Cross the Aisle

Mitt: "Who Let the Dogs Out?"

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:08:00 +0000

Yea I know I'm a little late on this one but it is hilarious. What was he thinking??

You gotta love YouTube...nice work Mitt!

¿Un español que habla a presidente? Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:49:00 +0000

This is a follow up to my post last month about candidates who speak Spanish. A huge portion of this country is Spanish speaking and it is a huge advantage for a candidate to be able to reach out to these voters.

Here is a behind the scenes video of Sen. Chris Dodd being interviewed by Univision. Especially because he is a 'low profile' candidate, he should utilize this in his campaign.

New York Times correspondent killed in Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:15:00 +0000

This story is a must read.

Khalid W. Hassan, an Iraqi correspondent for the New York Times was gunned down while traveling in his car in Iraq yesterday . Hassan, like countless others, was just trying to make a living for his family.

After his car was hit by a spray of gunfire he text messaged his mother telling her that he was alright, minutes later he was shot in the head at close range while talking on his cell phone. (We know this because a "Policeman" witnessed it. Why wasn't he killed or take action...I don't know).

Another alarming part of this story is that Hassan's pockets were emptied by his murderer. Which means they took his ID that allows him into the US occupied 'safe' zones.

This is just another example of how bad things are in Iraq. I'd like to think that I am well versed on the current situation in Iraq, but I even get confused when the talk turns to Sunni, Shiite, death squads, or al-Sadyr. It seems to change every time I start to understand it. Who is trying to kill who? And why?

Maybe they don't even know.

This could be why nobody has any good ideas on how to solve this crisis.

Saint Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:08:00 +0000

Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife, criticized President Bush's decision to remove the prison sentence (not a pardon) for "Scooter" Libby (how he got the nickname "Scooter" is beyond me).

While its nice to see good ol' Bill out and about, doing what he does best...criticizing others. It is ridiculous for Bill Clinton to be passing judgement on anyone in such situations.

Clinton stated, "...they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

Is he criticizing someone else as treating the law as a minor obstacle? This coming from a guy who committed perjury, and was impeached as president?!

I thought Bill believed in second chances. At least that is what his wife gave him and what one would think when they hear that he pardoned 140 people in his final hours in the Oval Office. Including a man who evaded over $10 million dollars in back taxes, who just so happened to be a large donor to the Democratic party (and Mrs. Clinton's campaign).

Pardon happy Mr. Clinton then tried a cheap shot at President Bush saying, “You have to think; we’ve seen what happens when you don’t think.” ...Yea, you stain a blue dress and get impeached.

Bloomberg the Independent?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:15:00 +0000

Can New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg make a serious run at the presidency as an Independent? Countless stories this past week suggest that the Mayor is going to do it, come hell or high water.

As a billionaire candidate financing his own campaign he doesn't have to answer (give special favors) to donors. As an Independent he can do whatever he wants, and doesn't have to please a party of single minded people.

This is a first folks! OK a second, I remember the ears.

Bloomberg has been studying the campaign of Ross Perot, and he is planning on duplicating the fellow billionaire's efforts with even more success.

A CNN/Opinion Research Poll this past week showed that people are open to an independent candidate:

Clinton (D) 41%
Giuliani (R) 38%
Bloomberg (I) 17%

Obama (D) 40%
McCain (R) 34%
Bloomberg (I) 21%

Keep in mind that this poll is conducted before Bloomberg has even begun a campaign. These numbers would be fantastic if he had been campaigning for months. I personally get excited when I see an Independent pull more than a percentage point!

How do these other candidates who have their "myspace" websites, texting for dollars, consultants attached to the hip, flying around shaking hands, kissing babies, and waving at folks, feel when this guy mentions that he might run for president and he instantly pulls in 20% of a poll, without the backing of the 'sacred' party?

It means that Obama was right. We are ready for a (real) new kind of politics.

Any Change in Iraq?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:27:00 +0000

A story in the Washington Post makes you realize how bad the living conditions in Iraq really are. Forget the Democrat and Republican accusations and complaints, just read the article.

