Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Always The Worst Option
Wall Street's Candidate Wins New Hampshire
Mitt Romney got near the expected 40% that some polls had been predicting for a while now, and he scored a solid victory with a double-digit lead. He needed to do that since New Hampshire is kind of his home turf (bordering Massachusetts), or he would have been perceived as very weak. But he did it, and now it's time to go South and see if he can maintain the momentum he currently has. South Carolina is next (on January 21st). Any kind of win there for Romney would be good -- even one as slim as he had in Iowa, since that state has a lot of teabagger/evangelicals (a group Romney still has not shown he can win over).
Ron Paul finished a solid second in New Hampshire, doing even better there than he did in Iowa (where he finished third). That should provide him with the impetus to remain in the race for the long haul. However, I still can't see a way for him to win the Republican nomination. I still think he'll wind up with about 10-12% of the delegates, and that's not nearly enough. He's just too weird for even the teabagger base of the GOP.
The interesting race of the night was the one run by Jon Huntsman. He finished in a solid third place, and told his supporters that he is now in the race (i.e., a credible candidate). I'm not buying it though. He didn't even get 20% of the vote, and New Hampshire was his best shot of all the early states. I doubt that his perceived "moderate conservatism" is going to win over many voters south of the Mason-Dixon line (he's not really a moderate, but compared to some of the nut-jobs he's running against he looks like one). I would be very surprised if he did well in South Carolina.
Then we come to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. They took fourth and fifth places in New Hampshire, finishing in a virtual tie. They had both hoped to do better and get a springboard into South Carolina, but it didn't happen. Now they must do well on the 21st to still be considered as viable candidates. If they can't win South Carolina, they need to at least keep very close to Romney, and deny him a majority of that state's delegates.
Rick Perry was totally embarrassed in New Hampshire. I know he didn't do much there since Iowa, but he had to expect to have done a little better than he did (couldn't even get 2,000 votes). The people of New Hampshire basically took him out behind the woodshed and gave him an old-fashioned whuppin'. He MUST do well in South Carolina -- a lot better than the 5% he is currently polling, or it will be time for him to stop wasting time and money and go back home to Texas.
Then there's Buddy Roemer. What can I say. I'm still not sure most Republicans even realize he's still in the race. There's no sense in wasting any more blog space discussing his pitiful candidacy.
Here are the vote totals for New Hampshire:
94% REPORTING
Mitt Romney...............92,937 (39.40%)
Ron Paul...............53,856 (22.83%)
Jon Huntsman...............39,743 (16.85%)
Newt Gingrich...............22,220 (9.42%)
Rick Santorum...............22,019 (9.33%)
Rick Perry...............1,638 (0.69%)
Buddy Roemer...............890 (0.38%)
Write-ins...............785
Others...............1,817
TOTAL VOTE...............235,905
And here is a rough estimate of delegates (after two states) won so far according to MSNBC.com:
Mitt Romney...............16
Rick Santorum...............11
Ron Paul...............6
Jon Huntsman...............2
Newt Gingrich...............0
Rick Perry...............0
Buddy Roemer...............0
It will take 1,143 delegates to win the nomination.
GOP Voters Not Thrilled With Candidates
A different poll shows a little better number, but still shows a lot of Republicans aren't happy with the presidential field. The Pew Research Center survey shows that only 51% of Republicans think the candidates currently running represent a good or excellent field of candidates. About 44% say the field is fair or poor. That's sort of like damning the field with "faint praise".
These kind of poor numbers make me wonder if the Republicans will turn out in large enough numbers in November to support their eventual nominee -- especially if the candidate is Romney, who the teabaggers just don't trust. Back in 2008, a year in which the GOP candidate was soundly trounced, a full 68% of Republicans thought their field of candidates at this point in the race was good or excellent. That's a full 17 points higher than for this year.
It looks like the Republicans know they are nominating a very weak candidate this year, and I believe they are right.
World's Smallest Car ?
Another Indian car company, Bajaj (who has previously been known for two and three wheeled vehicles), is introducing a car that will directly compete with the Tato Nano. It is the Bajaj RE60 (pictured above), and it is slightly smaller than the Nano and should sell for about the same price or a little less.
The RE60 has a rear-mounted 200cc engine that delivers about 20 horsepower, giving it a top speed of about 43 mph. It is designed to be a city vehicle, and seats four people ( or 14.1 cubic feet of cargo space with the rear seats folded flat). It should get about 80 mpg, and comes in variations that can run on gasoline, liquid propane, or compressed natural gas. The total weight of the car is only about 880 pounds.
