|
|
PRESIDENT
Charlie M.
He can collect a lot of money, but is it a smart thing to do in recession times? The powerful re-election machine behind Barack Obama has already set a pace of fundraising almost certain to beat records for the amount of money flowing into American politics. Campaign, called Obama for America, and the Democratic National Committee together brought in a staggering $220m in 2011! That amount of cash should easily put Obama's team on course to beat the $750m they brought in during 2008.
His campaign has already shown a remarkable ability to raise an enormous amount of money and Obama himself has been at the front of the effort. Last week, he went to New York where he attended two dinners on the same night at the same Manhattan restaurant. One cost $5,000 a head for a place and the other $15,000. A third dinner at the home of movie director Spike Lee coasted $35,800 a plate. Democrats will also try to emulate their 2008 success by mobilizing an army of small donors. In 2011, more than 1.3 million Americans gave money to the Obama campaign, with 98% giving $250 or less. Those willing to donate the $5,000 legal maximum are going to be offered access to special campaign events in return for their generosity. It is believed that Obama's team could eventually top $1bn in election spending.
Such amount of cash will give the Democrats a powerful weapon to fight what is expected to be a closely contested election because Republicans are expected to raise similar amounts of money. Democrats are already spending. Last week they launched its first TV ad of the election which focused on energy policy. It is on air in key states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia and South Carolina, all of which Obama won in 2008 and may be important for his victory again.
All this is very nice but there are two questions there. The first one is whether big money from wealthy individuals, labor organizations or corporations has too much influence on the political system? That’s an old one and we still haven’t found the answer. The second one has to be- is it appropriate to spend millions and millions in times of economic and financial crisis?
They will spend all this money, to make people with no money, to vote for them. Something is not right. Right?
PRESIDENT
Aron Victor
Something seems terribly unbecoming in Obama’s short reign of the White House. One after another, his key aides keep quitting, its frequency far surpassed his predecessors within any given 3-year period. Is it because of conflicting views between the President and his advisers? Or because the administration has been in a complete loss on how to alleviate the nation’s predicament? Maybe both. Look at that. William Daley resigned as White House chief of staff just a year into his tenure and will be succeeded by budget director Jack Lew. Obama's new Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, is a former hedge fund executive who made billions for his division of Citi including his $950,000 bonus right before Citi was bailed out by tax payers. Surprise! But is it really considering Emmanuel sat on Freddie Mac board and Bill Daley was a JP Morgan executive? From 2006-2008, Jack Lew was chief operating officer of Citibank’s alternative investments division. And it was his division that made billions of dollars betting that U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments, according to one blog. The piece also reported: “Lew made millions at Citi, including a bonus of nearly $950,000 in 2009 just a few months after the bank received billions of dollars in a taxpayer rescue, according to disclosure forms filed with the federal government. The bank is still partly owned by taxpayers.” Let's be fair. He's just created another job. Did he really hire an ex-hedge fund manager? He really is getting desperate. Why is the payroll tax debate scored as a loss for Republicans? Democrats and Republicans were both arguing for a tax reduction. The only difference was in degree. Seems like the debate is clearly on the 'right' side of the isle. That's probably why Daley was persona non grata, and another one who bites the dust.
PRESIDENT
Annie G.
Probably the best news that Obama has had for a while:
Unemployment is at its lowest level since February 2009, a month after Obama took office. There is still scary danger that the recovery in the US could be blown off course by ill winds from Europe, but still, it’s gooooood news. It looks like the economy is finally moving in the right direction. Bloomberg suggests it may even be strong enough to weather bad news from across the Atlantic! They also say that steel production and car sales are up, both drivers and indicators of recovery. Obama is probably quite happy with the results at the beginning of an election year.
But we have to stay realistic as well: 2012 is hardly going to be a year when voters are bathed in the warm glow of a feel-good factor.
If any, recovery will be too slow and not visible for many people to feel any better off. Obama will still have to fight very hard to keep his job. And lots of Americans as well. And they are not going to be happy, and vote for the same thing again, just like that.
The state of the economy is centre stage in this election. That’s the weakest spot for Obama and all the Republican candidates have seized on this. And they have right to do so. They feel they can’t go wrong with economy issue so they claim President Obama's policies are to blame for America's economic pain. Of course it’s not true, but it’s expected in election campaign to use it like the weapon against Obama.