These people are just like us, but they rarely have electricity, are dying from heat exhaustion, and their lives are in danger at all times in their own homes.

"He pays no more attention to the helicopters that roar overhead than he would to a passing truck, except that the street in front of his house is blocked off by concrete barriers. The rat-a-tat of AK-47s is so frequent that it's possible not to hear it anymore. And the new rooftop pool has eased his family's cabin fever, offering a refreshing substitute for visits they no longer make to parks, clubs, markets and friends' homes."

The Iraqi citizens have no faith at all in their government, "Forget about reconstruction -- what we are waiting for is change in the whole state," he said. "I just want one sincere, honorable person running Iraq. If he rules, even if we have to wait five or six years, there will be hope. But with the people we have now, even if you build 100 power plants, there's no hope."

In 115 degree heat having no power is the last thing you want, add suicide bombings, and the sound of AK-47s all around you it almost fits the description of hell.

"A June 12 study by the National Security Network, a private advocacy group, found that while the United States has spent $3.1 billion to improve electricity in Iraq, the power generated in May was 6 percent less than prewar levels. "Over the past three weeks, Baghdad has suffered severe power and water shortages of up to 23 hours a day," the study said."

It seems that our government is arguing over things that don't even matter, and won't improve anything. Congress spends weeks on things such as the $3.1 billion to improve electricity, yet it doesn't help the Iraqis out at all.

So as you sit there enjoying the benefits of electricity think of some ways that our government can actually produce change in Iraq...it all starts with ending the political bickering that just takes us in circles.

I know the subjects of the slew of emails I will now receive, and its a sad state of affairs that whenever I say something negative about Iraq I am called a 'left winger.' Our minds are in the completely wrong spot! Think about what can be done to cause change, not wonder if your idea would be OK with your 'party leader' who doesn't know your name.

Detach yourself from 'your' party and think for yourself once in a while!

Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2008?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:44:00 +0000

A story from the AP suggests that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants The Governator to run with him.

That would be a very strong ticket, and with Bloomberg leaving the GOP this week it would be a bipartisan ticket!!It's about time!

There is just one problem, The Governator is not eligible to be president or vice-president because he is a naturalized citizen, he (obviously) wasn't born here.

However, these laws have never been challenged in the courts, and could be changed. Schwarzenegger is a great Governor, and is truly the only politician today that could care less about partisanship, my kind of guy!

The 12th Amendment bars any naturalized citizen from becoming vice-president. This law should be challenged, as should the constitutional requirement that only allows natural born citizens to become president.

These laws were created to ensure that no foreign person would have power in the early stages of the United States. It is no longer 1776, and every potential candidate for any elected office is put through the ringer. We find things out about candidates that we don't even want to know.

I don't think that the day Arnold becomes Vice President he will only speak in German and suddenly take over the world.

$$ Plse? Are you kidding me?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:54:00 +0000

According to the NYT's political blog John Edwards is rolling out a text for dollars campaign tonight.

The Edwards campaign will send out nearly 13,000 text messages to supporters asking for last minute (of the quarter) support. I don't know how you would feel, but getting a text message asking for money would only ensure that the candidate would lose my vote!

Apparently Edwards is not the only texter! Obama and Hillary have similar text "services." These campaigns text campaign updates to their supporters. Honestly, what can these texts possibly say?

Message from: Hillary
I love America, I need more money

That's about it. What kind of updates are there at this stage in the campaign? Who needs updates on their phone about a campaign? Isn't reading about it online and in the paper enough? This isn't a fast moving sporting event, text updates are not needed!

All these campaigns are trying to do is keep in touch to raise more money. There is no actual news or benefit for the supporter.

Why is it that only Democrats are employing these odd campaign techniques?

Look at me!

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:33:00 +0000

The 2008 presidential candidates are going high tech. As if the myspace type websites wern't enough, the campaigns are now throwing their money at political blogs and google adsense.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in the entire 2004 campaign the parties and candidates spent a total of around $17,000 for ads on political blogs. During one week last month Democrat John Edwards spent 'nearly the same amount' on more than 25 liberal blogs.