But like the Tato Nano, don't expect to see any Bajaj RE60's on American roads. Neither of these tiny inexpensive cars come close to meeting the rigorous safety requirements of cars approved for sale in the United States.
Questions For Conservatives
Over at Addicting Info, Wendy Gittleson has come up with ten questions to ask your conservative friends. They are good questions, and frankly, I don't think conservatives can come up with good answers to those questions without denying their own political philosophy. Here are the questions:
1. Why is it that when people hoard things, they are a scourge on society and when they hoard money, they are job creators? In fact, aren’t the people that buy things the true job creators?
2. Both the 10 Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins have no mention of being gay or having abortions. Greed, though, seems to be a biggie. Why do conservatives seem to get that backwards?
3. At what point did getting sick become a moral failing?
4. In what way are people who buy and sell paper making a more significant contribution to society than teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, mail carriers, artists, etc.?
5. When did the right to unlimited profit become greater than the general welfare of the people?
6. Why don’t people realize that there’s no such thing as a “self made man?” Even the most successful and ethical people can thank their parents, their teachers, their siblings, their employees, their customers, the government, their contractors, etc. Without them, they would be nothing. The unethical might want to work on their apologies.
7. Why is physical labor less important than sitting behind a desk?
8. Why should people who inherit their money not pay taxes and people who earn their money be taxed at the highest rate?
9. At what point did we start judging people based on the size of their checkbook rather than the size of the heart?
10. How has being a conservative helped you?
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Mitt's Just Like All Of Us (NOT!)
While campaigning in Florida a few months ago, he told a crowd of unemployed people that he understood their situation because he himself was currently unemployed. What he failed to say was that he currently has a net worth of about $250 million and still receives millions of dollars each year from Bain Capital. Something tells me that's not quite the same situation those unemployed Floridians were in (and I doubt they'd be worried about finding a new job if they had Romney-like money). Instead of making the unemployed feel like he was one of them, he just wound up insulting them.
Now he has done it again. It's just a fact of life that there are many millions of people out of work in this country. But there are millions more who live in fear that any day they could join the ranks of the unemployed. In an effort to appeal to those people, Romney recently told a New Hampshire crowd, "I know what it's like to worry about whether or not you are going to get fired. There are times when I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip." Really? You have hundreds of millions of dollars and an income of millions a year guaranteed for life, and you're worried about getting fired?
If the people in that crowd (and across this country) had anything near Romney's wealth, I doubt they'd be very worried about being fired. Their fear of a job loss stems from the fact that they know it would be unlikely they could quickly get a new job in the current American job market, and they could be just a few weeks away from losing their house and car and having to go on food stamps just to feed their family -- a fear that Romney has never had (and never will have). With this ridiculous comparison of his situation to theirs, Romney has just insulted millions of hard-working people who live from paycheck to paycheck, and live in fear of losing that paycheck.
There may be some reason why Romney might make a decent president, although I can't think of any, but it certainly isn't that Romney is just like ordinary Americans or has even the slightest idea of what life is like for those citizens. He was born in the 1% and will die as a member of that elite group. Meanwhile, most other Americans are just trying to get by day to day and month to month. It's not the same.
It's Primary Day In New Hampshire
The thing to watch for in this primary is not whether Romney will win it (he will), but but by what kind of margin will he win. If the margin is a large one, Romney can still believe he is on track for the nomination (and hope it carries over to South Carolina and Florida). But if the margin is smaller than expected, that could be a signal that Romney's campaign is in trouble. For your amusement, here are the latest three polls for New Hampshire:
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY POLL
Mitt Romney...............33%
Ron Paul...............20%
Jon Huntsman...............13%
Newt Gingrich...............11%
Rick Santorum...............10%
Rick Perry...............3%
Buddy Roemer...............3%
WMUR/UNIV. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLL
Mitt Romney...............41%
Ron Paul...............17%
Jon Huntsman...............11%
Rick Santorum...............11%
Newt Gingrich...............8%
Rick Perry...............1%
Buddy Roemer...............1%
PUBLIC POLICY POLLING
Mitt Romney...............35%
Ron Paul...............18%
Jon Huntsman...............16%
Newt Gingrich...............12%
Rick Santorum...............11%
Buddy Roemer...............3%
Rick Perry...............1%
It is interesting to note the differences in the polls. PPP has Romney at 35%, and this is where he's been in their poll for a while. WMUR also shows him doing the same as usual. But the Suffolk Poll says he has been losing support for several days now, and is down to 33% now. Who is right? We'll know tonight. Other than Romney, this is the primary that's very important for one other candidate -- Jon Huntsman. After skipping Iowa, Huntsman has to do very well tonight or his campaign is as good as dead (and personally, I think he needs to do better than any of the polls are currently showing).