Mitt Romney, out campaigning in New Hampshire, was "hammering" the president on the economy, according to the Washington Post. He has touted his record as a job creator while working in corporate restructuring. Of course he has failed to mention newest figures. It’s kind of silly to see him ignoring the main news of the day because it doesn't fit his argument. On the other hand, it’s understandable.
It’s for Obama to mention new, important numbers. Because, the recovery, even slow one, proves that Republican arguments that President Obama is a total economic failure- is simply not true. Of course, they have right to claim that their policies would be better and would led to faster and better recovery, of course they have right to claim that Obama is no god and is to blame for crisis. Of course they have right to say whatever they want in an election campaign and hope it will bring them new voters.
But new numbers do make their argument a little less convincing. They have to have prove for their arguments, and now numbers are not on their side. Simple as that!
|
|
|
|
DUEL
Annie G.
So, Newt Gingrich wins in South Carolina!? The immediate question is: will he be able to unite conservatives? Hard to say, but it’s clear that Newt Gingrich's supporters have a lot to celebrate. This was a big victory in a state that since 1980 has always picked the eventual winner of the Republican race. But keep in mind that is simply a historical fact, it is not a prediction, let alone something more. "The fact is we want to run not a Republican campaign -- we want to run an American campaign," he said in South Carolina. For months Republicans are searching for some kind of anti Mitt Romney candidate, the one who conservatives could unite around.
Could that be Newt Gingrich? Possible… Gingrich has the momentum and potentially could become that candidate. In any case he has changed the sense that Romney is the inevitable winner. No one really knows does Gingrich have enough money, does he have the organization to win in other states and is he strong enough to really win.
I mean, Newt Gingrich is the biggest danger to himself. He’s unpredictable man, a candidate who might soar, or might crash and burn. You never know what to expect from him.
His victory in South Carolina means that this race will last longer. But it also means the race will get nastier.
Mitt Romney’s supporters have already pictured Gingrich as grandiose, egotistic and unable to work with others. Romney painted Gingrich as a dangerous, un-American enemy of free enterprise, with no experience of running a state or a business.
And when contest moves to Florida, these two will be more brutal to each other. Gingrich announced a new campaign slogan as he prepared to compete in Florida: 'Changing Washington' "We believe as our new sign that if we unleash the American people, we can rebuild the America that we love," he said.
It’s a sentence that does not mean anything really but it doesn’t matter. It’s an election campaign we’re talking about and things don’t have to make sense. Crazy isn’t it?
DUEL
Robert Calley
As it seems Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are nip and tuck for first place in Iowa, while Gingrich and Perry distantly fight for third. And Romney is not in Iowa but in New Hampshire because he cannot afford back to back blowouts! His being in New Hampshire means he's already conceded Iowa to Ron Paul and he's scared to death of a Ron Paul win (or near win) in NH. This race will be Paul v. Romney (only) within 60-days, maybe less. Regardless of who's first and who's second, Gingrich and Perry are wounded. Then Romney hopes to win big in New Hampshire. Where does that leave Gingrich and Perry? In critical condition. Meanwhile, Ron Paul has no chance and never will have. So looks like that no one will then be in a position to be able to take Romney down. But I utterly fail to see what the appeal of this guy is. He's the ultimate insider-establishment candidate, if change from Obama is what you're looking for. I just don't see how it's going to come from Mitt. Just like Obama he's a born politician and is only interested in his own power. No doubt, every now and again he will offer conservatives a tidbit from their playbook to keep them interested and on-board, just as Obama does with liberals but when it comes time to make the big changes we need he will be absent, waiting for the lobbyists and next poll to tell him what to do. Just like Obama he will govern by political preservation, not by principle - as if many of his principles were very desirable in the first place. For that I don’t care how many times he tries to spin Romneycare to make it appear that he doesn’t actually love centralized government run healthcare. He will get in bed with any and every interest group in town that he thinks can help consolidate his power: big-business, unions, lawyers, lobbyists, whomever is willing to throw him some votes, and we will be in the same shape under Romney as any other big-government, power-hungry, crony-capitalist. Perhaps his favors will be doled out to a few different groups than Obama, but the underlying corrupt scheme that is modern Washington will remain as vibrant as ever; at least until he and his ilk finally manage to bankrupt us in Greek-like fashion. I have no doubt whatsoever if Mitt is elected 4 years from now conservatives will be howling with the same disappointment and discontent liberals are expressing with Obama now. “We wanted real change, he promised historic change but he rolled over at every opportunity, what happened?” What happened was very predictable: he’s just another Washington insider, intoxicated by the lure of ever more power. Mitt vs Obama – is there any difference?
