|
|
SOCIAL ISSUE
Lisa S.
Election ads should be different. They should be focused on solutions, on personalities. They should be fun, interesting and informative. Somehow we are stuck with negative ads, with attacks. We used to believe that voters were turned off by negative campaigning, that they found them unpleasant and ugly. But things have obviously changed and in recent years, negative campaigns proved to be winning campaigns.
Or maybe voters only tell pollsters they dislike attack ads, but the ads are actually effective. I mean, you can find million of theories about negative ads but I doubt that you have a wish to go deeper into the whole thing. All we are seeing is attack ad on attack ad, and attack ad again. Then one more, attack. Negativity took over the whole campaign. Sometimes it comes back like a boomerang.
How do you defend against an attack? By attacking, being more brutal. But if your attack is really strong, be sure he will attack you stronger. Than you have to go really hard and he will go harder.
In the wake of Occupy Wall Street and lasting public bitterness about income inequality there are things to point out: Obama and Democratic incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill have put up ads that directly engage with the Shadowy Billionaires. I presume that the GOP will warn us about the Celebrity Billionaires. In the end this is a fight of billionaires. Those guys exist. They have names and agendas we don't know and they all will trade on the connections they make in donating. But we know that already.
Back to the attack ads. Aren’t you sick of them, of elections? Or do you not notice them any more? Will you vote after all that we have seen? That’s something they should think about.
SOCIAL ISSUE
Marvin
Mitt Romney had to make statement. He was forced to come out clear on his stance. So, he reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage just a few days after Barack Obama's historic statement in support of it. At a graduation ceremony at Liberty University, America's largest college for evangelical Christians, Romney used the occasion to reiterate his belief that marriage could only exist between a man and a woman.
Liberty is the private university, founded by leading conservative evangelical Jerry Falwell and a quite powerful institution among America's social conservatives and fundamentalist Christians.
So it was the right place to clear Romney’s position over the issue. And his position is hardliners. It comes after voters in North Carolina decided to ban gay marriage in their state. It comes after comments by Rick Santorum that Romney should embrace opposition to gay marriage as a key part of his campaign and use it in the election as “a potent weapon". "This is a very potent weapon, if you will, for Governor Romney – if he's willing to step up and take advantage of a president who is very much out of touch with the values of America," Santorum said. In his Liberty speech, Romney paid tribute to Santorum and thanked his former rival for telling him that studies had showed stable marriages and families often led to better economic prospects for people.
It has to be said that Romney's speech also comes after it emerged that Jan van Lohuizen, the pollster for President George Bush in his successful 2004 re-election bid, has circulated a memo warning the Republican party that support for gay marriage is growing across America's electoral landscape. The memo reported that support for the issue had increased to 5% a year since 2010 and support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. According to memo it’s not just young people, all age groups are rethinking their position. Recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of Americans – 51% – supported Obama's statement on gay marriage. So, Van Lohuizen's memo argued forcefully for bringing gay equality into the party's ideological fold. It went on to say that gay marriage and civil unions needed to be supported with traditional conservative stances on freedom of expression and promoting family values of commitment and stability and also a skepticism about the role of government in people's private lives. I guess memo came too late. Romney already has made decision to play it differently.
Though opposing it is still popular with social conservatives, and could be a wedge issue in some key swing states in 2012, there is also evidence that Romney's anti-gay marriage stance is reinforcing a negative personal image for many Americans.
Another Gallup poll last week showed Obama well ahead of Romney on "likeability" – 60% to 31% – with almost a third of Republicans agreeing that the president was more likeable than their own candidate. That negative trend was likely reinforced last week after allegations that Romney bullied gay classmates at prep school, including forcibly cutting off one student's hair. "As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognise that freedom means freedom for everyone. "This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government," Van Lohuizen concluded.
