While most pundits in Washington believe that, when it comes to solving the fiscal cliff, President Obama has the upper hand, I look at the problem completely differently. Yes, when it comes to the cliff, President Obama is winning, and the GOP looks like complete losers to most people. But that's because to most people, government has a place in our day-to-day life. But to the Tea Party, the government is something that needs to be small enough to, in one person's word, "put in a bathtub and drown". Think the people who believe that are scared of making the government smaller and going off the fiscal cliff? Of course not! And there are over 80 Tea Party people in the House who are hard core enough and believe in the Tea Party mantra over country enough that they'd never sign a bill that would do anything but make the government smaller. To them, that's all they got elected to do, and that's the only bill they'll sign.
So no matter what bill is finally signed, don't expect a unanimous vote. When a party is trying to starve the government and kill it if at all possible, taking it over a cliff is just a step in the right direction to them.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Sorry, GOP. Its wasn't the messenger that made you lose.
With the election over 3 weeks ago, some GOP pundits and politicians are saying that it was Romney that caused the GOP to lose the election, and not their ideas. Well, I'm sorry to say GOP, but you have it all wrong. Don't believe me? Just look at the Senate, the House, and the debates.
In almost every instant that a hard-right Tea Party candidate defeated a so-called RINO in the Senate primaries, they were beaten by the Democrat in the general election. After winning a majority of the state houses in 2010 and redistricting the state to make it easier for the GOP to win House elections, the Democrats still won 8 more seats than they did in 2010, and nationally Democrats won more votes in the House than the GOP did. And when did Romney do best with the American people? It was after the first debate, where Romney went against everything that he he was for in the primaries. He stated in the debate that he was for immigration reform, against lowering taxes on the rich, for abortion in certain circumstances, and against drastic cuts in government programs. This went against everything he said he was for during the primaries. And the acceptance of his policies soared, and his favorable numbers went up. But then, in the next few days and weeks, he slowly but surely took back his what he said in the debate and reverted back to the Romney that he was in the primary. This was a way to assure the far right that he was really one of them. But with every step back to the right, his favorables went down with the American people, as did the acceptance of his policies.
I'm sorry, GOP, but it wan't the messenger that caused you to lose the election. The fact that your ideas for the country are anti- immigrant, homophobic, anti-social services, and pro-Big Business were the reason you lost. It wasn't the messenger, it WAS the message. And the fact that you can't see that shows just how out-of-touch with America you really are.
In almost every instant that a hard-right Tea Party candidate defeated a so-called RINO in the Senate primaries, they were beaten by the Democrat in the general election. After winning a majority of the state houses in 2010 and redistricting the state to make it easier for the GOP to win House elections, the Democrats still won 8 more seats than they did in 2010, and nationally Democrats won more votes in the House than the GOP did. And when did Romney do best with the American people? It was after the first debate, where Romney went against everything that he he was for in the primaries. He stated in the debate that he was for immigration reform, against lowering taxes on the rich, for abortion in certain circumstances, and against drastic cuts in government programs. This went against everything he said he was for during the primaries. And the acceptance of his policies soared, and his favorable numbers went up. But then, in the next few days and weeks, he slowly but surely took back his what he said in the debate and reverted back to the Romney that he was in the primary. This was a way to assure the far right that he was really one of them. But with every step back to the right, his favorables went down with the American people, as did the acceptance of his policies.
I'm sorry, GOP, but it wan't the messenger that caused you to lose the election. The fact that your ideas for the country are anti- immigrant, homophobic, anti-social services, and pro-Big Business were the reason you lost. It wasn't the messenger, it WAS the message. And the fact that you can't see that shows just how out-of-touch with America you really are.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Washington, get your head out of your rear!
I'm so tired of all the talk coming out of Washington! Why? Because both sides refuse to look at the truth. And what is the truth? The truth is that when it comes to taxes and expenditures, both sides need to look at the past to ensure the country's future. In the past, both taxes and expenditures ran between 19% and 21% of GDP. But now, taxes are less than 16% and expenditures are over 24%. So, you spineless politicians, tell the people the truth. Both have to go back to close to their historic averages, so taxes have to go up while expenditures have to go down. During times of war, both can go a point or two. Are we at war? If so, then taxes have to be a little higher, as the Defense Department expenditures are up. Then, both the GOP and the Democrats have to understand that Social Security money is only to be used for Social Security. Then say no matter how money is earned, it gets taxed the same. No more different rates for hedge fund managers than there is for author or a construction worker. Now, start with those truths and iron out a deal.
Oh, that's right. One side says the problem is that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. (They're right, they don't.) And the other side say that entitlements need to be cut. (They're partially right. Expenditures need to go down.) But have we heard the real truth? No, and for that, both sides should be chastised. But the first thing you have to do, Washington politicians, is get your head out of ass and look at the truth.
Oh, that's right. One side says the problem is that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. (They're right, they don't.) And the other side say that entitlements need to be cut. (They're partially right. Expenditures need to go down.) But have we heard the real truth? No, and for that, both sides should be chastised. But the first thing you have to do, Washington politicians, is get your head out of ass and look at the truth.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Who won the elections?
With Congress coming back from their Thanksgiving vacation this week, I have to ask: Who won the election? I'm asking because the GOP, while talking a good game of compromise, seem to be giving the same type of talking points that Mitt Romney gave during the election.
