Former senator John Edwards is correct when he said, ”There’s a wall around Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy.”  Mr. Edwards spoke about the corporate control of our nation in the last Iowa debate. He was talking about the well connected in Washington D.C. as well as the wealthy.

Look at just the issue of auto and truck fuel economy. It has taken 32 years to increase those standards.  The new standards are not effective until 2020.  That is 48 years since oil embargo in the 1973-74.  The automakers and oil companies are the two groups that have blocked this legislation.  Of course the congressmen and senators from Michigan supported the status quo.  The consequence of this situation is that the U. S. is still importing 80% of its oil from the Middle East at high prices and the environment is being affected too.

Another issue is the current scandal on Wall Street over home loans in the secondary market.  That is a large group of home loans given to people who could not afford a conventional loan.  Wall Street brokers packaged those loans and sold collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) to money market funds.  These CDOs were offered with money back guarantees.  This issue was discussed in detail in the December 10, 2007 issue of  BusinessWeek <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_50/b4062026774092.htm>   .  This is another great example of protection of the wealthy over protection of the average American but packaged as protection for the sloppy home buyers.

The Federal Reserve under the guidance of Alan Greenspan, a Wall Street maven and a conservative economist moved the markets to protect and enhance the wealth of his brethren.  Easy money lead to growing wealth for the wealthy, not the average American.  Mr. Greenspan also devised the idea of “core inflation”.  That is inflation that ignores the cost of volatile items like food and energy.  The idea was to convince us less wise Americans that inflation really is at a very low level.  Recent article articles in both BusinessWeek and Newsweek point out the foolishness of this idea.

When I graduated from CSUN (California State University, Northridge) in 1962 there were over 30 million Americans in labor unions.  Today there are approximately 16 million Americans in labor unions. Manufacturing was a significant part of our employment.  Today almost every product we buy was made in another country.  The leading exporter to the U. S. is China.  Actually the number of people in manufacturing has remained almost the same as it was in 1947.  From Economists View http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/02/manufacturing_e.html consider that “Because the population and, hence, the labor force has grown, the share of manufacturing employment (to total employment) has been steadily falling since the Korean War. Approximately one in every three workers was employed in manufacturing after the Second World War; today, that number is about one in ten.”  Are corporations impacted by this situation?  Of course, their profits are higher than ever because the labor costs are significantly lower.

It is unlikely that John Edwards will be the next president. He really would be an agent for change. 

How many people are following the debates (really forums) put on by each political party?  Many commentators have said the numbers are small.  I have not found any data on the internet to support or contradict those statements.

Although most of the candidates tend to mimic each others opinion in each political party there are some differences.  Watching the news and listening to the candidates has slowly helped to define my positions.  I am disappointed that none of the candidates have a vision of the future.

Here are my views on some of the leading candidates

-Mitt Romney has changed most of his positions from the time he was governor of Massachusetts to when he became a candidate for president.  His views as governor were relatively liberal and mostly aligned with the Democrats in that state.  Now as a past governor and a man trying to win support in his conservative party he has espoused views that support very conservative positions.  Romney is a flip flopper.  He bows to opinion and has not taken any stand on any issue even if it is unpopular.  His speech on his Mormon religion was excellent but does not change his flip flopping on issues that really matter.  He has not said anything that makes him a standout in the crowd. 

-Mike Huckabee has declared himself the Christian candidate.  He does not believe in evolution.  He has implied that there is something wrong with Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion.  There is no religious qualification for this job.  As to Huckabee’s position on issues he seems to have mimicked Mitt Romney when he was governor of Arkansas.  To Huckabee’s credit he does defend his action when he was governor.  Defining himself as the Christian candidate eliminates him as someone I would support.

-Hilary Clinton has defined herself as the candidate with the experience that will enable her to walk into the White House and capably go to work because she was there before.  She voted for the war in Iraq and does not regret it.  Recently Mrs. Clinton voted to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization.  In light of the NIE report that Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003 it appears her decision was wrong.  Her contention that experience trumps new ideas is hard to swallow.  Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney came to the current administration with significant experience and their assessment of Iraq was entirely wrong.  Still she is smart, wise, and seems most likely to be the candidate most likely to succeed as president.

