This country is broken. That's all I can say. Yes, we're better off than most countries in the world, but when the Speaker of the House doesn't clap for gender equality, or improvements in education, you know something is wrong. When Congress is so divided that the only topic that receives bipartisan claps is (untrue) American exceptionalism, you know something's wrong. All this being said, for the circumstances, Obama made a (for the most part) rallying, inspiring, and succinct speech, BUT I still think we need an alternative to both Obama and the clown-like Republican candidates.
Topics I support/am in agreement with that Obama discussed during SOTU: Obama's assertion that we need to get the bad teachers out of schools, and reward the good ones for what they are doing. I've had too many not-so-quality teachers at Central, and that's Central, so I can't imagine what it's like at other institutions of learning that don't possess Central's prestige or standard of education. The whole, "If you keep spiking tuition, the government will stop giving you funds." It's a fair warning to colleges. Higher education should not be a luxury. I also love love loved his conclusion. He emphasized that if members of the military, people of all different races, genders, sexualities, and political affiliations could work together, then so should the representatives of America's government. Let me re-emphasize, we are not going to get anywhere if people don't compromise. Stubbornness is not the route to take when we're in a recession. This is another reason why Congress should get its act together and pass the damn payroll tax cut. It's a piece of legislation basically begging for compromise. Come on Congress! You can do it!
Topics I don't support/am not in agreement with: The American exceptionalism B.S. Obama knows American is not the best at everything. He knows that America is not revered all around the world. He knows we're not always looked to for advice. Or maybe he doesn't know this, but if that's the case, he's one delusional, short-sighted president. So if he knows all this-and I have faith that he does-he should stop with the petty B.S. All he gets is a couple claps. Less talk, more action. Also, he could have saved some breath had he not proposed the whole federally changing the age one can leave high school of his/her own accord to age 18. It was irrelevant, idealistic, and, if the payroll tax cut won't even pass, somehow I doubt this proposal would. After all, education is reserved to the states. Last, I personally did not approve his new approach to environmental action. He point of view seemed to transition from that of an environmental paradigm to that of an energy paradigm. Clean energy, clean energy, clean energy. While I understand this was probably a necessary step to take to try to gain some GOP support, and that it could be beneficial to reducing the U.S.' environmental impact, I wish that America's values were different and I know Obama's are. In this case, it's too bad that he caved on this issue, but hey...I'm being a hypocrite, so I'm going to stop writing. Farewell.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Super Duper Pac
Program: Face the Nation
Topic: Interview with Newt #2
Date: 1/15/12
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395188n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Well at least he has some integrity...Newt has apparently requested that his superPAC take down some of the ads that warrant those Washington Post Pinocchios. Newt asserts he is trying to "set a standard" for future campaigns, a standard that Romney, whose superPAC aired some pretty false statements about Gingrich, has not chosen to set. "I would much rather have election reform so the money can go straight to the candidate and the candidate can bear responsibility. We'd clean up about 80% of the poison in the system if candidates had to put their names on the ads," says the oh-so-wise Newt in his interview with Face the Nation.
This is perhaps the only area where I can muster any respect for Newt, but here's my question: Will campaign finance reform really do anything? Loopholes ALWAYS seem to be found. SuperPACS were formed as a way to avoid former campaign finance reform. Same goes for 527, and PACS to begin. Clearly, one petty, flawed, and incorrect ad should not decide an election, but I'm sure other, perhaps more detrimental loopholes would be found if another campaign finance reform bill were to be passed.
Topic: Interview with Newt #2
Date: 1/15/12
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395188n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Well at least he has some integrity...Newt has apparently requested that his superPAC take down some of the ads that warrant those Washington Post Pinocchios. Newt asserts he is trying to "set a standard" for future campaigns, a standard that Romney, whose superPAC aired some pretty false statements about Gingrich, has not chosen to set. "I would much rather have election reform so the money can go straight to the candidate and the candidate can bear responsibility. We'd clean up about 80% of the poison in the system if candidates had to put their names on the ads," says the oh-so-wise Newt in his interview with Face the Nation.
This is perhaps the only area where I can muster any respect for Newt, but here's my question: Will campaign finance reform really do anything? Loopholes ALWAYS seem to be found. SuperPACS were formed as a way to avoid former campaign finance reform. Same goes for 527, and PACS to begin. Clearly, one petty, flawed, and incorrect ad should not decide an election, but I'm sure other, perhaps more detrimental loopholes would be found if another campaign finance reform bill were to be passed.