On the Sunday talk shows, many GOP said that they need to compromise and put revenue on the table. But then when asked, they said that it was their preference that rates not increase. But loopholes could be slashed if all entitlement were on the table, including the Affordable Care Act. WAIT!!!!! Did n't we just have an election? And Romney did lose, right? And the Democrats won more seats in both the Senate and the House than they had last Congress. And in all elections, if the national numbers were added up, more people voted for the Democrats than the GOP in the Presidential election, the Senate elections, and yes, the House election.
Grover Norquist said before the election that the only thing that he wanted the President to do was sign the bills that the GOP sent to him. If the Democrats and President Obama go along with the fiasco that the GOP is peddling, Grover will get exactly what he wants, and in a way, he'll have won the election. So again I ask, who really won the election. The next few months will tell us if the Democrats have the backbone to really win the election.
On the Sunday talk shows, many GOP said that they need to compromise and put revenue on the table. But then when asked, they said that it was their preference that rates not increase. But loopholes could be slashed if all entitlement were on the table, including the Affordable Care Act. WAIT!!!!! Did n't we just have an election? And Romney did lose, right? And the Democrats won more seats in both the Senate and the House than they had last Congress. And in all elections, if the national numbers were added up, more people voted for the Democrats than the GOP in the Presidential election, the Senate elections, and yes, the House election.
Grover Norquist said before the election that the only thing that he wanted the President to do was sign the bills that the GOP sent to him. If the Democrats and President Obama go along with the fiasco that the GOP is peddling, Grover will get exactly what he wants, and in a way, he'll have won the election. So again I ask, who really won the election. The next few months will tell us if the Democrats have the backbone to really win the election.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Companies aren't people. They don't even care about people.
While companies are made up of people, they aren't people, and except to take their money, don't even care about people. And this Thanksgiving is showing America how companies don't care, or really, even think about people.
Look at the paper and the ads on TV and don't immediately think to yourself, "Ooh, I've got to get that deal." No, ask yourself if you want your kids, your cousins, your parents, or anyone you are sitting will be sitting with Thanksgiving to leave and go to work at 10pm or midnight. Of course you don't. But no company cares, so tomorrow night, thousands if not millions of workers will leave their family to go and get a store ready for a sale. And is the store sale needed? Well, stores will tell you that 40% of their yearly profit comes from "Black Friday". But will opening a few hours earlier really add that much to the bottom line? And imagine if a company ran a full page ad saying that they want their employees to enjoy their Thanksgiving, and that they would open at 7am and have a true sale form 7 to 10. Not all day, or super early. And then they added that they want everyone to be at the sale, but they also know that happy employees make customer shopping easier and more enjoyable, so that's why they had this policy. Think people wouldn't notice and be at that sale, and remember that company throughout the year? But has any company done this? No, of course not. That's because they care more about trying to make a bigger profit than they do about their employees or their image.
Now, I spent 20 years in the military, so I know that there are some places and jobs that aren't able to take holidays off. But really, are Kohl's, Macy's, Sears and other stores places that can't be closed a few hours on a holiday?
Companies aren't people. They don't care about the people they know, their employees. So what makes anyone think that they care about people they don't know, the customer, except to get their money? It's been that way for a long time, but this Thanksgiving has just pointed out how widespread the condition really is.
Look at the paper and the ads on TV and don't immediately think to yourself, "Ooh, I've got to get that deal." No, ask yourself if you want your kids, your cousins, your parents, or anyone you are sitting will be sitting with Thanksgiving to leave and go to work at 10pm or midnight. Of course you don't. But no company cares, so tomorrow night, thousands if not millions of workers will leave their family to go and get a store ready for a sale. And is the store sale needed? Well, stores will tell you that 40% of their yearly profit comes from "Black Friday". But will opening a few hours earlier really add that much to the bottom line? And imagine if a company ran a full page ad saying that they want their employees to enjoy their Thanksgiving, and that they would open at 7am and have a true sale form 7 to 10. Not all day, or super early. And then they added that they want everyone to be at the sale, but they also know that happy employees make customer shopping easier and more enjoyable, so that's why they had this policy. Think people wouldn't notice and be at that sale, and remember that company throughout the year? But has any company done this? No, of course not. That's because they care more about trying to make a bigger profit than they do about their employees or their image.
Now, I spent 20 years in the military, so I know that there are some places and jobs that aren't able to take holidays off. But really, are Kohl's, Macy's, Sears and other stores places that can't be closed a few hours on a holiday?
Companies aren't people. They don't care about the people they know, their employees. So what makes anyone think that they care about people they don't know, the customer, except to get their money? It's been that way for a long time, but this Thanksgiving has just pointed out how widespread the condition really is.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Beware who you make a villain, liberals.
After the election, the Tea Party (GOP) has gone into a time of self-reflection, as every party does when they lose. And the liberals in the Democratic Party has rightly thumped their chest and are saying that conservation has taken a step back. And they are going after every target they can. But is that wise? Let's look at two companies that are rebelling against election of Obama and their moves against The Affordable Health Care Act.
