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.
Virginia Will Be the Land
Date: January 13, 2012
Author: Michael A. Memoli
Topic: The Virginia Republican Primary Ballot
Source:The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-virginia-primary-ballot-20120113,0,528864.story
A judge in Virginia denied attempts by Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich to try to get on the Virginia ballot after they did not get enough signatures on their petitions. The state's new regulations require that each candidate get 10,000 petition signatures with a specific number from each congressional district. Furthermore, only residents of the state of Virginia are allowed to gather petitions.
I realize that it is the candidates' organizations' own faults that they are not on the ballot, but this truly gives an unfair advantage to Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.With Romney already the front-runner, and with only one other competitor, he will probably come out of Virginia with a large number of delegates. The election will also probably bode well for Paul who will share the media attention with only one other candidate, not four.
I have a theory that Virginia imposed these strict rules to give itself a more important role in the candidate-deciding process. Virginia, if I'm correct, could play a decisive role in choosing the next Republican candidate. Doesn't seem right to me.
Author: Michael A. Memoli
Topic: The Virginia Republican Primary Ballot
Source:The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-virginia-primary-ballot-20120113,0,528864.story
A judge in Virginia denied attempts by Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich to try to get on the Virginia ballot after they did not get enough signatures on their petitions. The state's new regulations require that each candidate get 10,000 petition signatures with a specific number from each congressional district. Furthermore, only residents of the state of Virginia are allowed to gather petitions.
I realize that it is the candidates' organizations' own faults that they are not on the ballot, but this truly gives an unfair advantage to Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.With Romney already the front-runner, and with only one other competitor, he will probably come out of Virginia with a large number of delegates. The election will also probably bode well for Paul who will share the media attention with only one other candidate, not four.
I have a theory that Virginia imposed these strict rules to give itself a more important role in the candidate-deciding process. Virginia, if I'm correct, could play a decisive role in choosing the next Republican candidate. Doesn't seem right to me.
Ever Considered An Open Mind, Rick Santorum?
Date: January 10, 2012
Author: Kergan Edwards-Stout
Topic: An Open Letter to Rick Santorum from a gay father.
Source: Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kergan-edwardsstout/rick-santorum-gay-parents_b_1197033.html
In "An Open Letter to Rick Santorum," Kergan Edwards-Stout, a gay man who is successfully raising a family with his male partner, he counters everything Santorum has been un-thoughtfully spewing about raising children in non-traditional families. Edwards-Stout writes, "You were recently quoted as saying that a jailed parent would be better for a child than being raised by a same-sex couple. You noted that if a same-sex couple were to raise a child, they would be 'robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to.'"Edwards-Stout goes on to discuss how his two children, both adopted, are presumably living much healthier, safer lives with their adopted parents. His older son was taken to a crack house at the mere age of 6 months old and was unable to walk for the first several years of his life because his parents had neglected to do anything about his club feet. Today, because Edwards-Stout was able to adopt the child out of foster care, the boy is an avid dancer and runner. Chances are, if the Edwards-Stout family hadn't come along, that poor kid would still be in foster care. Their other child was given to them at birth, because his birth mother realized that she was not, at that time in her life, wholly capable of raising her child.
Besides giving a personal narrative his own experience, Edwards-Stout also points out that before Santorum tries to say that gay parents are not adequate parents, the approximately 100,000 children in foster care need to be adopted. Only then, says Edwards-Stout, can Santorum even think about conducting some sort of study to understand the merits of being raised by straight versus gay parents. With that, I wholeheartedly agree. I would much rather my children be raised by parents, straight or gay, than be in our flawed foster care system. I have grown up around so many gay and lesbian parents (from my neighborhood, synagogue etc.) that I have no doubt that they are more than capable of raising productive, successful, accepting, and loving citizens, qualities that Mr. Santorum clearly lacks. I will drop to my knees and cry if this man somehow gets elected president. Might as well wave goodbye to my rights.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
GAHHH
Date: January 1, 2012
Program: Meet The Press
Topic: Interview with Rick Santorum
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/vp/45839916/#45839876
I am just really frustrated with the Republican candidates. My faith in bipartisanship is diminishing my the second. In an interview with Meet The Press, Santorum called Obama the "divider-in-chief." He says that Obama tries "to divide America between class, income group, racial and ethnic groups...and it's very difficult when you're being lampooned by the president..."