SOCIAL ISSUE
Mary Siskin
Barack Obama, who grew up as an outsider based on class and race, lived abroad as a child, visited Asia and Africa as a young man, and sees himself as a problem-solver, looks at the entire society. He tries to determine the best policies for American society as a whole. For example, society as a whole will benefit from the Affordable Care Act because it expands health care insurance coverage to almost everyone and will reduce the share of the GDP being taken by health care costs. He also considers it his responsibility to look out for the vulnerable and encourage equal treatment of citizens. So, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act as his first piece of legislation, wants to expand the availability of women's health care and supports the Justice Department enforcing equal protection laws. Mitt Romney grew up insulated by both wealth and religion. He has never not known how he was going to pay any bill, regardless of the amount required. He is a member of a religion that says all white men who rise in it its hierarchy will become Gods and be given planets of their own. The same religion teaches that women can ascend to heaven only by being invited by a man, and, for most of its history taught that people of color are being punished by God and should be discriminated against. Romney has never taken a position in support of the vulnerable, though for a time he lied about having supported the civil rights movement. His choice of career enhanced his insularity. A relative handful of very rich men control the upper echelons of the financial industry. They, Romney included, make up most of the top five percent of the income distribution. Romney is in the 0.6% percentile. His current positions on every issue favor the top five percent of the income distribution. Simultaneously, he says he will cut veterans aid, funds for the disabled, food stamps, Head Start, 'get rid of Planned Parenthood, and perhaps abolish the Departments of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency and HUD. In addition, Romney promises to cut taxes in a way that gives 90% of the benefit to the very wealthy. One can tell that he really doesn't see most of society. We - the working and middle-class - are invisible men and women to him. He is too busy looking inward - at himself and a few fellow travelers.
|
|
|
|
ECONOMY
Sam Perkins
Read this carefully: "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their FAIR SHARE. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it" - Ronald Reagan.
Could he be considered the father of the "Buffet Rule"? Reagan believed in trading off tax loopholes for lower marginal rates and was pretty successful at it. The tax code was simpler and tax collections were up. However, post-Reagan - we have seen the inevitable climb in marginal rates and the re-emergence of tax loopholes for the favored. Clinton raised them and then Bush lowered them. However, the top marginal rate under Reagan was 28%. So whether you are referring to Clinton, Bush or Obama, they are up since Reagan and will continue to go up under Obama if he gets his way. Please keep in mind also that key to the Reagan philosophy was an underlying belief in limited government. Hopefully those on the other side of the "debate" are not going to assert that President Obama's theory of government in any way resembles that of the Gipper. It is simplistic to suggest that President Reagan's theories of taxation are similar to those of President Obama.
Just read this: "The primary effect of the tax changes over the course of Reagan's term in office was a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments. Federal revenue share of GDP declined from 19.6% in fiscal 1981 to 17.3% in 1984, before climbing back to 18.4% by fiscal year 1989. Personal income tax revenues fell during this period relative to GDP, while payroll tax revenues rose relative to GDP. President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%--its lowest level since the Hoover administration. This tax benefits the wealthy, however, in 1986 President Reagan set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent."
So final point: whatever one may wish to say about President Reagan's tax policies, at least his call for taxes was not necessitated by a growth in the size of government such as having taken place during the current administration.
ECONOMY
Berry Black
It’s easy to say that our competitiveness is low because of unreasonable requests buy Union bureaucracy. It’s not completely wrong but it’s definitely not completely accurate. Unions rose for a reason and they are in decline for a reason, and it isn't because of evil rich people or evil corporations. Show me a company with a union problem and I'll show you a company with a management problem. Unions do not form in a vacuum. Unions form in response to management poorly treating the workers. While unions work hard to correct this imbalance, they add another layer of bureaucracy that makes the company less competitive in the marketplace. If the company is already badly managed, then a union will only accelerate its demise. For example: The Big Three automakers have had problems with United Auto Workers (UAW) for years, but even the most anti-union person must admit that Big Three management made a long list of stupid decisions that had nothing to do with UAW over many years that led to their decline. Foreign automakers would have cut into their market share and profits even without the overhead of UAW. Smart companies know this and, therefore, work to create an environment where unions will not form. Foreign automakers treat their non-union workers quite well. They create a situation where the workers have nothing to gain from joining UAW but more bureaucracy and union dues. Repeat this over multiple companies in multiple industries and this explains a large part of why private sector unions are shrinking. The public sector, on the other hand, need not respond to the market. So unions continue to flourish there. The unions and the politicians work together to divide up other people's money. While non public union states do have problems with the state unfairly treating its workers, if the state goes too far, they will face a mass exodus of their best workers to the private sector. Only bad management can create bad union.