The owner of Papa's John Pizzas has said that he will cut employees hours to under 30 hours a week so that he doesn't have to comply with the act. And while some liberals are denouncing the move, others see a bright side: Less hours per employee means more employees. So some liberals have held their wrath. Now, the owner of Denny's has said that he will add a 5% surcharge to all bills due to the act being enforced, and if customers think this unfair, then shorten the tip to the waiter/waitress. And liberal bile has gone against this man. Short the tip to the server because they get health care? HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!!!!!
But look at it this way: If the owner of Denny's had said that he wants to comply with the law and have all of the employees get health care, but the bill will go up 5%, what would I, other left-leaning moderates, and liberals have said? Our family bill there is less than $40 dollars for the entire family, but now it's $42, and $2 goes to ensure it's employees have health insurance? LETS GO TO DENNY'S!! And yes, let's tip the server $8.40 instead of $8. And the fact that Papa John's doesn't want the company employees to have health care? Well, let's go to any other pizza place, ones that treated their employees correctly.
So look at both situations and decide which owner is really making the right decision. And liberals, beware who you're making a villain. It may not be as cut and dried as you think it is. And isn't that the mistake the Tea Party made in 2012?
The owner of Papa's John Pizzas has said that he will cut employees hours to under 30 hours a week so that he doesn't have to comply with the act. And while some liberals are denouncing the move, others see a bright side: Less hours per employee means more employees. So some liberals have held their wrath. Now, the owner of Denny's has said that he will add a 5% surcharge to all bills due to the act being enforced, and if customers think this unfair, then shorten the tip to the waiter/waitress. And liberal bile has gone against this man. Short the tip to the server because they get health care? HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!!!!!
But look at it this way: If the owner of Denny's had said that he wants to comply with the law and have all of the employees get health care, but the bill will go up 5%, what would I, other left-leaning moderates, and liberals have said? Our family bill there is less than $40 dollars for the entire family, but now it's $42, and $2 goes to ensure it's employees have health insurance? LETS GO TO DENNY'S!! And yes, let's tip the server $8.40 instead of $8. And the fact that Papa John's doesn't want the company employees to have health care? Well, let's go to any other pizza place, ones that treated their employees correctly.
So look at both situations and decide which owner is really making the right decision. And liberals, beware who you're making a villain. It may not be as cut and dried as you think it is. And isn't that the mistake the Tea Party made in 2012?
Friday, November 16, 2012
I've lost respect for you, Senator McCain.
I spent 20 years in the Air Force, so naturally, I have had great respect for John McCain. But what he is doing now has undone all the respect that I've had for him. I was very proud of the way in 2008 he told that woman who said that Obama was an un-American Muslim, and he quickly told her she was wrong. But sometime after that, maybe he got a right-wing challenge in Arizona, he slowly became not the maverick of the GOP, but a stalwart member of the Tea Party. And now, with this vendetta he has against Susan Rice, for whatever reason, he's gone and shown what I guess is now his true self. On Wednesday, his Senate committee was getting a classified briefing on what happened in Benghazi, but Senator McCain wasn't there. Where was he? Standing in front of a camera, complaining that the White House and its agencies were refusing to give his committee a briefing. What's wrong, Senator, not having cameras in a classified briefing cramping your style, or do you just not care about facts and want to rail against Susan Rice and the Obama Administration? Or, is it a little bit of both?
Either way, to me, it really doesn't matter. I've lost all respect for you, Senator McCain.
Either way, to me, it really doesn't matter. I've lost all respect for you, Senator McCain.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
GOP keeps its head in the sand
It didn't take the GOP much more than a week to show they learned nothing from the election, that they hate most of America, have no clue about what most Americans want, or in short, are following their mascot, the ostrich, and have their heads in the sand. And it came from every almost part of the GOP.
From the religious right, the leader of one group said that the reason Latinos voted for the Democrats in the election and will in the future is that they are all socialists. He stated that they all came from Mexico and that socialism is in their veins. Can a person be any more generic about a group of people and more totally wrong that he was? To start with, you don't flee a place if you believe in what they are doing. Then, if a political belief is ingrained in a person, how come children when they vote normally vote opposite of their parents? And, of course, finally, Latinos don't come from just one country, but several, and for many reasons, and with many beliefs.
Then the states got into the act. First, it was a Wisconsin legislator who said that if voter ID laws had been in effect, Romney would have won the state. Say what? Obama won the state by over 200,000 votes. Was she saying that over 200,000 people voted illegally in Wisconsin? Or was she saying that voter ID laws would keep over 200,000 legal voters from voting? The former is statistically impossible, while the latter would mean that she really doesn't care about everyone's vote. Then the Ohio legislature went back into session, and with a GOP majority, made their first 2 bills defunding Planned Parenthood at the state level, and making abortions illegal after 6 weeks in Ohio. So, did Romney and the far right win the state? No, both President Obama and Democratic Senator Brown won the state, partially by standing up for women's rights, as women voted for Obama over Romney by 11%.
But then, the national GOP couldn't stay out of the act after all this, could they? First, Paul Ryan said that really, the nation had accepted the GOP message of lowering taxes and cutting domestic spending. What? Didn't you and Mitt lose the election? Then, Mitt Romney got into the act. He again got on 47% soap box, stating that the reason he lost the race was that President Obama had given free stuff to blacks, Latinos, and women. So, nothing about the country not liking the direction you wanted to take the country?