DUEL
Charlie M.
Let’s look at positions of the Republican primaries candidates on important issues:
Economy
Mitt Romney would reduce the corporate income tax rate, cut "non-security discretionary spending" by 5%
Rick Perry would cap federal spending at 18% of GDP and replace the income tax code with a 20% flat rate
Michele Bachmann would reduce corporate income tax rates
Ron Paul would eliminate the income, capital gains, and estate taxes, and cut $1tr from the annual federal budget
Jon Huntsman would eliminate the current system of income tax deductions and credits and lower individual and corporate tax rates; also would eliminate capital gains taxes
Newt Gingrich would make permanent Bush-era individual income tax cuts; eliminate the capital gains tax; reduce the corporate income tax rate; and establish an "optional" 15% flat income tax
Healthcare
All of them would repeal Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul and do the following:
Mitt Romney would encourage individuals to purchase their own health insurance rather than rely on their employers
Michele Bachmann would replace it with a system of individual health insurance plans
Ron Paul said that "the answer to it is turn it back over to the patient and the doctor relationship with medical savings accounts"
Jon Huntsman says that "we need to do a better job in harmonizing medical records"
Newt Gingrich offers tax benefits to encourage the purchase of private health insurance
Immigration
Mitt Romney would make English the official language of the US and "turn off the magnets like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally"
Rick Perry said that instead of fence along the entire border he would deploy thousands of soldiers to the US border with Mexico
Michele Bachmann calls for a fence along the entire US-Mexico border and will "enforce" English as the official language of the US government
Ron Paul would "abolish the welfare state" to discourage illegal immigration and end automatic citizenship for everyone born in the US
Jon Huntsman said it would be unrealistic to deport all 12m estimated illegal aliens in the US
Newt Gingrich would make English the official language of the US and wants "100% control" of the US-Mexico border
Social issues
Mitt Romney would defend a US law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages; supports allowing states to ban abortion
Rick Perry supports a "human life amendment" to the US constitution and an amendment barring same-sex marriage
Michele Bachmann strongly opposes same-sex marriage and is fiercely anti-abortion
Ron Paul supports allowing states to ban abortion and legislation "defining life as beginning at conception"; supports homeschooling
Jon Huntsman supports same-sex civil unions and favors a constitutional ban on abortion
Newt Gingrich wants to grant home-schooling parents access to tax-payer funded extracurricular activities and wants ban on abortion.
There’s no big difference between them. So, the question is: which one of them do you like the most? That’s politics for you!
|
LETTER TO PRESIDENT
Rick Bordy
President Barack Obama proposed merging six agencies that focus on trade and commerce into one new department in an effort to make it easier for businesses that often get lost in a maze of bureaucracy. The change would affect the Commerce Department as well as five smaller agencies. The President, who can't make the change on his own, will ask Congress for fast-track authority to undertake the reorganization. Under the plan, Mr. Obama could propose mergers that would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote from Congress within 90 days. A cabinet agency with over 43,000 employees to save 1-2000 jobs by reducing overlap and burdensome regulation? Reducing overlap and burdensome regulation only saves 4% of the workforce of an entity that does nothing but regulate? Jobs will be reduced through attrition? In what year 2016? We have $15 Trillion in debt and rising and we cannot cut more employees than that? And now the President that, as some are clamming, has decimated small business in this country wants to raise the SBA to a cabinet level agency? But did he decimate small businesses or was it the unregulated banks that decimated small businesses. But as the matter of fact is the small businesses I know are doing just fine. I know many conservatives Republicans are angry that they can no longer claim we are strong on national defense, who got rid of 3 top terrorists? Republicans can not claim to be fiscally strong. Who had 2 wars and lowered taxes? Republicans can not claim to even be strong on crime, Which former Governor pardoned murderers? But here is a gimme, The Republicans can claim to be strong on religious zealotry. Who else is strong on religious zealotry? The taliban! I know Republicans are so angry because all the things they are supposed to be good at has now been proven they are not anymore. It is a new day and a new dawn. Like in business roll with the times, improve or get fired. Why stop there? If we are really going to make government smaller, let's get beyond the cosmetic and get down to the nitty gritty including entitlement programs that are redundant and wasteful.