In the first quarter alone Edwards spend $37,981 on ads on political blogs. Chris Dodd spend $24,653, Hillary Clinton $23,277, Barack Obama $12,036, Mitt Romney (the only Republican listed) $4,207.

Ads on blogs are cost effective when compared to traditional advertising. At this stage in the campaign the candidates are trying to appeal to the most extreme of their parties, as they are typically the only voters in primary elections. The majority of these party loyalists read blogs on a daily basis. By having ads on these blogs the candidate is putting his or her face in front of these prized voters in a very efficient way.

Candidates are also experimenting with Google AdWords. Sen. McCain is aggresively using this service. McCain's text running ads are pegged to some 2,500 words. Mitt Romney is using AdWords with a coupld hundred key words. How well does AdWords work? You tell me!--------------->

¿Un español que habla a presidente?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:21:00 +0000

Would being fluent in Spanish increase the effectiveness of our next president?

With our immigration crisis and rising Hispanic population I believe it is a necessity for our leader to be able to speak directly to this large population. Of all the current 2008 candidates only two (Richardson and Biden) speak Spanish fluently.

Many candidates believe that if they hablan español their poll numbers will improve. I have read that there are even weekly Spanish lessons for all members of Congress. After all Hispanics are the largest minority in America, nearly 15% of the American population . This is a huge group of potential voters.

It seems that most foreign heads of state speak English, but our presidents never speak their language. Why is that?

According to The New York Times, Michael Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich are currently honing their Spanish skills. Barack Obama tried to deliver a radio broadcast in Spanish, but was choppy and most likely took numerous takes.

The immigration crisis needs to be solved, and a Spanish speaking president will be a great step forward.

Obama faulters

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:39:00 +0000

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's call for a "different kind of politics" is slowly evolving into a mere reflection of traditional politics.

Recently the Obama campaign clandestinely distributed documents that suggest former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton have received money from Indian-Americans and companies that do business in India.

Obama has since disavowed these documents saying that they were "stupid and caustic," and that neither he nor his senior staff had previously seen them.

As you may already know, I am going to be the last person to defend a Clinton. But when you punch someone in the face you can't say "oh, I take that back." Whats done is done!

If you ask me, it was a very "Clinton-esque" move by Obama. Releasing documents, getting the thought of how greedy the Clintons can be in (undecided) voters heads, then as these voters realized that it was odd that this was released by Obama, the Senator "takes it back." It is actually very smart politics.

He put some doubt in undecided voters, and he doesn't look bad for doing it because he "never saw" the documents before. It was a "mistake" by his research team. More like a calculated effort on the part of his senior political advisers, but hey that's politics right?

After all of Obama's preaching for a new kind of politics, he does this. He has taken a step back in my eyes.

But we do live in America, where a president can commit perjury, be impeached, and his poll numbers go up.

Courtesy of the New York Times, you can read the documents that Obama never saw here:
Document on Hillary Clinton
Document on Bill Clinton

Two Hillaries

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Wed, 30 May 2007 03:39:00 +0000

"Southern Clinton"
">
"Washington Clinton"
The fact that Hillary thinks that acting will get her elected as our president is an insult to our intelligence. Her accent was fake, coached, and forced (and annoying!).

Some are saying that her southern rant was a quote taken out of context. This is false, you can see the full video of her speech on youtube, she was quoting someone, but the accent stayed throughout the speech.

Fake Candidates

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Wed, 30 May 2007 02:55:00 +0000

A very interesting video has been posted on nytimes.com about Rudy Giuliani. It suggests that Giuliani, who is typically a loose cannon, completely changes his persona when he campaigns.

This is odd because the whole theme of the video was that it was great how restrained Giuliani can be on the campaign trail.

Do we really want a president who is a completely different person than who we voted for? In that case how about everyone vote for me, and get Dennis Kucinich in the White House, what's the difference?

It is odd that we all know that candidates do this, and we really don't even care.

This takes us back to the humorous example of Hillary Clinton using a thick southern accent when speaking to southern voters, and a New York accent when in New York.

Regardless of why they do it, it is misleading.