ECONOMY
Kerry Loans
Our deficit has mushroomed because of a poorly designed stimulus package to the tune of over 800 billion, a 400 billion suplemental spending bill in 2009. to give their special interest groups all of the goodies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid couldn't get Bush to agree to, the 350 Billion second part of TARP that was spent by Obama after the risk of financial meltdown had passed. The bottom line is that Obama has added roughly 1 trillion per year in new spending and to suggest that hasn't added to the deficit suggest a serious detachment from reality. Further we now have Obamacare looming on the horizon and the two biggest federal liabilities, Social Security and Medicare, the Democrats have shown no interest in addressing the structural problems, preferring to attack anyone who does try while allowing these programs that so many depend on toward insolvency. One thing that needs to change is the way the FED treats asset bubbles, which have cause three of our last four recessions. Further, Bush's proposals for more domestic energy production and greater transparency from Fannie and Freddie were both opposed by Democrats, and both contributed to the recession. Finally, as you seem to think who was in charge when is the only thing we should look at for the economy, when Pelosi and Reed took control of Congress, the economy was growing at over 3% and unemployment was at 4%. Just look at figures now and say can we blame it on Bush again?
|
BROTHERS IN ARMS
Ron Bell
Obama inherited a decade of extremely hard work that Bush and all across the infrastructure, had built. Obama was gifted a fully capable arm that had been hard at work for years. Clinton, despite desperate warnings and pleas, emasculated the armed forces and especially counter and anti-terror forces. Clinton and the entire left did not understand that the only "peace dividend" they had right to expect, was peace itself. Many of us begged Clinton to consider what he was doing, and he rejected every recommendation. As he exited the White house, he extended the CRA, and set the stage for the 2008 disaster. Bush knew to keep his mouth shut and his admin remained quiet about successes and operations. Obama rushes to a microphone and takes credit for the slightest advance. Soldiers despise this sort of behavior. The President has deeply hurt the finest men and women that have ever taken the field. Our warriors deserve better than what has been going on. They, like all others that went before them, will suffer increasing pains throughout the balance of their lives that will be much shorter than those that never served. There will be no relief for them, and no amount of time will help. In fact, it becomes worse as the years roll by. Warriors never spike the ball, and it is not appropriate for our President to do so at any time. Americans fight to liberate and we want nothing in return. Just look at how Truman expressed these sentiments after WWII and compare them to Obama. You'll easily see what I mean. We only use force to protect those that cannot otherwise protect themselves. Does Obama seem to fit into that mold?
BROTHERS IN ARMS
Dean Collins
According to officials the supposed bomber at the center of a foiled plot to bring down a jetliner was actually a double agent who funneled vital information to U.S. and Arab intelligence agencies, marking an apparently successful infiltration of al Qaeda's most dangerous branch. The revelation came a day after U.S. officials said the Central Intelligence Agency had thwarted a bomb plot by al Qaeda's Yemeni branch aimed at bringing down a U.S. jetliner with a more advanced version of an underwear bomb. The newest plot appears to provide a chilling illustration of al Qaeda's determination to learn from its mistakes: The bomb that was recovered has two detonators, providing a crucial backup in the event one failed, a U.S. official said. Really? OK, let's sort this out. A CIA operative infiltrates Yemen's version of al Qaeda and convinces them he wants to bomb an airplane. They give him a bomb and he turns it over to the CIA. And we get banner headlines that we prevented a terror attack? Huh? There never would have been a threatened terror attack except that this operative begged them to let him do one. Now the good news is that this operative infiltrated the group and lead us to some folks who we may have gotten with drone strikes. I hope this doesn't land in a US court, though, talk about a set-up. And we've outed the operative. Shouldn't we have captured him, arranged for his escape or let him free on some goofy legal technicality, and then sent him back for more and better info? Maybe I'm missing something here, but this just seems like more someones fantasy. If I were Obama, I'm not sure I'd be taking credit for it. I might add that these drone strikes seem to be the weapon of choice for this administration. When I read "Some of the information gathered in the course of the multiweek operation led to the U.S. drone strike in Yemen on Sunday that killed a top operative of the Yemeni group, officials said Tuesday." the skepticism creeps in. For the most part these kills are unverifiable. They can say the drone strike killed whomever they want. Is it a true a military operation - or just more politics?
