The Republican debates spend a lot of time on Obamacare and Romneycare, but this isn't even going to be a topic of discussion if Romney gets the nomination.
In order for Pres. Obama to attack Romney about Romneycare, he has to attack from the standpoint that Obamacare is BAD, which is how all the Republicans see it. Unlike the other candidates, Pres. Obama LOVES his healthcare program, he's even claimed they used Romneycare as the model for it, so how can he use criticism of 'Romneycare' against Romney in an ad, a debate or anything else?
Fact is, he can't. If he did, he'd only be hurting his own plan, which hasn't even been implemented and needs to be propped up by his administration, not questioned or criticized.
One more 'negative' against Romney as the GOP nominee fizzles.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
2012 Iowa caucus result
Iowa reversed itself and 'officially' declared Rick Santorum the winner. Sooo, did they find those lost ballots from those precincts that they LOST? I'm not sure how one actually goes about certifying a winner when the ballots are lost and there's no way to re-count them. A minor detail to Iowa election officials, I guess.
So, we are supposed to believe that with the recount, THIS TIME, they got it right and Santorum really is the winner...by 34 votes. Okaayyy.
Maybe I'm being hard on them, but it seems to me if you are going to take on the responsibility of an election, you ought to try really hard to count the votes correctly and not lose or misplace them until at least AFTER the election is over and certified. And, if the election is really close, it might be a good idea to actually EXPECT to do a recount--just to make sure, before you tell everyone the outcome. If Iowa had done that, they wouldn't look so incompetent, or worse, fraudulent.
Has Iowa gotten too complacent, thinking they will always get to go first? After botching the results this way, I think the rest of the 49 states should seriously rethink allowing Iowa to keep the first place position in the primaries. Maybe we should let a more responsible state have a shot at it. We can hold a vote...but we'll let someone else count the ballots:)
So, we are supposed to believe that with the recount, THIS TIME, they got it right and Santorum really is the winner...by 34 votes. Okaayyy.
Maybe I'm being hard on them, but it seems to me if you are going to take on the responsibility of an election, you ought to try really hard to count the votes correctly and not lose or misplace them until at least AFTER the election is over and certified. And, if the election is really close, it might be a good idea to actually EXPECT to do a recount--just to make sure, before you tell everyone the outcome. If Iowa had done that, they wouldn't look so incompetent, or worse, fraudulent.
Has Iowa gotten too complacent, thinking they will always get to go first? After botching the results this way, I think the rest of the 49 states should seriously rethink allowing Iowa to keep the first place position in the primaries. Maybe we should let a more responsible state have a shot at it. We can hold a vote...but we'll let someone else count the ballots:)
Friday, January 20, 2012
Politics 2012; Picking candidates the American Idol way.
If South Carolina picks Newt Gingrich in the Primary tomorrow, I'll be praying that their streak of picking the nominee ends. If the Republican Party chooses Gingrich as their nominee, I'm betting he'll lose and we'll have four more years of Pres. Obama.
Here's why; Putting aside excuses and making allowances for Gingrich and looking at him with a clear eye at how he will fair as a candidate running against President Obama is necessary to understand why I say this. From the wild racing from candidate to candidate we've witnessed and the pick of Pres. Obama three years ago, it's clear that voters today vote by emotion, not by studying the issues, the candidate's character and positions and how they will govern. Instead, they decide with their feelings; how it makes them feel to support their candidate.
We've been influenced by the 'American Idol' or 'Dancing with the Stars' way of choosing a winner. It doesn't have as much to do with talent and ability. Winners are chosen for emotional reasons, especially if it makes them 'feel good' to vote for a person. Many voted for Pres. Obama because he made them feel like they were doing something special, being part of a movement. It made them feel good about themselves. Another reason people vote for a candidate is because they've been made to feel 'fear' about the opposing candidate. This is a method that is often used in trying to get voters to vote a certain way.
And that brings me back to why I believe Gingrich would lose against the President. His negatives would be very easy to trump up to make voters 'fear' a Gingrich Presidency. Just like the media scared voters at the thought that Sarah Palin might be 'a heartbeat away from the Presidency', they'll do their best to frighten voters that Gingrich in the White House will be like putting the Taliban in the White House.
Republicans must remember that they are not just running against President Obama, but against the Dominant News Media organizations. They have proven they are solidly behind the President and will do everything possible to help him win re-election.
If the Republicans want to have ANY chance of winning, they must recognize how voters choose their candidates. Given the President's inability to turn the economy around, his mistakes in foreign policy and the fact that he can't work within the constitutional system, but seeks to circumvent it whenever possible, it would be wise to choose a nominee who can instill a sense that a capable 'adult' is in charge, who makes people feel 'safe' and hopeful about our future.