The whole purpose of a campaign is to show your true self, which is why campaigns last so long. Most candidates end up weeding themselves out like Howard Dean (hoooohahaaaa!!!).

The argument that suggests candidates change their persona during elections to be more "like the people" is ridiculous. If they are like 'us,' then they don't have to fake anything.

When I see John Kerry trying to hunt, flashing as many 'thumbs up' as humanly possible to the core of photographers who were summoned into the wilderness makes me a bit queasy.

We know when candidates are acting, it is not a secret. Why do we let them get away with it?

I just can't wait for the hooooohaaaaaaaa!!! moments of 2008.

Is Hell Freezing Over?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Tue, 22 May 2007 04:50:00 +0000

Democrats, Republicans, (Joe Lieberman) AND President Bush are all working together on the much talked about comprehensive immigration reform bill.

I will not break down the bill because it is still in the works. But the current bill would grant 12 million illegal immigrants legal status. I have a feeling that this bill will not make it's way through the channels.

But it is good to see everyone working together on an important issue that is long overdue for reform. We will finally get to see the results of working together.

See the New York Time story.

The Democrats are Getting Serious

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Wed, 16 May 2007 04:39:00 +0000

It only makes news is Obama and Hillary do it, so here it goes.

Today both presidential front runners announced their support for cutting off funding to our troops at war. Obama supports such a measure “to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it’s long past time to change course.”

This is in support of a bill by Sen. Feingold, of McCain/Feingold "fame." Maybe Mr. Feingold should stick to campaign finance legislation, because his bill calls for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days...haven't we traveled down this dead end road too many times already this year?

Legislation that calls for troop withdrawal will never be signed by President Bush. If Congress uses the "purse strings" and cut off funding for the troops they will look like they do not support the troops. With so many Senators running for president, they don't want to look unsupportive which is why cutting of the funding will never happen. It is just a threat.

The only solution that I can see both stubborn parties agreeing to is the benchmark legislation, in which the Iraqi government must meet benchmarks in order to keep our troops around. But even this has its flaws.

Willard's Millions

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Sun, 13 May 2007 03:53:00 +0000

On slow news days (Saturdays) I tend to find out things about the 2008 candidates that I didn't know.

All you hear about Mitt Romney is that he is Mormon, believe it or not there is more to good ol' Mitt than his Mormonism. Did you know that Romney's first name is Willard, and his net worth is around $350 million?

Willard aside, that is a pretty healthy net worth, I had no idea he was that wealthy. That's like Scrooge McDuck, Trump, Perot, Forbes wealthy. In my mind that gives him extra points because he made it himself. Anyone that can create that amount of wealth is a smart person, and can manage a lot. Two qualities that a president should have (go ahead insert Bush joke here).

No word on if he swims around in his dough like Scrooge.

Giuliani plays political chicken

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Sat, 12 May 2007 04:36:00 +0000

Rudy Giuliani (who for some reason has begun to use his middle initial) announced that he favors abortion rights, gay rights, and restrictions on guns. In other words, he announced that he will not be winning the primary.

I have to give credit to Giuliani for not listening to the fat cats in the smoke filled back rooms and showing what he really stands for.

Unfortunately this will lead to his downfall in the primary election. Typically only far right wingers (in Republican primaries) vote in primary elections. A right winger will not vote for someone who supports abortion rights, let alone gay rights, and gun control.

Rudy must be feeling that he has to try something new (tell his real views) to separate himself from the pack of candidates who are hard to distinguish.

I hope that this version of 'political chicken' works out for Giuliani, I would love to see someone with different views than their party win a primary.

House rejects 9-month withdrawal

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Thu, 10 May 2007 23:51:00 +0000

Today the House rejected a bill that would require our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within 9 months. The big question is not why did the largely anti-war Congress reject such a bill, but why are our elected Representatives wasting their time drafting such bills.

Don't their constituents have other pressing issues for them to deal with? I'm sure voters didn't elect their members to office so they could waste their time drafting bills that are guaranteed to get nowhere.