RomneyBamaNewtrO'rama
Program: Meet the Press
Topic: Interview with Newt
Date: 1/15/12
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/46004838#46004722
"Is it better to draw a bold, clear line between a Reagan conservative and the most liberal president in our history? Or is it better to have somebody who in many ways Romneycare vs. Obamacare...I think it's much harder for Romney to draw a sharp contrast than it would be for me," so says Newt Gingrich in an interview on Meet the Press. Throughout the interview he asserts that he is the conservative candidate, and that anyone who wants the Republicans to win the elections in the fall would vote for him.
Let's dissect that thought process a bit. First, one must consider, between Obama, Gingrich, and Romney, who would receive the independent vote in the general election? Who would receive the centrist vote? There's no doubt in my mind that it would go to either Obama or Romney, NOT Gingrich. Gingrich's relative small base of "real" ultra-conservatives could only take him so far in the general election. If the Republicans really want to win the elections in the fall, they'll elect Romney. Or, actually, they should have taken Huntsman more seriously, but...too late for that. Obviously, I think they should elect Gingrich, because the last thing we need is a complete reversal of what Obama has accomplished. Yay recession!
Topic: Interview with Newt
Date: 1/15/12
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/46004838#46004722
"Is it better to draw a bold, clear line between a Reagan conservative and the most liberal president in our history? Or is it better to have somebody who in many ways Romneycare vs. Obamacare...I think it's much harder for Romney to draw a sharp contrast than it would be for me," so says Newt Gingrich in an interview on Meet the Press. Throughout the interview he asserts that he is the conservative candidate, and that anyone who wants the Republicans to win the elections in the fall would vote for him.
Let's dissect that thought process a bit. First, one must consider, between Obama, Gingrich, and Romney, who would receive the independent vote in the general election? Who would receive the centrist vote? There's no doubt in my mind that it would go to either Obama or Romney, NOT Gingrich. Gingrich's relative small base of "real" ultra-conservatives could only take him so far in the general election. If the Republicans really want to win the elections in the fall, they'll elect Romney. Or, actually, they should have taken Huntsman more seriously, but...too late for that. Obviously, I think they should elect Gingrich, because the last thing we need is a complete reversal of what Obama has accomplished. Yay recession!
Mistake After Mistake After Mistake
Date: January 19, 2012
Author: Bill Press
Topic: "How not to run a Republican primary"
Source: The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201201191330--tms--bpresstt--m-a20120119jan19,0,1076900.column
In Bill Press's article, he lays out and explains SIX ways not to run a Republican primary. And you guessed it: the Republicans of this primary year have committed all six offenses! He begins by reminding us Americans that the Republicans started out with the clear advantage: "His popularity plummeted. Democrats got shellacked in the mid-term elections. Obama's legislative agenda never got off the ground. Even liberals -- no, especially liberals -- were disappointed with his failure to fight for or deliver on several key issues. Consensus among many political observers: Obama was a weak president whom Republicans could easily deny a second term." So, what happened?
Mistake 1: The Republican party didn't come up with a strategy, or rather not a GOOD one. Their strategy: not-Obama. Vote no on everything. No no no. No, is not the way to propose something new.
Mistake 2: The Republican party left their most promising candidates to their current government positions, candidates like that awful tax-cutting, education funding-cutting Chris Christie. Also, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Haley Barbour.
Mistake 3:Choosing the fools they did. I mean, who can look at Bachmann or Trump with a straight face?
Mistake 4:Like I've been saying all along, writing off Jon Huntsman! Press writes, " He's smart, articulate, and good on his feet. He has the best resume, as businessman, governor and ambassador. He was the one candidate who stood a good chance of beating President Obama, and the one candidate Obama feared most." Those Republicans are going to regret it...
Mistake 5: "Settling" on Romney. He's a terrible campaigner and is the opposite of a defender of the middle class. Watch out pluralists!
Mistake 6: Tearing Romney apart on his track record at Bain Capital. Calling your probable future nominee a "corporate raider" "job destroyer" and "vulture capitalist" doesn't bode well for winning the nomination.
Signing out.
Author: Bill Press
Topic: "How not to run a Republican primary"
Source: The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201201191330--tms--bpresstt--m-a20120119jan19,0,1076900.column
In Bill Press's article, he lays out and explains SIX ways not to run a Republican primary. And you guessed it: the Republicans of this primary year have committed all six offenses! He begins by reminding us Americans that the Republicans started out with the clear advantage: "His popularity plummeted. Democrats got shellacked in the mid-term elections. Obama's legislative agenda never got off the ground. Even liberals -- no, especially liberals -- were disappointed with his failure to fight for or deliver on several key issues. Consensus among many political observers: Obama was a weak president whom Republicans could easily deny a second term." So, what happened?