I also find it interesting that Rick Perry can't seem to get any support in New Hampshire, with most polls putting him between 1% and 3%. If Perry can't get back on track by doing well in South Carolina on the 21st, then he might as well pack his bags and come back to Texas. That wouldn't be good for Texas, but it'll be great for the rest of America.
A Traditional (Santorum) Marriage
America's Gayest City ?
The Advocate ranked cities according to its own admittedly nonscientific criteria, including the number of gay and lesbian bookstores, elected officials who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, and some edgier metrics like the number of International Mr. Leather competition semifinalists and the presence of nude yoga classes. This year’s list intended to examine cities that are outside the usual orbit of San Francisco, Boston, Miami and New York, and came up with several surprises - Grand Rapids, Michigan, Knoxville, Tennessee. Even Little Rock, Arkansas, ranked 11 out of 15.
Salt Lake City LGBTQ advocates were pleasantly surprised by the rankings.
Here are the top 15 "gayest" cities, as ranked by The Advocate:
15. Denver, Colorado
14. Long Beach, California
13. Austin, Texas
12. Portland, Oregon
11. Little Rock, Arkansas
10. Grand Rapids, Michigan
9. Atlanta, Georgia
8. Knoxville, Tennessee
7. St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota
6. Ann Arbor, Michigan
5. Seattle, Washington
4. Fort Lauderdale, Florida
3. Cambridge, Massachusetts
2. Orlando, Florida
1. Salt Lake City, Utah
Obama Congratulates The Mavericks
Forgive me for abandoning politics for the moment, but as a resident of North Texas I particularly enjoyed this moment -- when President Obama congratulated the Dallas Mavericks for winning the NBA Championship. When the playoffs had started nobody gave them much of a chance, but through teamwork and desire they made it happen.
(The pictures are from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.)
Monday, January 09, 2012
Trickle-Down Theory
Marching Toward Another War
It was in that year that the Iranian Majlis (parliament) put a socialist prime minister in power, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh nationalized the country's oil and proposed using oil revenues to help the people of Iran. This created a power struggle between the Shah and Mossadegh, and the Shah fled the country. This angered the United States (and United Kingdom). How dare these people try to own and control their own resources, and interfere with the profits of Western oil companies!
In 1953, the American CIA overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh, and re-installed the Shah as the absolute ruler of Iran. The Shah (Mohammed Reza Pahlavi) then ruled as an even more brutal dictator, using his SAVAK (secret police) to take care of any political opponents. He was able to retain his power for over 20 years, but was hated by the people and viewed as a puppet of the United States.
In the late seventies, the people rose up against the Shah. They were led by Muslim clerics, especially Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and in early 1979 they seized power and the Shah fled the country. An elected government was set up, but most real power lay with the religious leaders (and still does). This new government was understandably anti-American, since it was the United States that had overthrown their elected government and put the Shah back on the throne (and then supported him until his overthrow).
This anger at America resulted in the destruction of the American embassy and the taking of embassy employees as hostages. This was a ridiculous and unnecessary action, and is still used by the U.S. to convince others the government in Iran cannot be trusted. The employees were eventually released in January of 1981, but the stage had been set for the current bad relations between the two countries.
Teabaggers Love The 1%
The teabaggers take their marching orders from corporate interests and support candidates that favor the 1% of richest Americans. This is clearly shown by their interest in banishing corporate taxes massively reducing taxes for the rich, while attempting to deny workers even a small payroll tax cut.
Now the website Open Secrets shows us why this is. It seems the teabaggers have elected some of the wealthiest members of Congress -- members who would be voting against their own wealthy interests to vote for anything to help workers or the middle class. Here are the facts compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics:
The median average net worth of a member of the House Tea Party Caucus was $1.8 million in 2010. (Financial disclosure forms require lawmakers to value their assets and liabilities only in ranges, so it's impossible to know exactly how wealthy a particular elected official is. However, it's possible to calculate an average net worth for each member of Congress.)