No, not one of you can see the real truth can you? And do you know why? Well, in my opinion, it's because you all have your heads stuck in the sand, or maybe, somewhere actually darker and more personal is where you have your heads.
From the religious right, the leader of one group said that the reason Latinos voted for the Democrats in the election and will in the future is that they are all socialists. He stated that they all came from Mexico and that socialism is in their veins. Can a person be any more generic about a group of people and more totally wrong that he was? To start with, you don't flee a place if you believe in what they are doing. Then, if a political belief is ingrained in a person, how come children when they vote normally vote opposite of their parents? And, of course, finally, Latinos don't come from just one country, but several, and for many reasons, and with many beliefs.
Then the states got into the act. First, it was a Wisconsin legislator who said that if voter ID laws had been in effect, Romney would have won the state. Say what? Obama won the state by over 200,000 votes. Was she saying that over 200,000 people voted illegally in Wisconsin? Or was she saying that voter ID laws would keep over 200,000 legal voters from voting? The former is statistically impossible, while the latter would mean that she really doesn't care about everyone's vote. Then the Ohio legislature went back into session, and with a GOP majority, made their first 2 bills defunding Planned Parenthood at the state level, and making abortions illegal after 6 weeks in Ohio. So, did Romney and the far right win the state? No, both President Obama and Democratic Senator Brown won the state, partially by standing up for women's rights, as women voted for Obama over Romney by 11%.
But then, the national GOP couldn't stay out of the act after all this, could they? First, Paul Ryan said that really, the nation had accepted the GOP message of lowering taxes and cutting domestic spending. What? Didn't you and Mitt lose the election? Then, Mitt Romney got into the act. He again got on 47% soap box, stating that the reason he lost the race was that President Obama had given free stuff to blacks, Latinos, and women. So, nothing about the country not liking the direction you wanted to take the country?
No, not one of you can see the real truth can you? And do you know why? Well, in my opinion, it's because you all have your heads stuck in the sand, or maybe, somewhere actually darker and more personal is where you have your heads.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Are American elections 3rd rate?
More than a week after the election, several House and Senate seats are still in doubt. Recounts? NO!! It took 5 days to name Obama the winner in Florida, and there are still ballots in a few states that haven't been counted, mostly in Arizona. This should be a shame to all Americans, no matter what party affiliation you belong to. If we heard that any other country took almost a week to count presidential or prime minister votes, we'd think they were the most backwater country on the planet. Is that what America has become? I don't think so, but when it comes to voting and the counting of votes, American elections are at best 3rd rate.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Kansas wants schooling to be 2 R's not 3.
Yesterday, it was announced that the State of Kansas would look into getting rid of cursive writing in school. The reason given was that since kids get on computers at such an early age, learning the art of writing was no longer a necessary skill. Now, does anyone really believe that? Could there be another reason? It couldn't be that with Kansas, being a very conservative state, sees this as way to help balance the budget by eliminating some teachers' spots, could it? And this would have the added advantage of taking union membership away from the Teachers Union, thereby weakening the Democrats ability to raise money in the state, right? So for the Kansas Tea Party, this is a win/win situation, right? But what company wants to set up business in a state that believes learning to write is no longer needed? How low would the state taxes for company have to go before the education of the people no longer matter to a company?
So, the State of Kansas is looking into eliminating writing from school. No one should be surprised, I guess. After all, if the state, controlled by the Tea Party, doesn't believe in science, what's writing? Just another bothersome thing that the government is making us do, I guess.
So, the State of Kansas is looking into eliminating writing from school. No one should be surprised, I guess. After all, if the state, controlled by the Tea Party, doesn't believe in science, what's writing? Just another bothersome thing that the government is making us do, I guess.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Racism and hatred has many faces
While Tuesday was a great day for some people, for others, it gave them a reason to show their racism and hatred for not only President Obama, but in a way, for a majority of voters. And it came in all kinds of shapes and sizes. There was a woman in Arizona that tweeted that the N-word guy got in office. Think she's not racist? When interviewed by a local TV station, she said that of course she wasn't a racist. And she added that while she wouldn't assassinate the President, it wouldn't bother her if someone else did. No hatred in her heart, is there? Then there were the students at the University of Mississippi that after hearing President Obama had won started burning Obama/Biden campaign signs. Think minorities at the university who woke up to that sight felt love and understanding?
Now, these are very overt acts of racism and hatred. But there were other ways that some people showed their that in their own way, they had the same feelings. There was the owner of a company that, the day after the election, let his employees know that their hours would be cut back from 30 to 25 hours a week. Why? Well, at least he didn't beat around the bush. He told them that with the Obama re-election, the Affordable Care Act would be law, and since the threshold for companies to comply with the act is 30 hours, he was cutting back hours to ensure he wouldn't have to comply. Now, while this may not be overtly racist, it's hard to think that in some way, he doesn't have, if not hatred, at least animosity, toward everyone who voted for President Obama. Then there was the owner of a coal mine that fired 138 miners Friday, citing the Obama re-election as the reason. So, did any laws on the mining of coal change from Tuesday morning until Thursday night? No. So why didn't he wait until new laws were enacted? Because he wanted the workers to know the reason for the firing, and wanted to sow hatred for the Obama administration in them.