I am going to tear this statement apart. First of all, Obama is not the "divider-in-chief." Nearly every damn bill he has passed in the last year (or even two years) is a very watered down (and probably ineffective) version of the original bill. Why are they so watered down? Because he is compromising. He is not trying to divide. In fact, his backbone is too weak. Two years ago, the U.S. never would have seen the diluted payroll tax bill that recently went into legislation. The bill actually includes tax cuts, but because it also includes Democratic ideals, the Republicans could not bear to pass it the first time around...He should be called the spineless compromiser-in-chief if anything.
If anyone will divide America between "racial and ethnic groups," it will be Santorum. In an article I read today, Santorum was cited as saying, that Obama, as a Black man, should, of all people, be a firm pro-life supporter because, in Santorum's words, "Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'Now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" Who's dividing racial and ethnic groups now?? If that is not blatant racism right there, I don't know what is. He is implying that black people are inferior. Might as well just go back to 1950...I can't I can't I can't.
Program: Meet The Press
Topic: Interview with Rick Santorum
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/vp/45839916/#45839876
I am just really frustrated with the Republican candidates. My faith in bipartisanship is diminishing my the second. In an interview with Meet The Press, Santorum called Obama the "divider-in-chief." He says that Obama tries "to divide America between class, income group, racial and ethnic groups...and it's very difficult when you're being lampooned by the president..."
I am going to tear this statement apart. First of all, Obama is not the "divider-in-chief." Nearly every damn bill he has passed in the last year (or even two years) is a very watered down (and probably ineffective) version of the original bill. Why are they so watered down? Because he is compromising. He is not trying to divide. In fact, his backbone is too weak. Two years ago, the U.S. never would have seen the diluted payroll tax bill that recently went into legislation. The bill actually includes tax cuts, but because it also includes Democratic ideals, the Republicans could not bear to pass it the first time around...He should be called the spineless compromiser-in-chief if anything.
If anyone will divide America between "racial and ethnic groups," it will be Santorum. In an article I read today, Santorum was cited as saying, that Obama, as a Black man, should, of all people, be a firm pro-life supporter because, in Santorum's words, "Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'Now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" Who's dividing racial and ethnic groups now?? If that is not blatant racism right there, I don't know what is. He is implying that black people are inferior. Might as well just go back to 1950...I can't I can't I can't.
DISGUSTING
Date: January 1, 2012
Program: Fox News Sunday
Topic: Interview with Ron Paul
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1360001989001/rep-ron-paul-defends-controversial-aids-comments/?playlist_id=86913
Program: Fox News Sunday
Topic: Interview with Ron Paul
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1360001989001/rep-ron-paul-defends-controversial-aids-comments/?playlist_id=86913
Until I'd watched this video, I'd had a fairly favorable view of Ron Paul. That has certainly changed. I give him credit for being somewhat consistent in his ideologies--more than most of the other Republican candidates--BUT when your ideology is so consistent that it violates certain moral boundaries, you have absolutely crossed the line. Paul, in the interview, in my opinion, crossed the line, in TWO instances.
First, his stance on HIV/AIDS is absolutely ridiculous. He writes in a 1997 book, "The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim of his lifestyle, but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care." In the interview he reaffirms this statement, saying that people are products of their own foolish actions and that they should have to pay more for insurance as a result. Let's make a few things clear. 1) In addition to sexual activity, HIV/AIDS can be transmitted via childbirth and open wounds. Childbirth is NOT a foolish action. Touching somebody elses' blood is NOT foolish action. 2) this policy would indubitably discriminate against some sub-populations (e.g. African Americans, perhaps male homosexuals) of the United States. Furthermore, how would one prove if the disease were transmitted via foolish behavior? AND isn't foolish behavior a subjective term? In my book, this is NOT reasonable discrimination...
In his same book, Paul writes, in reference to sexual harassment in the workplace, "Why don't they quit [their jobs]once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harassee cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?" In the interview, Paul calls verbal sexual harassment "rude behavior" and says it should be dealt with at home, not by the federal government. IF ANYONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO QUIT HIS/HER JOB IN A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE, IT SHOULD BE THE HARASSER, NOT THE HARASSEE. Safety prevails over ideological concerns! Even verbal harassment can be scarring. This is ridiculous. I just lost oodles of respect for Mr. Paul. Good Bye.