-Barack Obama calls himself the man with hope (his book “The Audacity of Hope”) and the man with new ideas.  He points out that he would not have voted for the war in Iraq.  He would directly personally negotiate with the leaders of other countries to avoid war.  He does have some issues that he has not resolved or cannot resolve.  He is young and in his first term as a Senator.  His experience in government is small.  Mr. Obama was not present to cast his ballot on the resolution to declare a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization (the one that Hilary Clinton voted yes).  He then proceeded to criticize Mrs. Clinton’s decision to vote yes.  In the Philadelphia debate in October Mr. Obama criticized Mrs. Clinton’s equivocation on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens but he too gave a long answer to the yes or no question (Should illegal aliens be issued driver’s licenses?).

-John Edwards has a clear vision of where he stands on most issues. Like Barack Obama he has limited experience in government.  He did vote for the Iraq war but has regretted that decision.  His positions have been strongly in support of unions and working class people.  He is wealthy and that has been held against him because he earned the money as a lawyer.  I have not found any significant contradictions in his positions although he has become more strident with the passing of time.

Today’s appearance of Fred Thompson on This Week with George Stephanopoulos does make me wonder why presidential candidates are so unprepared to talk about issues and why they even bother to appear on morning talk shows.  It’s not just Fred Thompson that has come on to these shows unprepared.  Tim Russert of Meet the Press is a master of interviewing. He invariably surfaces some really embarrassing contradictions in the previous campaign events (e.g. John Edwards’ interview on Feb. 4, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/) or other events that fly in the face of the candidates current positions.        

Fred appears to be a nice man who has had the benefit of small appearances on the TV series “Law and Order” and has filled in for Paul Harvey on ABC radio.  His views or positions are not well thought out for a man running for president.  Today’s interview brought out the following:

1. He is in favor of state laws helping to determine the maintenance of life when someone is seriously ill or may be brain dead.
2. We should address the coming social security funding issue now rather than later but offers no solution.
3. The fight against radical Islam is primarily a military fight.

Fred offered no vision for America and no road map for the 21^st century.

 Candidates who have no message or vision are wasting our time.  “The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama was at least a vision of the future.  It’s too bad Mr. Obama has not followed up on his book when appearing on television.

How boring!  Most of the candidates in each party’s debates (they are really forums) mimic each other.  The contenders of each party try to catch their opponents in an error.  The one exception is Ron Paul.  He is a Republican who actually brings his own thought to those utterly uninspiring debates.  He has raised enough money to actually become a contender. 

The Democrats are particularly unanimous in their views.  Each of them tries his/her very best to avoid taking a stand on any issue.  Actually they try to avoid all issues.  The best example is providing a commitment to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.  Hilary Clinton flipped on this issue for two weeks and then said no.  At the November 15 debate Barack Obama used 192 words before finally saying “yes”. 

The Republicans also take the same views with the exception of Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani.  Unlike Ron Paul the other Republicans subscribe to the idea of not telling voters anything about their views.  Rudy Giuliani’s social liberalism and Mitt Romney’s religion have become talk show fodder.  I find it utterly dismaying that Mitt Romney’s religious belief have become an issue.  That Romney’s Mormon religion is being discussed is an indicator that bigotry still exists in the United States or that it is at least important in the Republican party.  No wonder I have become an Independent.  I personally dis-associated myself from a friend who showed himself to be a bigot and I would not be part of any group that stood for any bigotry.  

I like Rudy Giuliani.  His social liberalism makes him an excellent candidate for president against any Democrat.  He could win next November.  He and Hillary will have to take firm stands on real issues to win.

I am a political junky.  Some people love sports so much that they stay home to watch every game no matter what the sport.  I would watch political show all the time if it wasn’t for my lovely wife.  Even as I am watching This Week on ABC, I am recording Meet The Press on NBC.  The DVR is a wonderful thing!  I listen to talk radio all the time, even when I do not agree with the hosts.  Know thine enemy would be my reasoning.  I admit I have been watching all the Dancing with the Stars programs but that’s because of Julieanne Hough.  This only proves that there are some things that will distract me (please don’t tell my wife, she never reads these blogs). 

I do not have access to any of the politicians so everything I write is based upon all of those columnists that I admire.  I put together the pieces by reading their commentaries and adding the news reports. 

I read blog writers become recognized by writing almost daily.  That is now my objective.  Yes I am envious of the columnists in Newsweek, Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post.  I am not earning a dime but I am having fun doing these postings.