BROTHERS IN ARMS
Mark Baskin
As far as having a large contingent of troops present, the war in Iraq is over. Even during the height of the Iraq war and while Afghanistan was already a few years old, the deficit was nowhere near what it is today. The Iraq war is over yet the Obama "budgets" still project trillion dollar deficits for many years. Why is that? Direct correlation of military activity to deficit is unfounded. To frame military activity as the careless adventure of a cowboy president, as many on the left do, is childish. Certainly military actions must be considered with the utmost diligence and reserve with all possible outcomes thoroughly considered. However, serious threats to this country and our allies come in many forms and sometimes require action. In the case of Syria, Iran and N. Korea for example, diplomacy with the very real consequence of military action must be utilized. You can pretend that the US will have no enemies as long as we keep to ourselves for only so long. Obama seems to be employing this strategy as a major component of his foreign policy (The Obama Doctrine). However, sooner or later, we must reap what we sow. If a future president is forced into military action because an overly passive strategy now allows an untenable situation in the middle east to develop, it will not be the fault of that future president for acting. It will be the fault of our current president for failing to act. One question I have for the liberals on this topic: where do you weigh in on Obama's use of our Military in Libya? Do you consider that free? Money no object there? How do you justify his use of our military in Libya, vs his non-use in Syria? And, if you'd be so kind, don't attempt, like Obama did, to mitigate his decision, by invoking the concept of NATO. If I read correctly, much of the liberal concern, is for 'minding our own business, but more importantly, that we cannot afford monetarily to enter into any military action with Syria. That is all well and good. I agree. But, why are we looking back at Washington and Eisenhower, when we only need to look at the actions of our now President. Was he correct in Libya? Or was he wasting our money?
|
PRESIDENT
Charlie M.
You may say it was long overdue and politically calculated but I’m telling you: it was perhaps the most important civil rights statement by a sitting president since Lyndon Johnson declared "We Shall Overcome". Besides it was a statement that reminded me why did I like Obama at the first place:
"When I think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet, feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is gone, because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage … at a certain point, I've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
Compassion in Obama's words resonated with millions of gay and non-gay Americans. These are the words of a man who recognizes that not only should gay Americans be treated with equal rights, but that the basic humanity of gay Americans must be celebrated. It was certainly a historic step, hailed by many gay rights activists and progressive groups as a landmark in the struggle for gay equality. The first black president had parents whose mixed-race marriage was illegal in some US states when he was born so he knows what he talks about. Only ten years ago people would have said gay marriage was a radical idea. Now this event will be one of the milestones in the history of the struggle. To many people the statement was an obviously moral decision long overdue. Most of us believed that Obama had privately supported gay marriage all along but until last now he had refused to take a firm position, saying that his views were "evolving".
Of course decision was political. Obama's team is trying to re-create the sort of enthusiasm among young voters that helped secure victory in 2008. and gay rights is a hugely popular cause among those voters. Besides, by coming out for gay marriage, Obama has drawn a clear distinction with Romney, who is looking increasingly extreme now. Independent groups supporting Obama's campaign have already trotted out a fresh attack ad on the issue. They are releasing videos and a websites that feature clips of Romney making anti-gay marriage statements and laughing when asked over the bullying allegations.
Still, many gay activists are angry that Obama's words are not translating into actions. In effect the president is saying that, while he believes banning gay marriage is morally wrong, each state is free to carry on doing it. In North Carolina 61% of voters backed banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions. Twenty-nine other states stretching from Oregon to Florida voted against. Most of the gay activists realize their struggle would go on. It will happen eventually but it is going to take decades.
PRESIDENT
Marty Bowers
Barack Obama isn't a problem-solver, he hasn't solved any problems correctly. He sees a problem and then comes up with a "solution" right out of the Democratic page as listed on their website. Obamacare is a farce, it is a power grab. It is a their dream, once you control the people's so-called healthcare, you own them, you make them dependent on the government for their health and their life. He doesn't care squat about we the people. Obama only cares about himself. Obama has been a disaster for this country. And he grew up in a privileged environment. Obama went to a privileged expensive school in Hawaii and also one in Indonesia. Records have been published that show he received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia. He went to Harvard based on affirmative action. Romney's father grew up poor, his father never got a college degree yet worked hard and achieved wealth. Romney earned all his wealth after graduating from Harvard and donates a substantial sum of his money to charities of all kinds every year. I would rather have someone who knows and understands America and knows how to create wealth. Obama has just sucked on other people's wealth and coattails. Even Bill Ayers wrote his dumb biography because Obama can't write. First Harvard law review president who never wrote anything. Obama looks inward all the time, at himself because he is a major ego-maniac. Man, if what Obama has done for the last 3 and 1/2 years is supposedly good for we the people, the state of the U.S. is in horrible disarray. We would have been better off if he had just played golf for 3 1/2 years. Fortunately, starting November 2012, he will have plenty of time to play golf.
PRESIDENT
Lisa S.