That's significantly higher than the comparable number for the median House member: $755,000. It's also more than 130 percent above the $774,280 average net worth of the median, non-Tea Party Caucus House Republican.
Furthermore, the caucus, a group of 60 House members founded by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), includes 33 millionaires and six members worth more than $20 million, according to the Center's research. That means a member of the group is more likely to be a millionaire than the average Republican who isn't in the caucus.
The wealth among the House Tea Party Caucus's membership ranges from Rep. Stephen Fincher's (R-Tenn.) estimated average net worth of negative $3.3 million to the $49.3 million of the richest member of the group, Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas).
The teabagger representatives are also much richer than the members of the Progressive Caucus (although they are far from poor either). While the teabaggers have an average wealth if $1.8 million, the progressives have an average wealth of about $639,500 (an average of more than a million dollars each for the teabaggers over the progressives).
The truth is that the teabagger voters were long ago co-opted by the rich, and they now vote to support whatever the rich and the corporations want.
Voter Enthusiasm
There have been those in the last few months who say the voter "enthusiasm gap" still exists, and will work to the advantage of the Republicans again in the 2012 election. But that may not be true at all, at least according to a recent survey done by Public Policy Polling. While this poll shows that Republicans in general have a small voter enthusiasm gap over Democrats in general (54% to 49%), that could be offset by both the larger number of Democrats and the high enthusiasm of certain groups within the Democratic Party.
The enthusiasm of the teabaggers is still high, registering about 62%, but that is offset by an equal enthusiasm among African-Americans (also 62%, and sure to grow larger as the election approaches). One largely Democratic group that many have said will not vote in as large a numbers as they did in 2008 are young people (age 18 to 29). That may be changing though, as they now show a 55% enthusiasm about voting in the next election. Liberals (progressives) also show a high enthusiasm, coming in at 54%.
The fact is that Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country, and if they show up to vote in large numbers (as they did in 2008) then good things happen for Democratic candidates. Fortunately, the enthusiasm gap is closing as the electorate starts to focus on the next election, and that is good for Democrats. I don't think we're going to see a repeat of 2010 at all in 2012. With a little hard work and luck, it could look a lot more like 2008.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Religious Hubris
On To New Hampshire For The GOP
Romney should do much better in New Hampshire -- not because the teabagger/evangelicals have capitulated and are now willing to support him, but because of two other factors. First, New Hampshire is sort of home territory for Romney, bordering Massachusetts where he served as governor. Second, the primary is open to Independents, and it is likely these Independents will side with the establishment Republicans who are slightly more moderate. That should reduce the percentage of teabaggers in the primary's total vote.
And the polls are showing Romney is far ahead in New Hampshire. He's in the forty percent range (far higher than he's scored in any national poll). A better picture of how Republicans in general view Romney is what happens in the two polls following New Hampshire -- South Carolina on January 21st and Florida about a week later.
The Gingrich superPAC has taken a hint from Gingrich's "sour grapes" Iowa caucus night speech, and prepared a series of anti-Romney ads. It is doubtful that they will effect what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday, but they could hurt Romney south of the Mason-Dixon line. We'll just have to wait and see. We'll start looking at South Carolina polls later, but here are the results from the latest New Hampshire polls:
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY POLL
Mitt Romney...............39%
Ron Paul...............17%
Newt Gingrich...............10%
Rick Santorum...............9%
Jon Huntsman...............9%
Rick Perry...............1%
FRANKLIN CENTER FOR GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC INTEGRITY POLL
Mitt Romney...............37%
Ron Paul...............19%
Jon Huntsman...............16%
Rick Santorum...............14%
Newt Gingrich...............9%
Rick Perry...............1%
Other...............1%
Undecided...............4%
WMUR/UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLL
Mitt Romney...............44%
Ron Paul...............20%
Newt Gingrich...............8%
Rick Santorum...............8%
Jon Huntsman...............7%
Rick Perry...............1%
Someone else................4%
Don't know...............8%
NBC/MARIST POLL
Mitt Romney...............42%
Ron Paul...............22%
Rick Santorum...............13%
Newt Gingrich...............9%
Jon Huntsman...............9%
Rick Perry...............1%
Undecided...............5%
Have We Learned Nothing From Last Year's Tragedy ?