But it isn't just people that seem to have these feeling. The Supreme Court on Friday agree to hear the case that the State of Tennessee brought before it asking that the Voting Rights Act be struck down, saying that the law no longer is needed. This, after a summer in which several states either limited early voting or enacting restrictive ID laws, making it harder for some people to vote. Think Tennessee brought this case so more people could vote? No, Tennessee brought the case so it could get the federal government off its' back and Tennessee could run elections the way it wants. While the case may not have racist or hatred underpinnings, it's hard to imagine that, if the Supreme Court agrees and strikes down the Voting Rights Act, many people will be disenfranchised, and the reasons will be racism and hatred.
Tuesday night was a great night, and the country will move forward. But in other ways, in a lot of places, the old ways of racism and hatred still have roots, and has many faces.
Now, these are very overt acts of racism and hatred. But there were other ways that some people showed their that in their own way, they had the same feelings. There was the owner of a company that, the day after the election, let his employees know that their hours would be cut back from 30 to 25 hours a week. Why? Well, at least he didn't beat around the bush. He told them that with the Obama re-election, the Affordable Care Act would be law, and since the threshold for companies to comply with the act is 30 hours, he was cutting back hours to ensure he wouldn't have to comply. Now, while this may not be overtly racist, it's hard to think that in some way, he doesn't have, if not hatred, at least animosity, toward everyone who voted for President Obama. Then there was the owner of a coal mine that fired 138 miners Friday, citing the Obama re-election as the reason. So, did any laws on the mining of coal change from Tuesday morning until Thursday night? No. So why didn't he wait until new laws were enacted? Because he wanted the workers to know the reason for the firing, and wanted to sow hatred for the Obama administration in them.
But it isn't just people that seem to have these feeling. The Supreme Court on Friday agree to hear the case that the State of Tennessee brought before it asking that the Voting Rights Act be struck down, saying that the law no longer is needed. This, after a summer in which several states either limited early voting or enacting restrictive ID laws, making it harder for some people to vote. Think Tennessee brought this case so more people could vote? No, Tennessee brought the case so it could get the federal government off its' back and Tennessee could run elections the way it wants. While the case may not have racist or hatred underpinnings, it's hard to imagine that, if the Supreme Court agrees and strikes down the Voting Rights Act, many people will be disenfranchised, and the reasons will be racism and hatred.
Tuesday night was a great night, and the country will move forward. But in other ways, in a lot of places, the old ways of racism and hatred still have roots, and has many faces.
Friday, November 9, 2012
GOP, your transformation is complete.
It should have taken everyone less than 2 days after the election to realize that the GOP learned nothing from the results Tuesday night. And it took the GOP exactly 1 hour to begin to show their contempt for President Obama and the truth. After winning the presidency, late Tuesday night or early Wednesday, President Obama called Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, and John Boehner, Speaker of the House. What did they talk about? Well, they didn't talk about anything, as the President was told both McConnell and Boehner were asleep (2 separate calls). So the President calls the Senate Minority Leader and the Speaker of the House and they either lied and had aides tell President Obama that they were asleep, or they told their aides that the President wasn't important enough to be woken up I'm not sure which is actually worse.
Later Wednesday, McConnell made a statement that said that President Obama hadn't won a mandate, and that the GOP House had been voted back to reign in runaway spending by the Democrats. So, President Obama wins the election by over 3 million votes and got over 300 votes in the Electoral College , but that's not a mandate? And yes, the House is still in GOP hands, but you lost over a dozen seats even after holding a majority of the state houses and redistricting the state to maximize your vote. And, in total, more people voted for the Democratic House members then for the GOP House members. Later Wednesday, Boehner gave what though of by most pundits as a more conciliatory stance when he said he wanted to work with the President. But The Speaker also said that the President need to come to the table with a plan that lowered tax rates while closing loopholes. Sound familiar? It should, since that's just what Romney ran on and lost. In other words, The House Speaker thinks what is needed is what the American people just voted down?
Then Thursday, the GOP PACS and pundits started to jump in. Karl Rove said that in truth, Romney lost because the Democrats suppressed the vote of the GOP by painting Romney as a rich businessman. So, GOP governors making voting harder by limiting early voting and putting strict ID laws in place isn't trying to restrict the vote, but telling the truth is? And later Thursday, GOP pundits form Bill O'Reilly to Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh said that the reason the GOP lost is that the demographics aren't what it used to be. No, to them, the problems of the GOP isn't policy, but what America looks like now.
So, it's should be apparent to everyone that this GOP isn't the same GOP from 20 years ago, or even from 8 years ago. So now, GOP, you are The Tea Party, and since facts and the truth doesn't matter to you, your mascot is an ostrich. Go stick your head in the sand, GOP, because your transformation is complete.
Later Wednesday, McConnell made a statement that said that President Obama hadn't won a mandate, and that the GOP House had been voted back to reign in runaway spending by the Democrats. So, President Obama wins the election by over 3 million votes and got over 300 votes in the Electoral College , but that's not a mandate? And yes, the House is still in GOP hands, but you lost over a dozen seats even after holding a majority of the state houses and redistricting the state to maximize your vote. And, in total, more people voted for the Democratic House members then for the GOP House members. Later Wednesday, Boehner gave what though of by most pundits as a more conciliatory stance when he said he wanted to work with the President. But The Speaker also said that the President need to come to the table with a plan that lowered tax rates while closing loopholes. Sound familiar? It should, since that's just what Romney ran on and lost. In other words, The House Speaker thinks what is needed is what the American people just voted down?