LETTER TO PRESIDENT
Andrew Stark
Mr. President,
As the health of our nation is in jeopardy I would suggest that a 2% tax across the board placed on all foods and activities that have been proven detrimental to health. You can name this the Health Tax.
As I do not have access to the statistics, I would imagine to be quite alarming, I think if the numbers are crunched, you may see a huge potential for funding. This tax could be increased as needed, but should be placed on items such as fast foods, pizza, candy, soda, ice cream, cakes, pies take out restaurants, etc.
The National Institutes For Health could do the necessary research into the items that contribute to our worsening health care. This mandatory tax across every facet of the nation could spur companies to produce more healthy alternatives to help alleviate the taxes they would be required to charge to their products, as well as help influence people to choose a healthier life style which would reduce the amount of taxes they would pay for unhealthy choices.
We as a people need to take responsibility for our health and not expect the government to assume the burden, but since we are at this point now, this Health Care Tax would offset the costs dramatically. I wish I could provide solid numbers, but like I mentioned, I do not have these numbers.
Just an interested thought.
LETTER TO PRESIDENT
harry c
If I worked as a reporter and was able to ask all the people that are running for your office, would be this Sir: How can you change anything good or bad by your promises when the House, the Sentate runs everything, they control you. Now, tell me again, how you are going to change the U.S.A. when Congress stops its, just like they did to Obama. Also I would like say raise taxes for the millionaries and leave us poor people alone and keep your hands off social ser. That's our money - our blanket that we paid. Thank you Mr. President. You have done a great job.
|
FIRST LADY
Annie G.
The new book, “The Obama’s”, has caused a stir with many speculations. The biggest one is about the extent of the first lady's political influence. What is it really, the role of the first lady?
That is unelected, unaccountable and unofficial position. And it does not pay at well, as Michelle Obama one said.
When she was the first lady, Hillary Clinton said about her position: "Who I really am as a person is ultimately less important to the public than what they want me to represent as a persona."
Public will put lots of expectations on their back, that’s for sure. Michelle Obama articulated her own frustration with this the other day, for seeming, she said, to have been cast as "some kind of angry black woman." The truth is that for Michele it is even harder because of her historic status as the first African-American first lady. Sometimes she is a target for unfair stereotype and very ugly treatment.I mean she had to endure a lot, it’s not hard to remember some really offensive things about her being black, tall and else.
In history different first ladies had different positions, but always have judgments of the first ladies served well as veiled partisan attacks on their husbands. In an earlier time, the worldly, abolitionist Mary Lincoln of the wealthy Kentucky Todd clan would have been idealized as a Southern belle hostess. But married to the Union's president during the Civil War, she was maliciously caricatured as a racist secretly loyal to the Confederacy. William McKinley, realizing that disclosure of his wife Ida's epilepsy would fix her with a label of "insanity," avoided stupid presumption by asserting that she was an "invalid," as evidenced by her use of a wheelchair or cane.
Fortunately thing have changed, world and America has evolved, so is perception of wives in the White House. That does not mean that it is all beautiful life for the first ladies. Hurtful remarks or hateful racism aimed at the current first lady showed it well. New book is portraying Michelle Obama as the women with too much influence and lots of people are concerned because of that. Imagine, if you were Michelle, wouldn’t you feel offended? In times of campaign, Michelle was really important for Barack’s victory. Why shouldn’t she be important now?
FIRST LADY
Lisa S.
A new study shows that when it comes to having her name in the headlines, Michelle Obama crushes her predecessor, Laura Bush. HighBeam Research examined the number of times each president’s spouse was mentioned in the media from Election Day of their husband’s first term until Oct. 20. The first-lady showdown found that Michelle Obama was named a whopping 29,634 times in the three-year span, while Laura Bush accrued a mere 8,707 mentions. It looks like she may be a valuable asset for President Barack Obama in 2012.
A new Marist Poll released Monday showed the first lady commanding a healthy approval rating among registered voters. Sixty-three percent of voters nationally had a positive impression of her, 21% had an unfavorable view and 16% were unsure. The new figures, which are largely unchanged from the last survey in May, come as she increases her travel on behalf of the president's reelection effort. Her approval among Democrats was higher, at 85%, compared to 58% of independent voters and 42% of Republicans.
FIRST LADY
Annie G.
I can't help thinking, the couple is much more than I ever thought they will be. I mean, people who know better probably knew that once William is married it will be big like this.
I did not.