This weekend, thousands of people are expected to show up in Tucson for a memorial to the tragedy. In addition to the large memorial, at least 30 other memorial events are also planned for the weekend. This is a good thing, because we need to remember the horror of what happened last year. But there are signs that we, as a nation, have learned very little from this tragedy.
Guess what else is happening in Tucson this weekend? That's right, a gun show! The Crossroads of the West Gun Show was scheduled for the same weekend and in the same city as the memorial to the Tucson tragedy. Could anything be more callous and insensitive than that? Surely this was not the only weekend the show could have been held. Personally, I wonder if the gun-lovers didn't intentionally pick this particular weekend for their show to make some kind of ridiculous point.
But that is far from the only thing that shows we really haven't learned very much from the tragedy. Back in 2007, the Congress passed a law requiring background checks for anyone wanting to purchase a gun (although they left a big loophole by exempting gun shows). But that law doesn't mean much since too many states still have not submitted the names to the national database of those who are dangerously mentally ill. Earlier this year, we learned that 9 states have submitted no names at all, and another 17 have submitted less than 25 names. How many years must pass before these states comply with the law, if they ever do?
And then we have our leaders in the United States Congress. They are trying to pass a ridiculous law that will make the gun regulations in many states little more than a joke. They want to force all states to honor the concealed-carry permits of all other states. The problem with this is that there are states that pass out concealed-carry permits to anyone that coughs up a few dollars, without requiring any classes on gun safety and laws or requiring even a minimum degree of proficiency with a firearm -- and some states even allow convicted felons to regain the right to own a gun.
While states may have to right to have their own gun regulations (or the lack thereof), they should not have the right to force those inadequate regulations of states with more common-sense gun regulations. Hopefully, this silly law never gets passed (or gets vetoed by the president), but 246 House members and half of all Senate Republicans have signed on to support it.
But perhaps the scariest thing of all is what happened this last holiday season. It seems that one of the most popular purchases this christmas season was, you guessed it, firearms! USA Today reports:
In the six days before Christmas, gun dealers submitted nearly half-a-million names for checks on criminal records and mental health issues, with 20% coming Dec. 23, according to news reports. That was the second-busiest gun-buying day in history, topped only by firearm purchases on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving.
Final tallies for the entire month haven't been released, but December gun purchases will eclipse November. As of last week, 1,534,414 names had been sent to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
What did Americans learn from the Tucson tragedy a year ago? Apparently nothing.
(NOTE -- In the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that in September of 2005 I was a gunshot victim -- having been shot in the stomach by a carjacker.)
Paul Gets What He Wanted - And Doesn't Like It
There's an old proverb that says "Be careful what you ask for, because you just may get it". Maybe someone should have told Ron Paul and his supporters that. For the first few months of this Republican nomination campaign, Paul couldn't seem to buy any press coverage. Most of the other candidates got their share of headlines, but the press virtually ignored Ron Paul -- as though they considered him to be a minor candidate who had no chance of getting the nomination (and the press does love their self-appointed role of gatekeeper -- determining who is and who isn't a serious candidate).
This was not just in the imagination of Paul and his supporters. The Pew Research Center did a survey of candidate coverage by the media back in August, and they found that all the candidates got more coverage than Ron Paul. The press truly was ignoring Paul. Of course this initiated a lot of complaints from Paul and his supporters. They wanted their share of press coverage.
But in the past couple of weeks, the major press outlets have beaten a path to Paul's doorstep. They all seem to want to talk to him. But all of a sudden he's unavailable. His campaign admits they've had a lot of requests for interviews, but say that Paul has turned them down because he wanted to spend some "holiday time" with his family. That's just silly talk. No real candidate turns down press coverage with the primary season starting.
The truth is that the media has suddenly discovered Paul's racist and homophobic writings and newsletters -- and that's not something Paul wants to talk about. He only wants positive coverage, and since he can't explain those newsletters, he's running away from the media now. Someone needs to tell Paul that he doesn't get to choose what the media wants to talk about (just ask Cain, Gingrich, and others). And he can't complain about getting no coverage and then avoid the media when something negative pops up.
For months Paul complained about getting no coverage. Now he's getting it and doesn't want it. Maybe he needs to decide whether he's a real candidate (and talk to the media) or just a political gadfly (and get out of the race). He can't have it both ways.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
New Unemployment Numbers Released
I guess that would be sort of a cause for celebration, since I believe it was the first time in 2011 that the number of new jobs equaled or exceeded the number of new workers entering the workforce (which is about 150,000). I do wonder though how many of those 200,000 new jobs were just temporary hires for the holiday season. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how many of them disappear in January.