Is Obama crossing a line into politicizing national security? For Barack Obama the killing of Osama bin Laden year ago was a moment of national unity. Now he has turned it to a political weapon.
He’s campaign is suggesting that Mitt Romney would not have had the guts to order a mission like that. Vice President Joe Biden says: "We know what President Obama did. We can't say for certain what Governor Romney would have done." Biden even combined the killing of the al-Qaida leader and Obama's support for a failing auto industry: "It's pretty simple: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive," the vice president said.
Obama himself hails the one-year anniversary trying to remind the voters that he has the courage to make tough calls. He’s campaign came out with a new web video featuring a quote from a 2007 Romney interview in which he said it was not worth "moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."
"Sad," said a Romney spokeswoman. "Shameless," said John McCain. And I kind of agree with them.
Using an event like that to get the votes does not seem right thing to do. Bush was doing it with September 11th and Obama is doing it with the killing of Osama bin Laden- by turning it into a cheap political attack ad. Obama campaign says that it was a courageous political decision that the stakes were enormous. They say that there would have been tremendous political consequence for the president if things went wrong and it is proving that Obama can make a hard decision and he is a decisive leader. Obama even sat down with NBC’s Brian Williams in the White House Situation Room (a place journalists almost never conduct interviews) to discuss the successful mission. Year ago Obama said, “we don’t trot out this stuff as trophies…we don’t need to spike the football.”
But now, he seems to feel differently. Aides say both Obama and Biden will continue to reference the success of the bin Laden operation. And Democratic strategists say they should because they have victory on their side. “The White House has a right to be proud,” added Steve Elmendorf, the Washington lobbyist who served as deputy campaign manager for John Kerry's presidential bid in 2004. “It’s an important achievement and it matters a lot.”
They can repeat if for ever, but I know, that they know, it is not right thing to do.
|
FIRST LADY
Lisa S.
The first president to support gay marriage is without a doubt influenced by his surrounding that includes many gay people. Many of his donors are gay, and so are quite a few of his staff members, including his social secretary and the other aides. But how influential was Michelle Obama?
They say that the first lady is impassioned about fairness. They also say that she has confessed to impatience with the pace of change her husband has been able to accomplish. I doubt she interferes in day-to-day policy matters, but I’m sure she has helped to keep the original mission of the Obama presidency: to rise above Washington battles and make the nation more equal and just. In the issues she believes in she goes forward even if it’s against the advice of aides who call a more cautious approach.
There’s no doubt-Michelle Obama did influence president’s decision. For example, the first lady hired Kristina Schake, her communications director, with the day job of carefully managing Michelle Obama’s image. Her specialty is conducting years-long campaigns to influence public opinion, gently rinsing controversy from issues. In the early 1990s, she helped win passage of a statewide California ballot measure that resulted in a new tax on tobacco products used to fund early childhood education programs to the tune of a billion dollars a year.
Before arriving at the White House in late 2010, Ms. Schake was one of the leading architects in California’s fight for gay marriage. She worked on recasting gay partners as upstanding mothers and fathers who just wanted to be married like all the other parents in the PTA.
Ms. Schake is a top suspect on the list of insiders who may have influenced the president’s position and strategy.
By hiring Kristina Schake Michelle Obama knew well what she is doing.
Barack Obama mentions his daughters when he talks of his “making decision” on his stand of gay marriages and not his wife. Probably, because it’s clear where Michelle stands on the issue.
And I bet, she is, once again, proud of her husband.
FIRST LADY
Marvin
Barack Obama is offering dinner with George Clooney and Mitt Romney with his wife, Ann. Doesn’t it sound crazy when you put it like this? I mean, it is supposed to be serious business (the campaign), but it has turned out to be some kind of reality show that you don’t want to watch…
Anyway… With Romney’s focus on the national campaign against Obama, Ann Romney is taking on a more prominent role. She is far more popular than her husband and has been assigned the challenging task of getting the voters to see beyond Mitt's stiffness and getting them to forget that he’s a man born to great wealth. Her campaign is focused on women voters, as in general, they prefer Obama. Mrs. Romney is also to make them forget all those Republican attacks on access to contraception and abortion. Romney gets his wife on stage whenever possible, calling her "my sweetheart" while holding her hand. Actually, it was Hilary Rosen who gave Ann Romney opportunity to come to the spotlight. When Rosen said that Ann had "never worked a day in her life" Mrs. Romney responded: "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work." It was a great opportunity for Romney’s campaign to include Ann and give her bigger role. Great timing!