Monday, January 2, 2012
We'll Just Have to Wait Longer
Date: January 2, 2012
Author: S.V. Date
Topic: New delegate system for the 2012 primary
Source: NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/01/02/144555264/2012-gop-presidential-primary-season-designed-to-slow-emergence-of-winner
There's a reason why this year's Republican nominee is probably going to be chosen much later in the year than in previous Republican primaries. The delegation system has changed! No longer can all states implement a winner-takes-all system. Now, if a state wants to use winner-takes-all, it must hold its primary after April 1st, when the primary cannot have nearly as much of an impact as if it were held in say February. So, this year, come April 1st, only 7% of the delegates will be distributed, as opposed to the 55% that had already been distributed in the 2008 election.
The new system could be beneficial or detrimental to the Republicans. It gives people like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum more of an opportunity to win the race. No longer will there be an inevitable winner early on in the election. However, candidates who ordinarily would have dropped out early on, will have to somehow maintain their funds and remain financially viable candidates. It will be interesting to see how and to what extent the new system impacts the GOP primaries of 2012.
Author: S.V. Date
Topic: New delegate system for the 2012 primary
Source: NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/01/02/144555264/2012-gop-presidential-primary-season-designed-to-slow-emergence-of-winner
There's a reason why this year's Republican nominee is probably going to be chosen much later in the year than in previous Republican primaries. The delegation system has changed! No longer can all states implement a winner-takes-all system. Now, if a state wants to use winner-takes-all, it must hold its primary after April 1st, when the primary cannot have nearly as much of an impact as if it were held in say February. So, this year, come April 1st, only 7% of the delegates will be distributed, as opposed to the 55% that had already been distributed in the 2008 election.
The new system could be beneficial or detrimental to the Republicans. It gives people like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum more of an opportunity to win the race. No longer will there be an inevitable winner early on in the election. However, candidates who ordinarily would have dropped out early on, will have to somehow maintain their funds and remain financially viable candidates. It will be interesting to see how and to what extent the new system impacts the GOP primaries of 2012.
GOP Race Extremely Unpredictable
Date: January 2, 2012
Author: N/A
Topic: Volatility of 2012 GOP primary race
Source: Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/02/gallup-gop-primary-contest-most-volatile-in-decades/
A recent Gallup poll shows that this year's GOP primary contest is the "most volatile in decades" AND the primaries haven't even started yet! The poll indicates that, since May, there have been four national leaders. This is perhaps only comparable to the 1964 primaries which Barry Goldwater eventually won. However, in the '64 primaries, the volatility did not become apparent until the actual voting season had begun. So, discounting the '64 primaries, Gallup reports that "Republican nomination process has been the most volatile for the GOP since the advent of polling."
So, who have these four front runners been? Mitt Romney, whose flip-flop mentality has made him a weak candidate in the eyes of many, Rick Perry, whose religiously infused campaign is too much for some moderate Republicans, Herman Cain, whose adulterous scandal(s) drove him to abandon his candidacy, and Newt Gingrich, whose sketchy past has made him a subject of controversy, have been the four competing to lead our country. And, to make matters more complicated, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are now seen as strong candidates in the Iowa caucuses.
My question is, where is Huntsman? He's not plagued by past scandals or adultery, nor does he push his religion upon the citizens of the U.S. as though we live in a theocracy (ahem Rick Perry). Given the volatility of this race, maybe Huntsman will pull some sort of stunt and take the lead in this circus. Until then, I hope the Republicans have fun realizing that they're candidates simply are not made of the right material to lead an entire country.
Author: N/A
Topic: Volatility of 2012 GOP primary race
Source: Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/02/gallup-gop-primary-contest-most-volatile-in-decades/
A recent Gallup poll shows that this year's GOP primary contest is the "most volatile in decades" AND the primaries haven't even started yet! The poll indicates that, since May, there have been four national leaders. This is perhaps only comparable to the 1964 primaries which Barry Goldwater eventually won. However, in the '64 primaries, the volatility did not become apparent until the actual voting season had begun. So, discounting the '64 primaries, Gallup reports that "Republican nomination process has been the most volatile for the GOP since the advent of polling."