I do however feel it necessary to remind everyone that the official government unemployment figure of 8.5% does not include all of the unemployed people in this country -- people who would love to have a decent job if they just knew where to find one, The government admits they are not counting everyone that is unemployed. They only count the people who could be verified as actively looking for work in the last four weeks. They call the rest only "marginally attached" to the workforce and don't count them.
Home-State Newspaper Rejects Romney
In the Iowa caucuses, he finished in a tie with Rick Santorum (who had polled in single-digits before all the other candidates imploded). Those caucuses made it clear that Romney is having a lot of trouble winning over the party's base of teabagger/evangelicals, who still view him as a flip-flopping liberal. He should do a little better in New Hampshire, since that's sort of home territory for Romney (having been the governor of neighboring Massachusetts).
But Romney may be weaker in New England than people think. One would expect that he would get the endorsement of his home-state newspapers, but the largest newspaper in Massachusetts has decided to endorse a different candidate. The editorial board of The Boston Globe has officially endorsed Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah, instead of Mitt Romney. Here is some of what they had to say:
Whoever gets the Republican nomination could easily become president. Among the candidates, only two stand out as truly presidential, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Both have track records of success, and both, through their policies and demeanors, have shown the breadth of spirit to lead the nation. But while Romney proceeds cautiously, strategically, trying to appease enough constituencies to get himself the nomination, Huntsman has been bold. Rather than merely sketch out policies, he articulates goals and ideals. The priorities he would set for the country, from leading the world in renewable energy to retooling education and immigration policies to help American high-tech industries, are far-sighted. He has stood up far more forcefully than Romney against those in his party who reject evolution and the science behind global warming.
With a strong record as governor of Utah and US ambassador to China, arguably the most important overseas diplomatic post, Huntsman’s credentials match those of anyone in the field. He would be the best candidate to seize this moment in GOP history, and the best-prepared to be president.
NOTE -- In 2008, The Boston Globe endorsed John McCain over Romney.
Is Paul Really Worse Than The Others ?
In the hope of short-circuiting that scary idea, Summer Ludwig at the excellent blog Addicting Info has compiled a list of 10 reasons to NOT vote for Ron Paul. They're some pretty good reasons, so I list them here:
1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
But after studying the list for a while, I had to admit to myself that this list would be a good one for ANY of the Republican candidates this year. I initially had some doubts about a couple of the reasons -- numbers 6 and 8. There is no doubt that foreign policy under Ron Paul would be radically different than under the other Republican candidates, since he is an isolationist (and that is a ludicrous idea in this modern world). But all of the others would re-institute the Bush foreign policy, which was an abject failure and had even our friends angry with us. Truly, the foreign policy of any of the Republican candidates would create a negative image for the United States on the world stage.
Number 8 regards Paul's "unnatural obsession with guns". I honestly don't know how many of the Republican candidates own or love guns. But I do know that all of them toe the line when it comes to the National Rifle Association (NRA). There's not a single Republican candidate who wouldn't bow to the wishes of the NRA, who is obsessed with arming this country to the teeth and removing all gun regulations.
That list is a good one, and it provides some very valid reasons for not voting for Ron Paul. But it also provides some valid reasons for not voting for any of the Republican candidates. A Republican vote in 2012 is a vote for national disaster.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Teabagger
A Lot Of Money Was Spent For Very Few Votes
A lot of money was spent to get the favor of those 123,000 Iowa Republicans (about 5.4% of the total registered voters in the state, which means even most Republicans didn't go to those caucuses). The top chart shows the amount of money spent just on TV ads in Iowa for each candidate -- by the campaigns themselves, by their SuperPACs, and by other groups or organizations. The breakdown by each candidate is shown in the top chart, but here is the total amount spent on TV ads by each of the three groups:
Washington To Consider Legalizing Equality
I know that they fall back on their religion as an excuse to deny gays and lesbians this basic human right -- just as they do to reduce women to a second-class citizenship and just as the did a century ago to justify slavery. But we do not live in a theocracy. Our forefathers gave us a secular government, and whatever any religion might think, the federal government and the individual state governments should not deny any citizen any right given to other Americans -- regardless of color, ethnicity, race, age, sex, religion, or sexual preference. To put it simply, equality should mean equality for everyone.