Then Thursday, the GOP PACS and pundits started to jump in. Karl Rove said that in truth, Romney lost because the Democrats suppressed the vote of the GOP by painting Romney as a rich businessman. So, GOP governors making voting harder by limiting early voting and putting strict ID laws in place isn't trying to restrict the vote, but telling the truth is? And later Thursday, GOP pundits form Bill O'Reilly to Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh said that the reason the GOP lost is that the demographics aren't what it used to be. No, to them, the problems of the GOP isn't policy, but what America looks like now.
So, it's should be apparent to everyone that this GOP isn't the same GOP from 20 years ago, or even from 8 years ago. So now, GOP, you are The Tea Party, and since facts and the truth doesn't matter to you, your mascot is an ostrich. Go stick your head in the sand, GOP, because your transformation is complete.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The near complete delusions of the GOP
I normally don't watch Fox News as I think facts should be real rather than made up, but I thought that the day after the election, I should see what the right is thinking about the election. So yesterday, I decided that watching Bill O'Reilly would give me a good eye on what their thinking is this week. And, I'll say this for Bill, the hour didn't disappoint me.
He started with his thoughts that if Romney had pushed the Libya attack in the last debate, he would have won the election. Excuse me, but isn't the investigation still on-going? So what was he going to attack the President on, the fact that different people were using different reports to brief the country? No, sorry that wasn't going to swing the election. Then he said the while Tropical Storm Sandy helped the President, the fact that in the last few days Romney never went on the attack. So, you think that Romney attacking President Obama while the President was doing his job ensuring FEMA was responding to the needs of the states and the people that had been affected by Sandy? Yeah, that would have made Romney look big, wouldn't it? No, of course not, it would make him look small and petty.
Then guests after guests came on saying things like the demographics were wrong. The demographics in the election just happened to follow the 2010 Census within a percent, so it obviously couldn't be that GOP policies don't speak to the needs of women and minorities. Then one guest said the if the economy was still tanked in 4 years, blacks would still vote for Obama. Um, you do know that Obama can't run again in 2016, don't you? Or that while the economy isn't improving as quickly as anyone would like, it really tanking at all. That would be more like in October 2008, when the nation lost almost half a million jobs, than October 2012, when the nation picked up over 170,00 jobs. Another guest said that the left thinks that Mitt Romney, which he described as a good and decent person, is what's wrong with the country. This less than 24 hours after President Obama Mitt and the entire Romney family good and decent people who love their country. Yeah, these are just some of the examples of the non-fact facts that the GOP believes and aren't true.
But Bill did say one thing that did really scare me, even if it's only a little bit correct. In his summation, he stated that if the economy was still bad in 2016, the Democratic Party would be extinct.What scares me is that if the GOP really believes that, what reason do they have to compromise? The country could be in for another 4 years like the last two. And all because of the near complete delusions of the GOP.
He started with his thoughts that if Romney had pushed the Libya attack in the last debate, he would have won the election. Excuse me, but isn't the investigation still on-going? So what was he going to attack the President on, the fact that different people were using different reports to brief the country? No, sorry that wasn't going to swing the election. Then he said the while Tropical Storm Sandy helped the President, the fact that in the last few days Romney never went on the attack. So, you think that Romney attacking President Obama while the President was doing his job ensuring FEMA was responding to the needs of the states and the people that had been affected by Sandy? Yeah, that would have made Romney look big, wouldn't it? No, of course not, it would make him look small and petty.
Then guests after guests came on saying things like the demographics were wrong. The demographics in the election just happened to follow the 2010 Census within a percent, so it obviously couldn't be that GOP policies don't speak to the needs of women and minorities. Then one guest said the if the economy was still tanked in 4 years, blacks would still vote for Obama. Um, you do know that Obama can't run again in 2016, don't you? Or that while the economy isn't improving as quickly as anyone would like, it really tanking at all. That would be more like in October 2008, when the nation lost almost half a million jobs, than October 2012, when the nation picked up over 170,00 jobs. Another guest said that the left thinks that Mitt Romney, which he described as a good and decent person, is what's wrong with the country. This less than 24 hours after President Obama Mitt and the entire Romney family good and decent people who love their country. Yeah, these are just some of the examples of the non-fact facts that the GOP believes and aren't true.
But Bill did say one thing that did really scare me, even if it's only a little bit correct. In his summation, he stated that if the economy was still bad in 2016, the Democratic Party would be extinct.What scares me is that if the GOP really believes that, what reason do they have to compromise? The country could be in for another 4 years like the last two. And all because of the near complete delusions of the GOP.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
1 election, but really, 2 countries.
While the election may be over, the blaming, the back-stabbing, and the blood-letting by the GOP has just started. And I haven't heard anyone state what I think is the true problem with politics today: We may be The United States, but we're really 2 countries.
There is one country that knows that getting along with others that may different ideas is essential to every day living. This is the country that has people who live in big cities, people who have immigrated to this country and had to compromise and assimilate to get along, and people that want to learn from other people. This country knows that government can help people, protect minorities rights, and is needed in ways small and large.