Mistake 1: The Republican party didn't come up with a strategy, or rather not a GOOD one. Their strategy: not-Obama. Vote no on everything. No no no. No, is not the way to propose something new.
Mistake 2: The Republican party left their most promising candidates to their current government positions, candidates like that awful tax-cutting, education funding-cutting Chris Christie. Also, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Haley Barbour.
Mistake 3:Choosing the fools they did. I mean, who can look at Bachmann or Trump with a straight face?
Mistake 4:Like I've been saying all along, writing off Jon Huntsman! Press writes, " He's smart, articulate, and good on his feet. He has the best resume, as businessman, governor and ambassador. He was the one candidate who stood a good chance of beating President Obama, and the one candidate Obama feared most." Those Republicans are going to regret it...
Mistake 5: "Settling" on Romney. He's a terrible campaigner and is the opposite of a defender of the middle class. Watch out pluralists!
Mistake 6: Tearing Romney apart on his track record at Bain Capital. Calling your probable future nominee a "corporate raider" "job destroyer" and "vulture capitalist" doesn't bode well for winning the nomination.
Signing out.
You Better Watch Out, Romney.
Date: January 19, 2012
Author: Ewen MacAskill
Topic: South Carolina
Source: The Guardian: U.S. Edition http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/rick-perry-quits-republican-race
Several developments today in the race the Republican presidential nominee, may have changed the entire course of the race, and, mostly to the detriment of Mitt Romney. With Newt Gingrich already trailing on Romney's footsteps (probably due to a bad Romney performance in the debate), it came only as bad news that, after an Iowa recount, Rick Santorum actually won the Iowa Caucus! To make matters worse for Romney, Rick Perry dropped out of the race today, narrowing the field of candidates immensely AND endorsing that pesky Gingrich. Romney has also come under fire because it is suspected that he sent some of his money to the Cayman Islands, where he could avoid paying taxes on it. Not looking too good, flipflopRomney.
But, it's not all smooth sailing for Gingrich either. In an interview on ABC today, his ex-wife Marianne Gingrich discussed Gingrich's plea to have an "open marriage" with his current wife Callista Bisek. As Perry said in his exit speech, "Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?" I only hope, or err don't hope that those evangelical and fundamentalist Christians can see beyond his polyamorous ways...If Newt manages to win on Saturday, Romney, the so-called undisputed front runner, won't be such a front runner after all. He'll actually have won only one of the first three states, not three. Yay volatility!
Author: Ewen MacAskill
Topic: South Carolina
Source: The Guardian: U.S. Edition http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/rick-perry-quits-republican-race
Several developments today in the race the Republican presidential nominee, may have changed the entire course of the race, and, mostly to the detriment of Mitt Romney. With Newt Gingrich already trailing on Romney's footsteps (probably due to a bad Romney performance in the debate), it came only as bad news that, after an Iowa recount, Rick Santorum actually won the Iowa Caucus! To make matters worse for Romney, Rick Perry dropped out of the race today, narrowing the field of candidates immensely AND endorsing that pesky Gingrich. Romney has also come under fire because it is suspected that he sent some of his money to the Cayman Islands, where he could avoid paying taxes on it. Not looking too good, flipflopRomney.
But, it's not all smooth sailing for Gingrich either. In an interview on ABC today, his ex-wife Marianne Gingrich discussed Gingrich's plea to have an "open marriage" with his current wife Callista Bisek. As Perry said in his exit speech, "Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?" I only hope, or err don't hope that those evangelical and fundamentalist Christians can see beyond his polyamorous ways...If Newt manages to win on Saturday, Romney, the so-called undisputed front runner, won't be such a front runner after all. He'll actually have won only one of the first three states, not three. Yay volatility!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Romney Gets Fancy
Date: January 17, 2012
Author: Jim Rutenberg
Topic: Romney's Robocalls
Source: NY Times http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/romney-calls-voters-with-an-old-message-from-santorum/
So much for superPAC commercials. The Mitt Romney campaign has come up with a better idea! Use Santorum's actual recorded words on a robocall to homes in South Carolina. You see, Santorum endorsed Romney in the 2008 election, and, when I say endorsed, I mean endorsed. The recording goes as follows:
"AUDIO TEXT: 'This is an urgent message from the Romney campaign. In 2008, Rick Santorum made the following announcement on Laura Ingraham’s radio program.”
