about finding an electable candidate and forget this fleeting love affair with Huck. The Dems would love to see a Huckabee nomination; they're waiting until the general election to tear him to shreds. With this in mind, I am rather reluctantly thinking about supporting Romney. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, that is, I am Mormon. I am leaning toward supporting Romney despite his religion, not because of it. However, that is not the main issue in the Romney campaign for me. While I believe he may be the most electable in the Republican field, I have been reluctant in my support of Romney 1)because I'm not a huge fan of the way his health care plan is carried out... I don't think it helps enough, 2)I am worried about the impact that United States foreign policy would have on the image of my religion if Romney were President, and 3)I have worried about his chances of beating Hillary. However, after Romney's performance at the latest Iowa debate, realizing Giuliani's authoritarian personality, and McCain's anemic campaign, I have reluctantly turned to Romney. If he is able to come back and win Iowa and hold onto his lead in New Hampshire, and gain the nomination, though, he will have a tough road ahead if he has to face Obama in the general election. A Romney-Thompson ticket might just be the one to beat Obama.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Citizen Soldier
My wife and I went to watch the Bourne Ultimatum at the theater the other day, and though the movie was amazing, what really stuck with me was the tribute to the United States National Guard by 3 Doors Down during the trailers. Already one of my favorite bands, I was moved by this video tribute to our fellow citizens that serve our nation so valiantly. The Guard recently celebrated its 370'th birthday in 2006; it is one of the oldest military institutions in our country and its mission includes foreign and domestic aid. As I thought about the Guard, I was reminded it was the Guard that came to our country's aid after the horrible events of 9/11, helped our military in Kosovo and Bosnia, and post-Katrina. These fine citizens sacrifice all, up to life itself, in protecting and serving our nation. When I see the actions of these fine men and women I am proud to call myself an American. These are the people that live among us; one of my good friends from high school, Jill Stevens served as a Combat Medic for the Army National Guard in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and was recently voted Miss Utah 2007. Think what you may about America's foreign policy, but the selfless service of these men and women is without peer.
Read Jill's Blog here.
Video of Citizen Soldier
National Guard Website
Read Jill's Blog here.
Video of Citizen Soldier
National Guard Website
Welcome
Welcome to my blog. I hope that it offers a forum for discussion and growth on issues important to our everyday lives. I know, some of you may think that politics doesn't classify here, but I hope that by reading this blog you will come to share in my passion for government and politics. More than that, I hope that by reading here you have a stronger desire to participate in government and do your civic duty. The voting rates in this country are atrocious. There is no excuse for so many people, who have so many rights, to be so apathetic toward government. It is time for a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)