It turned out that he and his new wife are probably the biggest celebrities in the world.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, also known as Prince William and Kate Middleton, are on US and Canada tour that is showing how adored, interesting and most of all how prepared they are for their new role.
If you haven't read everything about their tour I will help you, because I have, and let me tell you-people absolutely adore them. It's impossible to find even one complaint, everything about them is fantastic.
"By any measure, the visit to Canada has been an unqualified success for William and Kate",
".... the performance by William and Kate has been a winning one",
"...their style has been unfussy and unstuffy; their approach, warm and down-to-earth, and their focus has been properly flattering rather than perfunctory to those whom they have met"
"..they have come across as pretty normal and approachable.."
"...the visit to Canada has shown..... just how great is their potential to take the House of Windsor forward ."
And it was all just Canada, adoring from USA is still to come.
Nevertheless, LA could be challenging for Kate possibly used to be the best-looking and thinnest girl in any given social setting. In LA there's no fat, wrinkled and old and she is going to be surrounded by beautiful thin people.
In Canada she played well with fashion, but California is something completely different.
I mean, at home Kate is fashion icon and she is liked for wearing relatively affordable, off-the-rack clothes that get sold out in minutes after she is photographed in them.
In Hollywood she should be much more than that. Expensive and exclusive is required.
Besides than the fashion, the couple obviously knows how to be the most glamorous royals on earth. They laugh, talk to important and ordinary people, they shake hands, give short speeches, participate in sports events and glamorous dinners. They smile at crowds gathered to cheer them, they hold hands, wear hats and they are gooood looking down-to-earth royals. Like celebrities but more refined, more important then them.
The most striking aspect of the couple's visit to Canada has been to see how smoothly and assuredly the Royal Family's newest recruit has dealt with it all. And it is clear that she is dealing excellent will everything that has to be so new to her. She is picture perfect since the wedding dress on. Even it looks so nice to be in her position I believe that it's easy to get so many things wrong. It must be harder than it looks to get it right, especially when you are under intense worldwide media scrutiny like Kate is.
I didn't know a thing about that girl before the wedding and somehow only a few weeks later I like her and even if I don't particularly care about monarchy I think William has made a good choice.
|
POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Charlie M.
If you have had enough of the Republican contest, debates and all the fuss around them and their candidate, I’ve got news for you- fight could stretch into the springtime. The race is turbulent ad full of surprises. Newt Gingrich has come back and stands there with Romney, Santorum and Ron Paul. Republican voters have delivered three different winners in the first three stops in the nominating contest and it’s clear they are in no rush to settle on their nominee.
Romney, who claims he can create jobs, lost badly among voters who said they were very worried about the economy. He did not win over people who support the Tea Party movement. And he struggled with questions about his wealth. Romney’s Mormon religion remains an issue to some evangelical voters too. If he dreamed of a smooth walk to the nomination, now he must be aware the challenges ahead and how hard they are. Despite his campaign organization, which is the best that money can build, Romney leaves South Carolina as a looser. Gingrich was simply better in debates and will have a lot of media attention in days ahead, in Florida.
The Florida primary is closed, so only Republicans can participate, which could hurt Romney too. The question is how important Santorum will be. He pledged to go to Florida and beyond to be there in case Gingrich, who goes up and down, collapses again. Does Romney’s defeat mean trouble ahead, is not clear. His advisers say that the judgment of voters did not easily translate to other states, particularly considering nearly two-thirds of primary voters were evangelical or born-again Christians, according to exit polls. They can say whatever they want, but primary results have started turning the race into exactly what Romney did not want it to be: a faceoff against a conservative candidate.
