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.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Is anybody paying attention?; Ron Paul is a Libertarian!
What's the deal? Why is Ron Paul running on the Republican ticket? How is it, that everyone seems to have forgotten that he is a Libertarian and not a Republican?? It seems like we all knew this years before and forgot it--just like erratic voters and political promoters seemed to have forgotten Herman Cain had absolutely NO political experience and Newt Gingrich had a lot of baggage(personal and political) that made him unsuitable as a candidate in a general election.
Back to Paul: The facts are clear; Ron Paul espouses the views of a hard line Libertarian and if he wishes to run for President he should run representing that party, not confuse the already muddled voters by trying to pass himself off as a 'conservative republican'.
I sure wish the voters and the commentators would do their homework and really look at these candidates. I notice a lot of people commenting that they like Paul--except for his isolationist views. Well, that's what makes him a LIBERTARIAN and NOT a Republican. sheesh!!
Back to Paul: The facts are clear; Ron Paul espouses the views of a hard line Libertarian and if he wishes to run for President he should run representing that party, not confuse the already muddled voters by trying to pass himself off as a 'conservative republican'.
I sure wish the voters and the commentators would do their homework and really look at these candidates. I notice a lot of people commenting that they like Paul--except for his isolationist views. Well, that's what makes him a LIBERTARIAN and NOT a Republican. sheesh!!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Pres. Obama, a Muslim?
Okaaay. I got one of those emails that are sent around about Obama being a Muslim because he wasn't wearing his wedding ring during Ramadan. Soooo, I decided to check it out. It was true, and his explanation was that it was in for repairs. I can accept that. Besides, I sometimes forget to wear my ring and I often change it out for other rings (I love jewelry too much to be constrained to only one ring for all my married life!) so I don't take that seriously.
But no Christmas and Birthday presents??? Now, that's something that can't be explained away so easily.
While browsing, I found reported in a People Magazine interview from 2008 that the Obamas stated they don't give their daughters Birthday or Christmas presents. THAT, if you ask me, is the nail that closes this coffin. I have relatives by marriage who are Muslim and they do not give Birthday and Christmas presents. If you ask me, that's a bigger piece of evidence to suggest that he is indeed a practicing Muslim. One would expect that if he was a Christian, he would celebrate Christmas in the traditional way--and the no Birthday presents thing too?--that's Muslim.
It's no secret that he was raised Muslim in his early years and I suspect if he is at all religious, he's Muslim. His 'conversion' to Christianity was most likely to help him in his community organizing career.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with a Muslim President, but I do have a problem with one who is deceptive about his religion. I'm sure one day we'll know the truth, but I think I already know it.
But no Christmas and Birthday presents??? Now, that's something that can't be explained away so easily.
While browsing, I found reported in a People Magazine interview from 2008 that the Obamas stated they don't give their daughters Birthday or Christmas presents. THAT, if you ask me, is the nail that closes this coffin. I have relatives by marriage who are Muslim and they do not give Birthday and Christmas presents. If you ask me, that's a bigger piece of evidence to suggest that he is indeed a practicing Muslim. One would expect that if he was a Christian, he would celebrate Christmas in the traditional way--and the no Birthday presents thing too?--that's Muslim.
It's no secret that he was raised Muslim in his early years and I suspect if he is at all religious, he's Muslim. His 'conversion' to Christianity was most likely to help him in his community organizing career.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with a Muslim President, but I do have a problem with one who is deceptive about his religion. I'm sure one day we'll know the truth, but I think I already know it.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Collapse the system so it can be replaced;
The debt crisis is over and the media claims the Tea Party won. Huh? They raised the debt limit 2.4 trillion. Of course, they didn't touch the base line budgeting so that means the budget will continue to grow and essentially, they're cutting nothing. There is also nothing to encourage a balanced budget. And we have the real threat of higher taxes. So, how did the Tea Party win?
The FACT is, they didn't. The media believes that Americans don't pay any attention to what's actually going on and will believe whatever they read in the headlines.
What happened is that our legislators sold us what they wanted to sell us all along--business as usual. They continue to spend, we continue to pay, the media continues to spin and nothing changes. There were some who tried to stop this, but they are still too few. Hopefully we'll patiently work to continue to replace members in the Senate and Congress with people who won't continue 'business as usual', who don't put their own re-election needs first and who won't be afraid. If we can get enough, maybe we can go back to how the country was supposed to be run.
The Congress had power. They gave it up because they took the deal, but the deal was a sham. Now, we're back where we started. The President and Democrats spend out of control, reward their cronies, pet projects, unions, and ignore the warnings, with little real opposition.
Some can't imagine that Progressive Democrats and the President would continue on a course they know will collapse the system. But how else does the President follow through on his promise to 'fundamentally transform' the country? Cloward and Piven showed that if you put enough pressure on a system, you can collapse it. Then the way is clear to remake it as you choose. The President can't replace our present system while it's still working, but if it breaks, the way is clear.
The Republicans had a chance to throw a wrench in his plans and they were too afraid to use it. So we continue at full speed on a course towards destruction.
The FACT is, they didn't. The media believes that Americans don't pay any attention to what's actually going on and will believe whatever they read in the headlines.
What happened is that our legislators sold us what they wanted to sell us all along--business as usual. They continue to spend, we continue to pay, the media continues to spin and nothing changes. There were some who tried to stop this, but they are still too few. Hopefully we'll patiently work to continue to replace members in the Senate and Congress with people who won't continue 'business as usual', who don't put their own re-election needs first and who won't be afraid. If we can get enough, maybe we can go back to how the country was supposed to be run.
The Congress had power. They gave it up because they took the deal, but the deal was a sham. Now, we're back where we started. The President and Democrats spend out of control, reward their cronies, pet projects, unions, and ignore the warnings, with little real opposition.
Some can't imagine that Progressive Democrats and the President would continue on a course they know will collapse the system. But how else does the President follow through on his promise to 'fundamentally transform' the country? Cloward and Piven showed that if you put enough pressure on a system, you can collapse it. Then the way is clear to remake it as you choose. The President can't replace our present system while it's still working, but if it breaks, the way is clear.
The Republicans had a chance to throw a wrench in his plans and they were too afraid to use it. So we continue at full speed on a course towards destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)