A much less dramatic bill, the timetable bill, was vetoed by the president. Why would anyone in their right mind think that a 9-month withdrawal bill would even make it to the president's desk?

Congress needs to compromise with each other and draft bills that are not a waste of time and paper.

al-Rubaie visits Washington

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Thu, 10 May 2007 05:07:00 +0000

According to the New York Times, yesterday the Iraqi national security advisor Mowaffak al-Rabaie visited Washington to try to convince lawmakers, "... that early withdrawal would lead to chaos."

Mr. al-Rabaie meet with numerous lawmakers, including many Democrats who have taken the popular "we need to withdrawal now" stance. In those meetings al-Rabaie explained to the politicians (who have never been to Iraq) that troop withdrawal deadlines are unrealistic and would embolden the enemy.

This whole Democratic stance on Iraq is like a 'bandwagoning fan.' They want to withdrawal now because the intelligence for the reasons to invade were false. Its as simple as that.

If a politician was asked today if Iraq would be better off if our troops were withdrawn today (and if they were guaranteed a re-election regardless of their answer) they would say NO.

If you look at the number of Iraqi civilians, and the number of Iraqi military and police (who are not even trustworthy and efficient yet) it is obvious that they cannot defend themselves against the terrorists. Hell, our troops are having a tough time at it. Do you really think if our troops left that all of a sudden the Iraqis would become sharp shooting GI Joes? Give me a break.

If we left, Iraq would become a terrorist training camp. We do need change our attack of this war. We need to go on offense. You can't win a war on defense.

Fred Thompson for President?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Tue, 08 May 2007 03:39:00 +0000

-Washington DC - "Dunt Dunt"

President Arthur Branch? If he does run, expect to see him down the stretch. Most people don't know that Thompson is a former Senator, not just the DA on Law and Order.

This would be a very interesting campaign. On top of the fact that a former or sitting Senator has not been elected president since JFK in 1961 (others were VPs, or not purely elected), it will be interesting to see how a well known actor will fare in a presidential bid.

Thompson is a great communicator, something I think the American people will demand of the next president. I don't know yet if he is taking the typical cookie-cutter republican stances on the issues, he is sitting back and watching before he attacks.

He is doing the smart thing by not announcing his candidacy as far in advance as the other candidates, he knows that it is not necessary to do so. He is showing the public that he is "interested," but is not sure if he wants to run. It gives the public the "want what you can't have" feel, making him seem more in demand.

He will be as popular as all the other candidates the week that he announces due to his celebrity, he wants to ride that wave into next November.

It has been proven that actors make good politicians. I'll write the lines, you can read between them.

Bipartisan heat on Iraq?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Sat, 05 May 2007 05:12:00 +0000

After President Bush vetoed the timetable bill this week(he called it a 'date for failure,' which I liked), Congress and the president are trying to compromise on a bill that sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government. What a novel concept.

Didn't the founders of our country create a three branch government so that the decision makers ("deciders") would have to compromise? If we wanted a dictatorship we wouldn't have Congress. It is obvious that the president doesn't want to pull out of Iraq, and it is obvious that Congress wants to pull out of Iraq. So how about they quit trying to convince each other that they are right? How about a compromise?

If Congress and the president don't start working together two years will go by with no progress...hmmmm could this be what Congress wants so they get a new Democratic president?

It obviously is or they wouldn't be spinning their wheels passing bills that the president has guaranteed to veto. They're just wasting time, doing the popular things even though they know nothing will come from it.

It will just make all Republicans look uncooperative and will pave a golden road to the White House for the Democratic nominee in 2008.

Slam Dunk

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Tue, 01 May 2007 03:43:00 +0000

George Tenet, the former CIA Director, has published a book describing what went on during the planning stages of the Iraq war. Tenet is notorious for his certainty of Iraq possessing WMD, saying it was a "slam dunk."

When I first learned that Tenet was publishing a book I wondered how he could possibly defend his accusations of Iraq, I thought he would just go hide in the shadows with Colin Powell (who I still think should run for president).

Like a true politician, Tenet says his "slam dunk" accusation was taken out of context. Thanks for clearing that up...4 years later.