LAURA INGRAHAM: “Joining us now with an important announcement, you’re not going to want to miss this, former senator from the great state of Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.”
RICK SANTORUM: “If you’re a conservative, there really is only one place to go right now. I would even argue farther than that. If you’re a Republican, if you’re a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now, and that’s Mitt Romney.”
LAURA INGRAHAM: “Senator Rick Santorum endorsing Mitt Romney unequivocally, without hesitation, that should mean something to all of you. Senator Santorum, thank you so much.”
AUDIO TEXT: “This call was paid for by Romney For President, Inc.'"
So there you see it and now South Carolina Republicans are hearing it too. I wonder how much impact, if any, the robocall will really have. After all, Richard Adams writes in an article that appeared in The Guardian today, that residents of Greenville, SC report receiving between 15 and 20 robocalls a day from those good ol' Republican candidates. Many, the interviewee reports, are just letting everything go straight to voice mail, or leaving their phones off the hook. That doesn't bode too well for the Republican candidates. If there are too many robocalls, each blends into next. Take that as a lesson, Romney.
Author: Jim Rutenberg
Topic: Romney's Robocalls
Source: NY Times http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/romney-calls-voters-with-an-old-message-from-santorum/
So much for superPAC commercials. The Mitt Romney campaign has come up with a better idea! Use Santorum's actual recorded words on a robocall to homes in South Carolina. You see, Santorum endorsed Romney in the 2008 election, and, when I say endorsed, I mean endorsed. The recording goes as follows:
"AUDIO TEXT: 'This is an urgent message from the Romney campaign. In 2008, Rick Santorum made the following announcement on Laura Ingraham’s radio program.”
LAURA INGRAHAM: “Joining us now with an important announcement, you’re not going to want to miss this, former senator from the great state of Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.”
RICK SANTORUM: “If you’re a conservative, there really is only one place to go right now. I would even argue farther than that. If you’re a Republican, if you’re a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now, and that’s Mitt Romney.”
LAURA INGRAHAM: “Senator Rick Santorum endorsing Mitt Romney unequivocally, without hesitation, that should mean something to all of you. Senator Santorum, thank you so much.”
AUDIO TEXT: “This call was paid for by Romney For President, Inc.'"
So there you see it and now South Carolina Republicans are hearing it too. I wonder how much impact, if any, the robocall will really have. After all, Richard Adams writes in an article that appeared in The Guardian today, that residents of Greenville, SC report receiving between 15 and 20 robocalls a day from those good ol' Republican candidates. Many, the interviewee reports, are just letting everything go straight to voice mail, or leaving their phones off the hook. That doesn't bode too well for the Republican candidates. If there are too many robocalls, each blends into next. Take that as a lesson, Romney.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Colbert?
Date: January 13, 2012
Program: This Week
Topic: Colbert running for president?
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/
Steven Colbert is running for president in South Carolina and currently he has more support than poor Jon Huntsman. Interesting, right? Well, his reason for "running?" He is trying to expose the ridiculousness of Super PACs, organizations, that, as long as they are not directly affiliated with a candidate, can pour as much money into that candidate as they want. In fact, Colbert signed over his super PAC to Jon Stewart the other day, so now it's no longer linked to future-president Colbert!
But wait...write ins are not allowed in South Carolina, which, by the way, is Colbert's place of birth. So how is Colbert going run for president? Let's leave that up to him, I suppose. But seriously, if Steven Colbert can receive more support than some of the actual Republican candidates, we have a problem. Can't we just make Obama win right now and stop squandering away much-needed money-money that could help those who are unemployed in America.
Program: This Week
Topic: Colbert running for president?
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/
Steven Colbert is running for president in South Carolina and currently he has more support than poor Jon Huntsman. Interesting, right? Well, his reason for "running?" He is trying to expose the ridiculousness of Super PACs, organizations, that, as long as they are not directly affiliated with a candidate, can pour as much money into that candidate as they want. In fact, Colbert signed over his super PAC to Jon Stewart the other day, so now it's no longer linked to future-president Colbert!
But wait...write ins are not allowed in South Carolina, which, by the way, is Colbert's place of birth. So how is Colbert going run for president? Let's leave that up to him, I suppose. But seriously, if Steven Colbert can receive more support than some of the actual Republican candidates, we have a problem. Can't we just make Obama win right now and stop squandering away much-needed money-money that could help those who are unemployed in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)