Ann Romney picked up on that theme in a speech in Connecticut, painting herself as an ordinary mom raising five boys, doing the shopping, cooking and cleaning. She goes and tells people that she knows "what it's like to finish the laundry and look in the basket five minutes later and it's full again" or "I know what it's like to pull all the groceries in and see the teenagers run through and then all of the sudden all of the groceries you bought a few hours ago were gone. And I know what it's like to get up early in the morning to get them off to school, and I know what it's like to get up in the middle of the night when they're sick, and I know what it's like to struggle and to have those concerns that all mothers have," she said, to two standing ovations. You might think something like “what the … is she talking about? so what if you know all these things?” but believe me, it is not stupid. These things are important. She tries to portray Mitt as a loving, understanding husband, who "would remind me all the time that my job was more important than his" and who “stood by her side as she has lived with multiple sclerosis and battled breast cancer.”
But Ann Romney can’t hide hers is a family with a net worth of around $220m even if she claims that she doesn’t consider herself wealthy. We consider her wealthy! She has spent her marriage cocooned in a wealthy, white world as a dedicated member of a church with a long history of racism and misogyny.
Mitt has recognized Ann's political usefulness but she can’t make that much of a difference...
FIRST LADY
Milly Robens
The truth is that Anne Romney hasn't worked a day in her life outside her home and the truth is that she is a mother of five. She hasn't had to worry about whether there will be a roof over her head for the next year or if she will have enough food to feed her children or if she is going to have to cut back on her "clothing allowance" or "make up". But how about other first ladies - wives who never worked, or didn't work once their husbands were on the road to the White House. Martha Washington has never worked outside of the home as Martha Jefferson never worked out side of the home like Abigail Smith Adams had never worked outside of the home and Dolly Madison never worked outside or the home.Then skip ahead a few years to see that Mary Todd Lincoln never worked outside of the home.
Frances Folsom Cleveland's wife (can't remember her first name) never worked outside of the home. Eleanor Roosevelt never worked outside of the home, Bess Truman never worked outside of he home, Mamie Eisenhower never worked outside of the home. Now, granted, it changed in modern times to some degree, but let's face it, Hillary had to work because her husband never worked very hard nor made any money as a government employee. And, then there's Jackie Kennedy of course, who never worked after she got married.
Pat's, Nancy's, Barbara's, Laura's husband were all successes in private industry, just as Ann Romney's husband was. So, who cares whether First Ladies ever worked? It's certainly no indication as to whether or not their husbands would be good presidents or bad presidents.
|
US FUTURE
A.G.
Wednesday 10 May 2012 was a big day for the civil rights movement in the United States. For the first time sitting president has declared support for gay marriage. Many of us felt that this was Obama at his best. It was courageous stance; he was speaking plainly and bravely from the heart in support of progress. This was the president that we liked. We were moved and satisfied and at the same time wondering how this announcement will influence Obama’s chances of re-election?
This is a complex social issue that divides America in unusual way. Libertarian Republicans are in favor; socially conservative Democrats are against. Democrats have to think of voting blocks that Obama needs on his side, black and Hispanic voters, traditionally against the extension of gay rights. But Democratic strategists have decided it was time. I liked the way they did it: first Joe Biden comments and then few days later the president’s announcement! I think Obama has decided to clear the ground and answer all those charges of hypocrisy. It was a complex issue and he had to take it off the table. It is better to speak up and have clear stance than to be indecisive and frightened by possible consequences. He will not have any problems to talk about the issue during the rest of campaign. It is clear were he stands. The American voters may not like Obama's stance, but now they can be sure of what he stands for.
The announcement puts Mitt Romney in a difficult place. What is he to do now? Public opinion is changing and it looks like it’s on Obama’s side of the fence. He has to think of the much needed middle of the political spectrum. He has to think of evangelicals that are not thrilled with his candidacy and he desperately needs them. He can’t flip-flop again, not in this stage of the campaign. It would probably be best for him to ignore the issue, but it’s impossible. He has to participate in social debate he cannot hope to win. So, while Obama’s announcement was moving and a milestone on the road to equal rights, don’t be fooled by thinking it has nothing to do with political calculation. It was politically smart move that will certainly pay off. And it should.
Just imagine, decades from now, times will change and Obama’s announcement will be one of the most important moves on the way of getting equality.
US FUTURE
A.G.