Maybe he should have told President Bush that he "suspected" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Not that it was a slam dunk! I just don't see how this can be taken out of context. This is simply the easy way out. Anything can be taken out of context, hell the word the can be taken out of context!

I also find it hard to believe that the director of the CIA, whose information is life or death in deciding to go to war, did not make himself clear to the president when he was deciding to invade a country! Give me a break Tenet!

It was extremely bad intelligence, or the weapons were moved before we got there. Its not like the Iraqis didn't know we were coming!

Tenet also discusses how there was little to no planning of the Iraq war. How gullible are we to believe this? Because we do believe it. Now a days we are looking for anything to make it seem that this whole war was one man's decision, when in fact it was not. Bush is not Napoleon.

Maybe when Bush is out of office he will take a page out of Tenet's (I refuse to say I'm wrong) book and say that he didn't actually order the Iraq war. His intentions were just taken out of context.

Congress to pass Iraq timetable bill

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:47:00 +0000

Today Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that Congress will send a bill to the president that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of troops out of Iraq.

The do-nothing Congress continues. Yes, President Bush has not used many vetoes during his administration, probably less than any other president, but he has PROMISED to veto this bill. Congress does not have the 2/3 majority in order to overwrite the presidential veto. What do they think Bush is going to do? Suddenly say, "Oh, you are right. Everything I have done and said in the past four years was wrong, my bad!"

This bill has been in the works by the Democrats for some time now and is nothing more than a colossal waste of time. Not to mention it is a stupid bill, a timetable for withdrawal only serves as an attack date for insurgents. There is no upside to this bill and its impending veto.

As usual, the only reason why the Democrats are pursuing this bill is because it makes them "look good" on election day. During their next campaign they can say that they did try to end the war, even though they actually had no more progress ending the war than the homeless guy who digs through my dumpster did.

Some would say that the Democrats are doing what their constituents want because they voted them into power to end the Iraq war. OK, well end it. Every single US Congressperson knows that this bill WILL NOT end the war. Then why pursue it?

How about actually compromising with the president? Come up with some sort of legislation that everyone will sign. Sounds impossible? Well it's not, and it is what the voters want the Democrats to do with their new "power."It sure as hell beats spending months on a bill that is guaranteed to be vetoed will still in the hands of the messenger boy!

John, you make this too easy

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:04:00 +0000

I don't want this to become a Doolittle bashing blog, although that would bring in the readers and raise my revenue. But he just makes it so damn easy!!

Today he gave up his seat in the Appropriations Committee amid his three millionth day of "alleged" scandal allegations. Basically this means that the little he was getting done (for his rich friends) he won't even be able to do now. He was elected to pass laws, he now has no pull to pass anything because of these scandals that were known about at election time.

He should resign his seat and let someone fill it that his peers will respect. This has been a wasted seat in Congress for years, and now it is simply worthless with Doolittle there.

He was only elected (besides because he is a Republican in a gerrymandered Republican stronghold) because of his "experience." Well his experience is now worthless because nobody in Congress respects him, nor do his constituents.

I have a feeling that news like this from Doolittle will keep coming for a few more days, stop, then pile on a few months from now...

Miller 2008!

Doolittle home raided in Virginia

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Miller) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:41:00 +0000

I love this guy, it never stops! Yesterday Rep. John Doolittle's (seen here with his wife) Virginia home was raided by the FBI in connection with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Why did anyone vote for this guy last November?

This guy "represents" the district where I grew up, and where I am still registered to vote. I made it a point to drive up there last November to vote AGAINST him. This guy does nothing productive in the House and the only time we hear about him is when his homes get raided by the FBI.

This guy is just a prime example of how gerrymandering has destroyed free elections in this country. Voters had no reason to vote for this guy, but he still won.

Doolittle (if you're gonna be a politician, change your name...) said that he hopes the truth will prevail, yea so do I. This guy is more guilty than OJ, and the allegations just keeping piling on top of each other.

I can already see candidates licking their chops for the next time this guy is up for reelection. Hell, if I was 25 last November I would have ran against him!