Currently there are seven places in the United States where same-sex marriages are legal and recognized -- New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia. In these jurisdictions all citizens are legally equal (even though work still needs to be done to help minorities, women, and homosexuals achieve social equality). Now there may soon be an eighth.
Washington Governor Chris Gregoire has announced that she will be introducing a bill that will legalize same-sex marriages in that state. The bill would not force any religious entity to perform same-sex marriages (and therefore would not interfere with any religious rights), but it would give those marriages the same legal rights as any other marriages. Gregoire said:
"Today, I'm announcing my support for a law that gives same-sex couples in our state the right to receive a marriage license in Washington - the same right given our heterosexual couples, It is time, it is the right thing to do, and I will introduce the bill to make it happen. I have been on my own journey. I will admit that. It has been a battle for me with my religion, I have always been uncomfortable with the position that I have taken publicly. And then I came to realize the religions can decide what they want to do, but it is not OK for the state to discriminate."
I don't know how good a chance the bill has of passing the Washington legislature. I know both houses are controlled by Democrats (27-22 in the Senate and 56-42 in the House), but I don't know how many of those Democrats are progressives who believe in equality and how many are "posers" (blue dogs) who vote Republican.
We'll just have to cross our fingers and hope the Washington legislators do the right thing -- and the right thing is to vote to make equality a reality for all of the state's citizens.
A New Kennedy For Congress ?
Joseph Kennedy III (pictured above) has announced his interest in seeking the House seat being vacated by Barney Frank in Massachusetts. He is forming an exploratory committee and has resigned his position as a prosecutor in Middlesex effective January 20th. Kennedy is a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School, and served in the Peace Corp. In announcing his probable candidacy, Kennedy said:
“I am announcing today my intention to explore a candidacy for the United States Congress in the Fourth District of Massachusetts. My decision to look seriously at elected office is grounded in a deep commitment to public service and my experience – both my own and that of my family -- in finding just, practical, and bipartisan solutions to difficult challenges.
We wage war, pass skewed tax breaks, and expand benefits by spendthrift borrowing, saddling the next generation of Americans with unsustainable debt. Then when it comes time to restoring fiscal sanity to our budget, we see the middle class and the poor take the hit while the wealthy get more tax breaks.
The lack of common sense and fairness in Washington is a byproduct of the partisan gridlock that has turned obstruction into victory. Americans are better than that. Each and every day, we work with people of different backgrounds and political views to achieve a common purpose. Washington can and should do the same.’’
Thursday, January 05, 2012
I Like This New "Fighting" Obama
President Obama is not a fighter by nature. He would much rather handle things on a bipartisan basis, by letting all sides present their case and then work out a compromise that can be acceptable to all parties. This proclivity of the president's became very clear in the first couple of years of his term, when he bent over backward to include the Republicans in all decisions and legislation. Sometimes he went so far to cooperate and find consensus that many in his progressive base became disillusioned (and I admit I was one of them).
All the president got for his efforts at bipartisanship was a slap in the face by Republicans. They not only refused to cooperate or compromise, they intentionally opposed everything the president tried to do. They opposed his effort to create new jobs, to cover more Americans with health insurance, to regulate Wall Street, to help the unemployed, to stop the off-shoring of American jobs, to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes, and many other things. If President Obama proposed it, the Republicans opposed it -- even if it was something they had themselves proposed in the past (like health care reform).
But enough is enough. After nearly three years of Republican obstructionism, the president has decided that he must do what he can to help ordinary Americans -- whether the Republicans cooperate or not (and they won't, since their electoral plan is to keep the economy in a mess and try to blame it on the president).
One of the things the Republicans have obstructed is the president's ability to make government appointments. One of the most glaring examples of this has been his appointments to head a new federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which would protect Americans from being abused by the financial industry). The president first submitted the name of Elizabeth Warren to be the new agency's head, but Republicans refused to even let her appointment come up for a vote.
Professor Warren finally gave up and returned to Massachusetts, where she is running for the Senate seat currently held by a Republican. The president then submitted the name of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. Republicans have also blocked all efforts to have a confirmation vote in the Senate for Mr. Cordray. The truth is that they don't want anyone to head the new agency. They opposed it when it was created, and when that failed, they have blocked efforts to put someone in charge of it. The new agency can't make the Republicans' buddies in the financial industry obey the law if they don't have a leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)