Then there's this other country, the rural, parochial one. This country has people who aren't comfortable around new ideas and new people, people who believe their way is the only way, and people who are frightened by things and ideas that they aren't use to. In this country, because there is no way other than theirs, there in no need for government, and in almost all cases simply an intrusion.
We just had an election and we're still the United States, but in almost every way, we're still 2 different countries.
There is one country that knows that getting along with others that may different ideas is essential to every day living. This is the country that has people who live in big cities, people who have immigrated to this country and had to compromise and assimilate to get along, and people that want to learn from other people. This country knows that government can help people, protect minorities rights, and is needed in ways small and large.
Then there's this other country, the rural, parochial one. This country has people who aren't comfortable around new ideas and new people, people who believe their way is the only way, and people who are frightened by things and ideas that they aren't use to. In this country, because there is no way other than theirs, there in no need for government, and in almost all cases simply an intrusion.
We just had an election and we're still the United States, but in almost every way, we're still 2 different countries.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
At the end, Romney showed class while others couldn't.
Well, for the most part, the 2012 election is over, and the Obama administration will get a second term. And while it may have taken Romney a while to come to same conclusion as the networks, I give him no grief for that. The difference in a few states was so small that I can completely understand Mitt wanting to make sure that he lost. Then when Romney came out, he gave what I think was his best speech of the campaign. He was short and sweet, yet congratulated the President and asked the GOP to work with him. Then he thanked everyone who worked with him, said that they had done their best and there was no one to blame, and then basically said goodbye. It looked very heart-felt and sincere, and hit the right tone. Too bad Todd Akin couldn't have done the same. He basically congratulated his followers and said that their way thinking was right and had won the day. But even he was 5 steps above Donald Trump, who stated that the election was a sham and a fraud and that President Obama didn't really win. Before you bow out, Mitt, you couldn't give some of that class to the rest of the Tea Party, could you? No, I didn't think you could, and I doubt they'd accept it, anyway.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Hypocrites til the end, I guess
With less than 3 days until the election, I was hoping that maybe the ads would start be either fewer or at least not as chock full of out and out lies or completely hypocritical garbage. But watching the Kansas State football game tonight, I was reminded that no matter what I may hope for, the GOP will continue to lather it up right until the last second.
It was a simple enough 30 second ad for Todd Akin. It started out saying that, unlike his opponent, he was against runaway federal spending. Mr. Akin, you can't even start out with a simple truth, can you? No one in Washington and almost no American at all believes that this deficit spending can go on indefinitely. And that includes your opponent. But where to make cuts and what revenue increases might be need to help balance the budget, that's the rub. So, was the rest of the ad about his other ideas? No, of course not. You wouldn't want to tell people about your desire to get rid of the minimum wage, or to state that at conception is when the country considers a fetus a person, which will make most birth control pill illegal, would you? You wouldn't want to remind voters that to you, things like Pell Grants and student loans to be like cancer, would you? Well, at least you didn't lie.
But then the ad stated Todd Akin would gladly back the Romney agenda, where Claire McCaskill, the incumbent Senator, would do all she could to stop the Romney agenda. For this, I say half lie and half hypocritical garbage. No Mr. Akin, you wouldn't back the Romney agenda, you would expect him to follow your hard right Tea Party platform, and your agenda. So this is an out and out lie. And you have the audacity to complain about McCaskill not supporting Romney after the entire GOP has spent the last 4 years refusing to work with President Obama? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Then, to finish it off, the ad states that it was paid for by some GOP PAC and the GOP Senatorial Committee. Yes, it's the same GOP Senatorial Committee that in August said they refused to give any money to the Akin campaign due to his extreme views. Nothing like telling lies from start to finish throughout the entire ad. Hypocrites to the end, I guess.
It was a simple enough 30 second ad for Todd Akin. It started out saying that, unlike his opponent, he was against runaway federal spending. Mr. Akin, you can't even start out with a simple truth, can you? No one in Washington and almost no American at all believes that this deficit spending can go on indefinitely. And that includes your opponent. But where to make cuts and what revenue increases might be need to help balance the budget, that's the rub. So, was the rest of the ad about his other ideas? No, of course not. You wouldn't want to tell people about your desire to get rid of the minimum wage, or to state that at conception is when the country considers a fetus a person, which will make most birth control pill illegal, would you? You wouldn't want to remind voters that to you, things like Pell Grants and student loans to be like cancer, would you? Well, at least you didn't lie.
But then the ad stated Todd Akin would gladly back the Romney agenda, where Claire McCaskill, the incumbent Senator, would do all she could to stop the Romney agenda. For this, I say half lie and half hypocritical garbage. No Mr. Akin, you wouldn't back the Romney agenda, you would expect him to follow your hard right Tea Party platform, and your agenda. So this is an out and out lie. And you have the audacity to complain about McCaskill not supporting Romney after the entire GOP has spent the last 4 years refusing to work with President Obama? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Then, to finish it off, the ad states that it was paid for by some GOP PAC and the GOP Senatorial Committee. Yes, it's the same GOP Senatorial Committee that in August said they refused to give any money to the Akin campaign due to his extreme views. Nothing like telling lies from start to finish throughout the entire ad. Hypocrites to the end, I guess.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The differences in the 2 presidential campaigns
While having lunch with my mom and 2 of my sisters, one of my sisters said that no matter who was elected president, it probably wouldn't make much difference. And I tried to explain that while that may have been true in the past, the differences between the two parties were too great to expect that to be true. While I tried to highlight the many differences, I should have just pointed out 2 differences in the last 2 days between the campaigns.