Romney’s presidential candidacy has always been built on the assumption that he is the most likely to defeat Obama. Republicans want and need someone they are confident can beat Obama in a head-to-head matchup. But that’s a hard decision and tough choice to make. They need time, and to see more debates…debates….more debates…
POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Semmy Siniore
Leaders of prominent conservative Christian groups threw their overwhelming support Saturday behind former Sen. Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential contest, an attempt to rally around a single challenger to front-runner Mitt Romney. Not all of the conservatives who gathered for a two-day meeting in Texas endorsed Mr. Santorum, a sign that the votes of social conservatives are likely to remain split among three or more Republican candidates in the January 21st South Carolina primary. If it remains, that division is likely to present a significant benefit to Mr. Romney, who is winning support from centrist Republicans. The fact that a significant percentage of social conservatives/evangelicals support Newt Gingrich tells you everything you need to know about these clowns. Their aversion to Romney, who at least on the face of it would seem to embody the practices and principles Christians prize, also is telling. What? That they do indeed have more in common with the Taliban than the American mainstream. When change is necessary, as it is in the case of removing extremist Obama from the White House, it usually brings out many opportunist candidates who commit to a wide array of ideas that have only a few things in common. In this case, they all agree and repudiate Obama's central agenda wealth redistribution and a large central government - all of which threaten to take away individual freedoms. However, once the candidates agree on the central campaign themes, as they've done, they move on to areas of differentiation, e.g. social issues and Paul's stance against war and international domination. In doing so, the Republicans have lost subsets of voters who truly hate Obama's divisive style and have substituted it with an equally divisive one of their own. In my opinion, democracies cannot and will not survive when there isn't a reasonable respect for diametrically opposed ideas, religions and lifestyles. Radicalism is not acceptable in any directions.
POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Rick Kelly
Mitt Romney offers decent policies, and he's proven himself a hard worker, with growing campaign skills. The question is whether a victory in the primary will give him the confidence to break out, to take some risks, and to excite a nation that wants real change. In a presidential election, good enough might not be enough to win. It is true, Romney does not exactly inspire Republicans and conservatives, but if he is in fact the eventual nominee, then it truly behooves both to get behind Romney. Moderate independents and those more conservative will most likely find Romney more appealing than Obama. Obama has already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he lacks the ability to lead, and his penchant for placing the blame for everything on everyone else is certainly not an attractive character trait for a President. Overall, the country has not yet benefited positively from any of his original policies and regardless of any future political crisis (real or manufactured) before the election, Obama's track record for partisan, divisiveness, blaming congress for ineffectiveness, (while true, as President he should have been an effective leader), and using the bully pulpit for fomenting class warfare are all reasons that should not endear him to a sizable portion of independents. Romney, while maybe not exactly the ideal choice, certainly is a decent option. Mitt Romney is the best we've got this cycle. He is intelligent, competent, serious, and there is no personal baggage that I have heard about. He may not have the soaring rhetoric, but I believe he will make a fine president. And look where soaring rhetoric got us with Barack Obama. I know it is still early but in my humble opinion we have seen, heard, and vetted the various candidates sufficiently. Mitt Romney is good enough and I think he will be much better than that as President.
|
ELECTIONS
Conservative voters in South Carolina’s Republican primary dismissed two of the key arguments of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy - that he knows best how to handle the economy and stands the best chance of beating President Barack Obama. That finding shows why former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won a solid victory, and also suggests the Romney camp may seek new ways to drive home its core message in the contests that lie ahead. In all three nominating contests so far, at least a plurality of voters have said the economy and electability were important factors. In Iowa and New Hampshire, such voters backed Mr. Romney. But in South Carolina, they backed Mr. Gingrich. Indeed, South Carolina's placed an even higher priority on beating President Obama than did their counterparts in Iowa and New Hampshire. About one-third of voters in each of the other two early states told pollsters that the ability to defeat Mr. Obama was the most important candidate quality. In South Carolina, 45% said that was their highest priority, and half of them voted for Gingrich, while fewer than four in 10 voted for Romney. But Gingrich does not have the money, discipline or organization to go the long haul. He can't even get the logistical stuff right- missing getting on the Virginia ballot. What I think may have just happened is the voters flocked to him because he can zealously project and channel their political frustrations. But I don't think Newt's bombastic approach is going to play well with independents who have less of an ax to grind but still want solutions and reform. I think with someone as polarizing as he can often be they might just stick with the devil they know rather than give Newt another shot at Washington. He won in South Carolina but he is hardly electable against Obama.
ELECTIONS
Mitt Romney is likely to emerge as the party's candidate. Struggle was
bitter and winner, as it looks like, former Massachusetts governor. So
it’s time for Democratic strategists to draw up potential lines of
attack to use against him.
First thing to do is identify areas in which they believe Romney is
vulnerable. Finding week spots is the place to start. They will probably
focus on Romney’s work as a financier at a firm that shut down
companies and laid off workers, that’s what his rivals in Republican
party have focused on. Then there’s Romney’s vast Wall Street wealth,
and finally Romney has a interesting history of changing his opinions
and Democrats looove that part of his personality.