Everyone knows about the famous 1960 presidential debate between tired Richard Nixon and good looking John F. Kennedy. Those who watched on television thought Kennedy won the debate, while those who listened over the radio favored Nixon. Part of Kennedy’s appeal was how he looked. Still, most of analysis will conclude that appearance is a relatively small factor.
Still, I’m not convinced. Candidate’s appearance — not beauty, but a look of competence — is important! It is like in life. Looks and personality are basically things that we make our opinion on people. They do not have to be beautiful, they have to be attractive in some way. We have to believe that they are good person, we have to trust them. In a way we have to like them. Don’t tell me that Obama’s personality doesn’t have to do anything with him getting to the White House. He might not be beautiful man, but he certainly is attractive, in a way.
There are several studies about this issue and almost every one of them is showing that looks and personality matters. In one recent study the researchers recruited set of volunteers to do the voting. Each candidate was presented in her “attractive” form to half the subjects, while her opponent was presented in her “unattractive” form. The other half of the subjects saw the same women running under the same party banners, but with the appearance variable reversed. On average, the candidates received 56 percent of the vote when portrayed by the better campaign photo, compared with 44 percent when portrayed by the unfavorable photograph — a vote swing of 12 percentage points. We do have stereotypical ideas in our heads and there’s nothing we can do about it.
I know it is a bit crazy when you think of all that billions of dollars spent each election year to advertise candidates’ records, views and personal qualities. They talk about the economy, health care, religion, foreign politics, immigration and so many other things and we listen to their words until we go crazy. Maybe that is why we are probably going to choose the one blessed with better looks and personality. Figure that!
US FUTURE
Marty Rollings
Obama could have been the best President in American history, instead he's become a threat to even the country's survival - if we don't reign in the budget, kick start the American ability to innovate and create, and defend our global interests around the world, we are done (all things Obama wishes to exacerbate, or destroy). Paul Ryan says we have two years. Actually, we have eight months to get this disgrace of an American out of office, and that won't be fast enough for safety's sake.
One thing about the Obama Presidency brings me solace. And that is that our ancestry, who loved this country so much and saw it go from a horse and buggy agricultural economy to a moon walking super-power and the preeminent force for good in the world, after winning in World War II were not alive to see it degraded so by the venal caprices of this demagogue. Let Obama's rhetoric be a lesson to the Republican's, and especially to the pandering sycophants who are urging "civility" as they seek the spoils of power in a cohabitational Washington, stating that we don't alienate "moderates" and "independents", that we sit back and remain quite while Obama and his cronies dismantle the Republic. Obama declared war on you, now do what you have to do to stop him- and save this country. Your backs are against the wall - either be driven into the sea, or victory. Victory goes to those who dare.
|
VOTE
Will Francois Hollande be a good French president?
|
GAFFE
This is a good time (as any) to look at what Mitt Romney did to healthcare in Massachusetts. He enacted MA healthcare in 2006, after Congress enacted the tax-free Health savings account December 2003. He prevented his own employees from participating in the HSA that gives Americans a tax deduction for making annual contributions into a Health Savings Account, lets acct balances grow tax-free, & lets owners withdraw funds tax-free for qualified medical costs. These acts also let owners withdraw tax-free balances to pay health premiums if they lose jobs. Romney’s healthcare law not only raised the cost of care in MA, but he did not even give his own employees opportunity to participate in this tax-free tool. To date, employees of the state of MA still do not have the opportunity to choose this option. When Mitt Romney was Governor, he had his sights set on running for President, as he did in 2008. His interest was in making himself look good. He used as many tax benefits for his state budget as possible, despite the fact that there was a new deduction that he could pass to his employees. He chose to promote himself, rather than to enhance healthcare security for his workers. The healthcare bubble is huge. The healthcare bubble is ripe and ready for harvesting cash. Democrats want to capture this bubble for the fed govt. Romney wants to capture it for the states so that governors can do what he did when he prevented his workers from accessing the tax-free HSA. In either case, govts will be in charge of our healthcare decisions, just as Romney, the employer, knew he could deny his workers the tax deduction by simply refusing to offer a HSA-eligible insurance option in the benefit pkg. The showing for HSA-eligible insurance is poor since HSA’s became lawful December 2003. Employers and state government’s all across our nation have followed Romney’s lead, denying workers this tool. America needs to wake up! Romney has made his living doing this sort of thing, and it has amassed he, and his favored insiders great wealth. He looks only after himself, not individual Americans and certainly not the middle class.
GAFFE
Dumb Texas Laws
When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.