So, who have these four front runners been? Mitt Romney, whose flip-flop mentality has made him a weak candidate in the eyes of many, Rick Perry, whose religiously infused campaign is too much for some moderate Republicans, Herman Cain, whose adulterous scandal(s) drove him to abandon his candidacy, and Newt Gingrich, whose sketchy past has made him a subject of controversy, have been the four competing to lead our country. And, to make matters more complicated, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are now seen as strong candidates in the Iowa caucuses.
My question is, where is Huntsman? He's not plagued by past scandals or adultery, nor does he push his religion upon the citizens of the U.S. as though we live in a theocracy (ahem Rick Perry). Given the volatility of this race, maybe Huntsman will pull some sort of stunt and take the lead in this circus. Until then, I hope the Republicans have fun realizing that they're candidates simply are not made of the right material to lead an entire country.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year's Resolutions
Date: January 1, 2012
Program: CBS Face the Nation
Topic: Candidates' New Year's Resolutions
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57350623/gop-candidates-make-2012-new-years-resolutions/
Last year (2011) representatives from Face the Nation asked several of the candidates what their New Year's resolutions were. Not surprisingly, each stayed true to character.
Rick Perry, of course, brought prayer into his resolution, because who would Rick Perry be if, god forbid, he wasn't allowed to pray? He says, "I resolve to pray more often for our young men and women who are in our combat theaters that they'll come home soon safe, obviously for my family, for their health, for their prosperity and that 2012 is a very successful and great year for them and for the people of America." Praying isn't going to get the troops home. That's the government's job.
Anyway, onto Michele Bachmann. She asserts, "Yes, it's to work very, very hard and win the Iowa caucus and then win the New Hampshire primary and then win the South Carolina primary and then go on and win the Florida primary, so my resolution is to win primaries next year and become the nominee." She is clearly disillusioned, but, I guess most New Year's resolutions are idealistic anyway. Bachmann's idealistic nature shows through. Also, if she wins all those primaries, I'm somehow getting out of my early decision agreement and going to college in Canada. What's up, McGill?
Jon Huntsman says, "A little more love and compassion. I hope, you know as we're winding down in Iraq and we're looking at a lot of families that have lost a mom or a dad or a spouse in the theater of combat, Because when I say, this nation has given its all, this nation has given its all." Clearly he knows what our country needs more than any of the Republican candidates in this circus show. Compassion and love. Maybe I'm idealistic, but how are we supposed to get anything in this country done without compassion or love? The other candidates were interviewed as well, but I thought these were the most interesting. Signing out.
Program: CBS Face the Nation
Topic: Candidates' New Year's Resolutions
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57350623/gop-candidates-make-2012-new-years-resolutions/
Last year (2011) representatives from Face the Nation asked several of the candidates what their New Year's resolutions were. Not surprisingly, each stayed true to character.
Rick Perry, of course, brought prayer into his resolution, because who would Rick Perry be if, god forbid, he wasn't allowed to pray? He says, "I resolve to pray more often for our young men and women who are in our combat theaters that they'll come home soon safe, obviously for my family, for their health, for their prosperity and that 2012 is a very successful and great year for them and for the people of America." Praying isn't going to get the troops home. That's the government's job.
Anyway, onto Michele Bachmann. She asserts, "Yes, it's to work very, very hard and win the Iowa caucus and then win the New Hampshire primary and then win the South Carolina primary and then go on and win the Florida primary, so my resolution is to win primaries next year and become the nominee." She is clearly disillusioned, but, I guess most New Year's resolutions are idealistic anyway. Bachmann's idealistic nature shows through. Also, if she wins all those primaries, I'm somehow getting out of my early decision agreement and going to college in Canada. What's up, McGill?
Jon Huntsman says, "A little more love and compassion. I hope, you know as we're winding down in Iraq and we're looking at a lot of families that have lost a mom or a dad or a spouse in the theater of combat, Because when I say, this nation has given its all, this nation has given its all." Clearly he knows what our country needs more than any of the Republican candidates in this circus show. Compassion and love. Maybe I'm idealistic, but how are we supposed to get anything in this country done without compassion or love? The other candidates were interviewed as well, but I thought these were the most interesting. Signing out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)