So, in short, they might picture him as a cold-blooded, out-of-touch
millionaire with a questionable jobs record. Like the man that changes
his mind too often and is not and could not be on the side of ordinary
Americans. Republican infighting has already shown what can be used
against Romney; in fact much of the work for President Barack Obama and
his re-election planners has already been done. Over the past week two
of Romney's major rivals, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, have brutally
attacked Romney on all those issues. Perry was quite sharp; he said
Romney was a "vulture" whose style of business fed on the "carcasses" of
American workers. Gingrich joined in the fight lambasting Romney's time
at Bain Capital as an immoral pursuit of wealth above all else.
Gingrich's supporters, in the shape of a group called Winning Our
Future, has financed a half-hour film called When Mitt Romney Came to
Town. The documentary examines Romney's work at Bain and features
emotional interviews with people who lost their jobs as Bain closed down
their companies.
It all went so far that Republican establishment is concerned that
Perry, Gingrich and their allies are doing the Democrats' work and
causing huge damage to the Republican name. Who could blame them!
Some times it really looked like all they are doing is giving fuel to Obama's campaign.
But Democrats can attack Romney on other issues too. In order to please
social conservatives in the Republican base, Romney has embraced an
anti-abortion stance and come out strongly against gay marriage. But
people remember that as governor of Massachusetts Romney had quite
different and much more moderate positions. This is a powerful weapon to
be used in any election campaign.
It is easy to portray Romney as a man who cannot be trusted.
Obama’s team will use all that for sure.
ELECTIONS
Of course it will not be exciting as it was in 2008. Presidential election, I mean. Even Obama knows that. The man himself said that “This election will not be as sexy as the first one, back then it was still fresh and new. I didn’t have any gray hair. Everybody loved the ‘Hope’ posters and all that.”
The idea that Obama or Hillary could become the first black or first female president was intriguing four years ago. The epic nature of the Democratic struggle overshadowed a Republican race by far. Not to say that it was boring on their side: first multimillionaire got drubbed in Iowa by an erstwhile country preacher. Then the result cleared the way for a Vietnam war hero who won the nomination of a party that had rejected him eight years before.
This time around even the Republican race does not have the glamour of its 2008 equivalent. There are some interesting characters there but nothing with star quality. We don’t see a compelling lead character there.
In December 2007, Obama had his first appearance with Oprah Winfrey in Des Moines that attracted an estimated 18,000 people. In the Iowa campaign’s closing days, both he and Clinton were capable of drawing four-figure crowds, even in areas of Iowa traditionally inhospitable to Democrats.
Any veterans of the 2008 cycle who witnessed this campaign could have been forgiven for being unimpressed, on both sides.
In 2008, the rhetoric of Obama’s campaign was nothing if not sweeping and grandiose. He told the crowd at his last rally, delivered on election eve in Manassas, Va., “Your voice can change the world tomorrow.” Now Obama’s supporters have to point the president’s tangible achievements: healthcare reform, ending the war in Iraq and finding and killing Osama bin Laden. But no one claims that a second Obama term would change the world. 2008 was exciting because of the historic nature of the race and because Americans were anxious for change. Obama has inspired voters enough that they take action on their own to get him elected and bring about that change. The whole world was interested in him; he addressed a crowd estimated at 200,000 people in Berlin in July 2008.
This time around Obama is seen as being better than his predecessor, but not really a transformative president. There are no really interesting candidates on the other side. In short: Magic is gone.
|
VOTE
Nuclear weapons
Do you agree that new sanctions raise danger of Iran building nuclear weapons?
|
VOTE
Is Romney the next president?
Does Mitt Romney have a chance to become the next U.S president?
|
US FUTURE
Marvin
An incredible week in the Republican presidential nominating cycle is behind us. Gingrich won the primary in South Carolina without many big names behind him, aside from state House Speaker Bobby Harrell who only backed Gingrich after Rick Perry, dropped out of the race.
Romney didn't win much on Saturday, but he did win moderates. Exit polls showed that voters who identified themselves as "moderate or liberal" went for Romney. "Conservative" and "very conservative" Republicans, meanwhile, voted for Gingrich. Besides, the demographic groups that Romney did win, according to the exit polls, are not exactly the ground troops of the Republican base. He won the voters opposed to the Tea Party movement, those who have attained some level of postgraduate education, who think abortion should be legal.
But Romney's second-place could raise questions about his ability to win over conservatives in the South.
