January 16, 2007Obama launches 2008 White House bidNedra Pickler | Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Barack Obama launched a historic campaign Tuesday to become the first black president of the United States and immediately tried to turn his political inexperience into an asset with voters seeking change. The freshman Illinois senator - and top contender for the Democratic nomination - said the past six years have left the country in a precarious place and he promoted himself as the standard-bearer for a new kind of politics. "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way," Obama said in a video posted on his Web site. "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Obama filed paperwork forming a presidential exploratory committee that allows him to raise money and put together a campaign structure. He is expected to announce a full-fledged candidacy on Feb. 10 in Springfield, Ill., where he can tap into the legacy of hometown hero Abraham Lincoln. Sen. Hillary Clinton is expected to announce her presidential campaign within days, but her spokesman said there would be no comment on Obama's decision from the Clinton camp. Back from Iraq, she abruptly canceled a Capitol Hill news conference minutes after word of Obama's announcement, citing the unavailability of a New York congressman to participate. Other Democrats who have announced a campaign or exploratory committee are 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Biden of Delaware and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson also are considering a run. January 11, 2007Troop surge not a solutionJordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times 
But does this "surge" make sense? I am not a military expert and obviously have never been to Iraq, let alone in the last four years. What I do know, however, comes from those who have done just that -- U.S. Generals, Senators, soldiers, and other experts who all agree that an escalation of troops is not the best course. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the press Thursday that "Americans broadly agree...that the situation in Iraq is unacceptable", as if this was justification for the President's new plan. And she's absolutely right -- Americans don't approve of the Iraq War. In fact, 68% of Americans said in a recent Associated Press/Ipsos poll that they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war. But this does not mean the proper response is to add more troops to the fight. When asked in that same poll "Would you favor or oppose sending more troops to Iraq?", 70% said they were opposed to the idea. This opinion is not limited to polled citizens. Multiple Senators and Congressman from both sides of the isle oppose the plan, along with top military commanders and experts in the field. This plan also flies directly in the face of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. It doesn't make sense that the President wouldn't follow the advice of his advisers. Maintaining political power and integrity -- or what's left of it -- should not come at the cost of our men and women serving in the Armed Forces. President Bush has done many questionable things while in office, but few have so directly jeopardized people's lives in their outcomes.
November 7, 2006The Race is On -- Election ResultsJordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times Check out these sites for up to the second election results: - CNN Note: These links offer election results for November 7, 2006 and will eventually discontinue immediate coverage of election news. October 23, 2006The Cost of WarAnarchy would be better than thisJordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times Public opinion is finally shifting towards the Democratic party, as the investigation into Mark Foley's alleged chats with a minor Congressional page continues. But that doesn't surprise me. The Republican party -- or, more fairly, mainly President Bush -- has continuously acted in the worst interest of the American people. Not that I keep such thoughts in my head (no! never!) -- but here's just a list of the things Bush and his cronies have done that have thrown our country down the drain. Consider this my Declaration of Ridiculousness. - Lied to the American public about intelligence reports that backed up his wishes to go to war President Bush is either oblivious to the needs of the country, or simply disregards them because "he sees briefings we don't". R to the diculous. Yeah rightJordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times Two weeks ago, Mark Warner announced he would not be running for president in 2008 because he...you guessed it...wants to spend more time with his family. I'm a big fan of Mark Warner, and I think he would do just as well for the country as he did for Virginia. But come on! That's the oldest line in the book. Rhetoric like that is akin to my saying "the dog ate my homework" to my teacher. I sincerely hope Warner runs for at least Senator in the coming years, and hopefully president in 2012. October 12, 2006Warner announces he won't run in 2008Jordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times Well...there goes all hope for the country. October 9, 2006Stewart Dispels Rumor of White House RunAssociated Press Jon Stewart said the T-shirts promoting him and Stephen Colbert "are a real sign of how sad people are" with the state of affairs in the country. "Nothing says 'I am ashamed of you my government' more than 'Stewart/Colbert '08,' Stewart told an audience Sunday at the New Yorker Festival. He was interviewed by the magazine's editor, David Remnick. Stewart, who recently hosted Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, on "The Daily Show," said he's been trying to get top Bush administration officials to appear. "We have requests in there to everyone including Barney," Stewart said. "Only Barney replies." Barney is the president's Scottish terrier. Stewart scoffed at suggestions that some people actually get their news from "The Daily Show." "There's no way you could get the news from us," he said. "I've seen the show. It couldn't happen." September 25, 2006The Gay Marriage Amendment: ReloadedJordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times Our first comment came in today all the way from Midlothian, VA! "Jordan – this amendment makes perfect sense. Other than possibly some of the hyperboles Mr. Garnett includes ("...as the bigots they are"), I couldn't agree more. September 22, 2006The Gay Marriage Amendment: Part IIJordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times I'd like to start off with the last point of my previous post, which was: why? Why is this proposed amendment necessary at all? It's not. There is no reasonable basis for this amendment, whether it be here in Virginia, or nationally. Now, it's true that there is a moral and/or religious opposition to gay marriage. Conservatives -- namely religious ones -- argue that homosexuality is immoral, and that they have a choice in their lifestyle. Though I do not agree with this idea in any way, I respect these religious beliefs and the religions that set them as standards. I do not believe, however, that religion is an adaquate or even constitutional basis for legal indoctrination -- and apparently the writers of our Constitution agree, as they write in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The relgious/moral identification of homosexuality is purely based on...well...religion, as well as sociological norms and accepted cultural ways. It is not, and never has been, concurrent with scientific and medical research, nor any legal precedent. Religious morals are certainly to be appreciated, as many, if not most, of our current laws are based on Christian teachings. But those laws, such as prohibition of murder, perjury, robbery, and adultery -- to name a few -- also have valid societal reasoning behind them. There is no reason to ban gay marriage. Other than religious beliefs, there are few arguments against gay marriage left. One frequent idea that Republicans like to push is the notion that gay marriage somehow undermines heterosexual marriage, and love in it's broader form. I'd like to quote my brother, David Fifer, in response to this argument, because he phrased it quite nicely: To conclude I guess I have to say: I don't know what to say. I have no other argument against an amendment that clearly has no grounds for legality, although I do invite anyone who might read this to leave a comment or e-mail me, and tell me why this amendment makes sense. September 12, 2006The Gay Marriage Amendment: Part IJordan Fifer | The Roanoke Times Okay, I know -- not a great title. But it's true, plain and simple. For those of you who don't know, Virginia voters will be voting on a gay marriage amendment to our state constitution come November. The amendment, in short terms, bans gay marriage (see below). If approved, Virginia would be added to the 20 states (and growing) that have such a ban. To give us all some background, here is the full text of the proposed amendment: "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." The answer is a obvious no. This amendment is based only on religious values and beliefs. And don't get me wrong -- I'm not against religion, at least not for the purposes of this debate. What I'm against is the apparent proposal (and unfortunately, likely approval) of an amendment that is one step away from combining church and state.
|
.....Advertisement.....
|
.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....