Pres. Obama's explanation for his failure is that the economy mess was worse than he thought. But a smart candidate can show the voters that it was the President's bumbling attempts to fix the problem which made it worse(this is much better than telling voters that the President is a Marxist and wants to turn the US into a Socialist Democracy. It may be true, but saying this will bring out a defensive posture that might very well push sympathetic voters into the President's corner. Also, the Republican candidate needs voters who voted for Obama last time to vote for them and pointing out that they chose a Marxist doesn't win them over--it makes them feel dumb and defensive and causes many to slip into denial rather than admit they were wrong and partially responsible for the mess).
Voters don't want more excuses, they want action. A candidate who can make a strong case for why we need someone else to try to fix the problem can deflate the media's attempts to prop the President up by pointing out things as they really are and not allow people to fall for the emotional manipulation which will give us four more years of the same, if not much worse. Heaven help us.
Here's why; Putting aside excuses and making allowances for Gingrich and looking at him with a clear eye at how he will fair as a candidate running against President Obama is necessary to understand why I say this. From the wild racing from candidate to candidate we've witnessed and the pick of Pres. Obama three years ago, it's clear that voters today vote by emotion, not by studying the issues, the candidate's character and positions and how they will govern. Instead, they decide with their feelings; how it makes them feel to support their candidate.
We've been influenced by the 'American Idol' or 'Dancing with the Stars' way of choosing a winner. It doesn't have as much to do with talent and ability. Winners are chosen for emotional reasons, especially if it makes them 'feel good' to vote for a person. Many voted for Pres. Obama because he made them feel like they were doing something special, being part of a movement. It made them feel good about themselves. Another reason people vote for a candidate is because they've been made to feel 'fear' about the opposing candidate. This is a method that is often used in trying to get voters to vote a certain way.
And that brings me back to why I believe Gingrich would lose against the President. His negatives would be very easy to trump up to make voters 'fear' a Gingrich Presidency. Just like the media scared voters at the thought that Sarah Palin might be 'a heartbeat away from the Presidency', they'll do their best to frighten voters that Gingrich in the White House will be like putting the Taliban in the White House.
Republicans must remember that they are not just running against President Obama, but against the Dominant News Media organizations. They have proven they are solidly behind the President and will do everything possible to help him win re-election.
If the Republicans want to have ANY chance of winning, they must recognize how voters choose their candidates. Given the President's inability to turn the economy around, his mistakes in foreign policy and the fact that he can't work within the constitutional system, but seeks to circumvent it whenever possible, it would be wise to choose a nominee who can instill a sense that a capable 'adult' is in charge, who makes people feel 'safe' and hopeful about our future.
Pres. Obama's explanation for his failure is that the economy mess was worse than he thought. But a smart candidate can show the voters that it was the President's bumbling attempts to fix the problem which made it worse(this is much better than telling voters that the President is a Marxist and wants to turn the US into a Socialist Democracy. It may be true, but saying this will bring out a defensive posture that might very well push sympathetic voters into the President's corner. Also, the Republican candidate needs voters who voted for Obama last time to vote for them and pointing out that they chose a Marxist doesn't win them over--it makes them feel dumb and defensive and causes many to slip into denial rather than admit they were wrong and partially responsible for the mess).
Voters don't want more excuses, they want action. A candidate who can make a strong case for why we need someone else to try to fix the problem can deflate the media's attempts to prop the President up by pointing out things as they really are and not allow people to fall for the emotional manipulation which will give us four more years of the same, if not much worse. Heaven help us.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
"Romney couldn't beat McCain so he can't beat Obama???"
Why do I keep hearing this lame attack against Romney that since he couldn't beat McCain for the nomination in 2008, why would we want to pick him as our nominee--he's got no chance against Pres. Obama.
Okay people, let's think this through carefully. This is NOT a salient argument and here's why. Ronald Reagan ran for the nomination in 1976 and LOST--to Gerald Ford...who then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter in the general election. By some people's way of thinking, the voters were fools to choose Reagan in 1980 as their nominee, since he couldn't even beat Ford---who couldn't beat Jimmy Carter. But what happened? They didn't listen to this silly argument and Reagan went on to beat Carter in 1980 by a landslide.
Okay people, let's think this through carefully. This is NOT a salient argument and here's why. Ronald Reagan ran for the nomination in 1976 and LOST--to Gerald Ford...who then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter in the general election. By some people's way of thinking, the voters were fools to choose Reagan in 1980 as their nominee, since he couldn't even beat Ford---who couldn't beat Jimmy Carter. But what happened? They didn't listen to this silly argument and Reagan went on to beat Carter in 1980 by a landslide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)