A city ordinance states that a person cannot go barefoot without first obtaining a special five-dollar permit.
It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
You can be legally married by publicaly introducing a person as your husband or wife 3 times.
It is illegal to drive without windshield wipers. You don't need a
windshield, but you must have the wipers.
It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel.
It is illegal to milk another person's cow.
A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.
It is unlawful for a person to consume an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle upon a public roadway, if the person is observed doing so by a peace officer.
The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
Abilene
It is illegal to idle or loiter anyplace within the corporate limits of the city for the purpose of flirting or mashing.
Austin
Wire cutters can not be carried in your pocket.
Beaumont
Collegiate football is banned at Lamar University.
Borger
It is against the law to throw confetti, rubber balls, feather dusters, whips or quirts (riding crop), and explosive firecrackers of any kind.
Clarendon
It is illegal to dust any public building with a feather duster.
Dallas
It's illegal to possess realistic dildos.
El Paso
Churches, hotels, halls of assembly, stores, markets, banking rooms, railroad depots, and saloons are required to provide spittoons "of a kind and number to efficiently contain expectorations into them."
Houston
Beer may not be purchased after midnight on a Sunday, but it may be purchased on Monday.
It is illegal to sell Limburger cheese on Sunday.
Galveston
It is illegal to drive a motor car down Broadway before noon on Sundays.
Jasper
Dogs must be on a leash at ALL times. Fine of 100 dollars.
LeFors
It is illegal to take more than three swallows of beer while standing.
Lubbock County
It is illegal to drive within an arm's length of alcohol - including alcohol in someone else's blood stream.
Mesquite
It is illegal for children to have unusual haircuts.
Port Arthur
Obnoxious odors may not be emitted while in an elevator.
Richardson
It is now illegal to place a "for sale" sign on a car if it visible from the street.
San Antonio
It is illegal for both sexes to flirt or respond to flirtation using the eyes and/or hands.
It is illegal to urinate on the Alamo.
Temple
No one may ride a horse and buggy through the town square.
You can ride your horse in the saloon.
Cattle thieves may be hanged on the spot.
Texarkana
Owners of horses may not ride them at night without tail lights.
GAFFE
Romney will have to continue his battle for the nomination without co-chairman of his Arizona campaign sheriff Paul Babeu. Pinal county sheriff, denied he or his lawyer made the deportation threat to his ex lover but has stepped down from helping the former Massachusetts governor. Babeu acknowledged a previous relationship with the man (he calls him Jose) making the allegation.
According to Jose, Babeu's lawyer had asked him to sign a legal agreement that would require him to keep quiet about his involvement with the sheriff. The lawyer also warned Jose that any talk about their relationship could imperil his immigration status. Jose went to journalist, thing came out and Babeu was forced to talk to media. "All of these allegations were absolutely false, except for the issue that referred to me as being gay, and that is the truth. I am gay," Babeu told the news conference. It was a good day for media because Babeu, a tough law-and-order advocate, was considered a rising star in state Republican politics. He was also a strong candidate to win the party nomination for a congressional seat in Arizona this year. And any news involving politics and sex in any way- is big news. Babeu first came to statewide prominence in 2010 when he appeared in a campaign ad for the US senator John McCain of Arizona, calling for tough immigration measures and now we find out he was in love in immigrant, named Jose! Besides, he’s a Republican, and he’s gay!
The Romney campaign said in a statement: "Sheriff Babeu has stepped down from his volunteer position with the campaign so he can focus on the allegations against him. We support his decision." I bet you support his decision!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but how come every time we see some loud fighter for some conservative values, it turns out that in private life, he is quite opposite of what he proclaims to be. How come sheriff is tough Republican, known for tough immigration measures and at the same time - he is gay, in relationship with immigrant named Jose, whose immigration status could be questionable…?
Of course he can be gay and Republican! Of course he can be in love with immigrant and fight for tough immigration measures! But allow me to ask an obvious question: WHY? Why would you choose life like that? Why would you stand against everything you love? I wish somebody could explain it to me… Babeu, if it’s possible. Explain to me please: what’s wrong with you!
|
VOTE
Whose endorsement would be most valuable for Mitt Romney?
|
QUOTE OF THE MONTH
PTP
"This agent who was kind of ridiculous there in posting pictures and comments about checking someone out. Check this out, bodyguard: you're fired! And I hope his wife sends him to the doghouse."
Sarah Palin
|
|
|
Comments