Since I DVR just about everything, I rarely see commercials. But last night I saw both an Obama ad and a pro-Romney ad made by a PAC. Obama's ad was simply him talking into the camera, explaining his plans for the next 4 years if elected president. He talked about the need for better education, his plan for a diversified energy future for the country, his desire for the tax on the top 2% to return to the rate that it was during the Clinton administration, and his plan to have the military leave Afghanistan and use the money to help rebuild America. The pro-Romney ad was set in China in the year 2030 with a man telling other Chinese men that like the fallen empires of Greece and Rome, it was inevitable that the American empire would fall. And since the Chinese had loaned the U.S. so much money, America now worked for them. In other words, a smarmy negative ad that told nothing of Romney's plan for the country.
The other difference, although not as great, was what the last 2 former Presidents were doing. President Clinton was on the stump giving speeches for President Obama in several states, including Ohio and Florida, with the press in tow. So Clinton was basically pressing the flesh, trying to get the faithful to vote for the president. And what was George W. Bush doing the last few days? Well, he was actually pressing the flesh, in a way, too. He was in the Cayman Island as the key note speaker at a 2 day conference for people who wanted to learn the advantages of moving their money to tax-free shelters to the island. And what was the keynote speech? Well, since no press was allowed at the conference, no one really knows. But at least Bush was talking to, almost unanimously, Romney voters.
Need to know what the differences in the 2 campaigns are this year? I think these 2 things highlight the differences very well.
Since I DVR just about everything, I rarely see commercials. But last night I saw both an Obama ad and a pro-Romney ad made by a PAC. Obama's ad was simply him talking into the camera, explaining his plans for the next 4 years if elected president. He talked about the need for better education, his plan for a diversified energy future for the country, his desire for the tax on the top 2% to return to the rate that it was during the Clinton administration, and his plan to have the military leave Afghanistan and use the money to help rebuild America. The pro-Romney ad was set in China in the year 2030 with a man telling other Chinese men that like the fallen empires of Greece and Rome, it was inevitable that the American empire would fall. And since the Chinese had loaned the U.S. so much money, America now worked for them. In other words, a smarmy negative ad that told nothing of Romney's plan for the country.
The other difference, although not as great, was what the last 2 former Presidents were doing. President Clinton was on the stump giving speeches for President Obama in several states, including Ohio and Florida, with the press in tow. So Clinton was basically pressing the flesh, trying to get the faithful to vote for the president. And what was George W. Bush doing the last few days? Well, he was actually pressing the flesh, in a way, too. He was in the Cayman Island as the key note speaker at a 2 day conference for people who wanted to learn the advantages of moving their money to tax-free shelters to the island. And what was the keynote speech? Well, since no press was allowed at the conference, no one really knows. But at least Bush was talking to, almost unanimously, Romney voters.
Need to know what the differences in the 2 campaigns are this year? I think these 2 things highlight the differences very well.
Mayor, better late than never, I guess
While I normally like the decisions of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I really don't understand why he decided today to cancel the marathon. As someone who ran in races in many states and in a couple of countries, I know there is no way that I could have run in any race where just a few blocks away people had no power, or just got their power back. But what I don't understand is why it took until Friday to make the decision. At a certain point Tuesday, didn't he know the general extent of the damage and how long it would take to get the city back to at least semi-normal? I think he should have cancelled the race on Tuesday or Wednesday. By Friday before the race on Sunday, a lot of people would go there. But I guess it's better late than never telling people that the race is cancelled.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Mitt, how many issues can you waffle on?
Once again, Mitt Romney has decided that he wants to take both sides of an issue. And while this comes as no surprise to anyone who has watched him this last 18 months, yesterday's announcement had to be the most crass pandering attempt at getting votes that Mitt has ever done. And with all his pandering, that's saying quite a lot. Yesterday, Mitt said that under a Romney administration, FEMA would always have enough funding to do its job. Really? REALLY? So that wasn't you on the stage during a GOP debate that said that FEMA money needed to be block granted back to the states or better yet to private companies? That wasn't you who said that FEMA was an agency that needed to be scaled back as it isn't important enough to borrow money from China to keep open? It was you, Mitt, that said that the Ryan Budget is wonderful, although it cuts funding FEMA by 80%, right? Yes, I'm sure you feel very strongly about keeping FEMA strong and well-funded, since the day after the storm you were asked almost a dozen times about your stance on FEMA and you refused to answer any of the questions. No, you waited another full day and then sent out a press release by a spokesperson rather than making your own statement.
I hope that the American people can see through your pandering and refuse to vote for you. But if you do get elected, I hope before you take the oath of office you can get to a hospital and can get a spine transplant, since yours is obviously very weak.
I hope that the American people can see through your pandering and refuse to vote for you. But if you do get elected, I hope before you take the oath of office you can get to a hospital and can get a spine transplant, since yours is obviously very weak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)