It looks like strong performances by Gingrich in this past week's two debates were crucial in helping him to storm back to win the South Carolina primary. Exit polls say that 65% of people, who voted in the GOP presidential primary, said the debates were important to their vote. Fifty-five percent said they decided in the last few days and Gingrich won those voters by a 2-1 margin over Romney.
But as Mitt Romney said: 'We have a long fight ahead'. If Gingrich can survive Florida and the February contests GOP presidential nomination will at least go through Super Tuesday on March 6. If Rick Santorum runs out of steam over the next couple of weeks, Gingrich would become the final conservative alternative to Romney. Ron Paul has no intention of giving up, which means this GOP race could last into the spring. Romney signaled that he was throwing down the gloves. After congratulating Gingrich on his win, Romney accused him of the same kind of class warfare that Republicans accuse Obama of.
So, dear Americans, if you think the South Carolina primary was rough, wait till you see what the next 10 days, before the Florida primary will be like.
Republican candidates just have to be careful, not to demonize each other too much. It can be dangerous. Their candidate is going to have to beat Obama, remember?
US FUTURE
Charlie M.
Job creation has picked up Macroeconomic indicators have improved moderately and consumption growth has been relatively resilient. All this is very nice but economic growth will remain weak and below trend throughout 2012. Disposable income is growing modestly and job growth is still too slow. We should have growth at least 150,000 jobs per month on a consistent basis just to stabilize the unemployment rate. Rising income inequality will also constrain consumption growth. Demands for new homes have fallen by 80% relative to the peak. Up to 40% of households with a mortgage – 20 million – could end up with negative equity in their homes. Slower growth everywhere will mean lower demand for US exports.
And all that with the presidential election in November! Election will prevent the authorities from addressing long-term fiscal issues.
A recession caused by too much debt and leverage will require a long period of spending less and saving more.
Young people who graduated from college with tens of thousands of dollars of education debt cannot find any jobs at all. Middle-aged people who thought that they would be unemployed for a few months have now realized that they were, in fact, forcibly retired. Houses bought during the property boom are still on the market or have been sold at a loss. More than seven million American families have lost their homes.
Lots of different large and small risks are there so businesses, consumers, and investors have a strong incentive to wait and do little. But when enough people wait and don't act, they heighten the very risks that they are trying to avoid.
In short, people -the American Dream is receding.
It is possible of course, that the United States will adopt the stimulus measures that it needs to bring down unemployment to 6% or 7%, that increased investment to retro-fit the economy for global warming will help to stimulate economic activity, growth, and job creation, that more progressive taxation to reduce inequality and increase employment will help…
It is possible…
US FUTURE
Ron Bell
Prominent evangelical leaders in South Carolina and across the nation are still holding out hope that religious conservatives will coalesce around a single Republican presidential candidate, rather than splinter their vote as they did in 2008. But despite fervid discussions in the next primary state and at a large gathering of religious leaders in Texas, a resignation is setting in that none of the leading socially conservative candidates - Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry - is likely to win the hearts of a majority of conservative voters. It’s how the new goes but this term "religious" is not in the sense of following the teachings of Jesus, but really means the following of conservative leaders in the US. Jesus and the bible was not clear about what church leaders are railing about: abortion and other issues. What the bible and Jesus were clear about was something that is ignored: helping the poor, striving against sin - greed, lust… and basically the Golden Rule. The Founding Fathers including the drafters of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) and Constitution (Madison) were both deists as well as Ben Franklin - all of them highly influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers. If Jesus were alive today, he would be branded a radical, but I think his teachings could not be more relevant, but many (not all) of his ideas are soundly ignored by those in politics - especially on the right. For "religious leaders" to discriminate against Romney or anyone based on faith, is against the very ideals that this nation was founded on: religious tolerance. Even the puritans had a variety of different interpretations and practices of Christianity. Of course this is going beyond , I think the term "religion" used here is wrong, and should be more akin to what Washington warned against but saw take fruition with the Jay Treaty: factions. I so tired of having the Republican Party hijacked by Evangelicals. The right wing Evangelicals are the very people that have fractured the party and let Obama win the last election. Our choice seems to be vote for strangely cloaked man as a liberal named Obama, or someone controlled by a group of those who would enjoy nothing more than to fulfill their crazy vision of an Apocalypse. And someone dare to say that we really have choice.
|
QUOTE OF THE MONTH
PTP
"It feels awesome, whatever that is."
TIGER WOODS, pro golfer, after winning Sunday's Chevron World Challenge
|
|
|
Comments