Rethinking "Welfare"

Allow me to preface this by saying that I am entirely supportive of federal and state public assistance programs.  Unlike Newt Gingrich, I don’t think there’s anything particularly sordid about the phrase “food stamps.”  When I hear the phrase, I am saddened for the people who are less fortunate than I am and I am grateful for what I have.  I’m proud of the taxes I pay and I can only hope that some of that money goes to assisting those in need.

There’s no political ideology or organized religion that has ever existed that hasn’t maintained some sort of public assistance program for the benefit of the needy.  The concept of public welfare should not be a bipartisan issue—it should be an innately human issue.  To hear Gingrich scathingly call President Obama the “food stamp president” is almost grotesque.  He might as well call him the “public charity president.”  Newt argues that more people have gone on food stamps under this administration than any other—fair enough.  The U.S. population is larger under this administration than any other.  Does that mean that people are happier under Obama and are thus recreating more frequently?  No, not necessarily.  Correlation and causation are not one and the same.  

Now, for a welfare program to be effective, it has to be done properly.  Public welfare should be doled out to those who need it for the direct purpose of directly helping them afford food, clothing and shelter.  This past week there have been multiple reports coming out of multiple major news networks that government records show that people have been using their welfare money at strip clubs and casinos—and even at hotel gift shops in Hawaii!  Are you kidding me? 

“Mad” doesn’t even begin to describe my sentiment.  “Utterly floored” is closer.  People have been using welfare money to support low-life establishments such as strip clubs?  They’ve literally been gambling the money away at casinos?  And they’ve used the money—that they clearly don’t need—at hotel gift shops in the vacation island of Hawaii?  Really?  I’ve never even been to Hawaii and people who are (supposedly) “needy” are vacationing there?  Something has got to change.  Now.

Newt clearly isn’t the solution.  Maybe Romney is.  Maybe Obama is.  Whoever is going to step up to the plate has to do it quickly.  With our federal government hemorrhaging money, the last thing we need to be doing is subsidizing vacation souvenirs and lap-dances for the “needy” people who are supposed to be using our tax dollars to pay for their basic necessities (and the basic necessities of their children). 

When I was little, I was told that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a night, but if you teach him how to fish, he will eat for the rest of his life.  Our money should be going to pay for the tackle and bait of needy Americans, not for their tabs at strip clubs, casinos and resort gift shops.  I want the poor to get the help they need, but I won’t stand by and watch my hard-earned money taxed away and thrown at luxuries for people who can’t afford them and don’t need them.

Current State of GOP Affairs

Well, you heard it here first (although you’ve probably assumed it for nearly a year): the GOP race is, in effect, over, and the nominee who will be running against President Barack Obama in November is the former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.  I said a couple of weeks ago that what happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas, and I stand by that statement despite Rick Santorum’s impressive hat-trick.

First things first; let’s give credit where credit is due.  Rick Santorum’s campaign strategists pulled off an incredible feat last week when they took Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado all in one night.     Senator Santorum may thank well wishes from the heavens, but the fact is that people voted for Santorum because he was there, because he shares their religious family values, and because he in no way, shape, or form can be misconstrued—by the press or by Newt Gingrich—as a “Massachusetts Moderate.”  

Let me digress for a moment and take a look at that phrase: “Massachusetts Moderate.”  The implication is, of course, that because Governor Romney resides, and governed, in Massachusetts, he is a political moderate.  Now, how much sense does that make?  If he spent time living in Ethiopia, would that make him a black man?  If was an astronaut, and spent a couple of days on the moon, would that make him an alien?  Just because I live in Florida, am I a senior citizen?  No.  None of those scenarios make sense, and neither does the one that suggests that Governor Mitt Romney is a moderate just because he is from Massachusetts.  The phraseology used in this campaign, and that one especially, is rudimentary and thoughtless.  Thus, it’s no wonder that the man behind the words, Newt Gingrich, has fallen farther and farther away from the top spot.  

With his wins last Tuesday, Santorum has been propelled to Romney-status in the national polls (courtesy of the national media).  That said, he won’t last atop the GOP list of potential nominees and by early next month Mitt Romney will be all but declared the official nominee of the Republican Party.  Why is that?  Look, Rick Santorum can absolutely take some wins in southern, ultra-conservative states.  But those states, including Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, West Virginia, Alabama, etc., are all proportional!  That means, that while Rick Santorum might get a majority of the delegates from those states, Mitt Romney will still take a proportional chunk of them.  And furthermore, the states in which Mitt Romney is a shoe-in, like Arizona, Maryland, D.C., Delaware, Utah, etc., are all winner-take-all!  That means that even if Santorum takes 40% of a given state, if Romney has more than that—which he will—he will take 100% of the delegates from that state.  

Just use common sense: the GOP is not going to put a strong-handed right-winger (even relative to the mainstream Republican Party) against the President.  The country does not vacillate between extremes in just four years.  And, furthermore, independents would be much more likely to vote for Obama than they would be to vote for Santorum—but Romney, he’s a viable candidate to take the independent, middle-of-the-road voters.  And as much as the phrase “moderate” might irritate him, it’s also the exact thing that’s going to give him a decent shot at winning the presidency.  

Justin Stern is a student journalist, currently studying Political Science at FAU.  Follow him on Twitter @justinmlstern and read his political commentary blog at justinstern.blogspot.com

Mr. Trump: You Got Out, Now Get Away.

Donald Trump has essentially stated that he is out of the presidential race (despite his recent publicity stunt masqueraded as a change in party affiliation).  Unfortunately, he hasn’t quite “gone away” yet.  Whether he’s on the ballots or not, he’s made sure that he’s a topic (and component) of conversation on all of the major news networks.  This man needs not just to get out of national politics; he needs to get away from it.   What can only be described as Mr. Trump’s excessive narcissism is getting in the way of serious Americans paying attention to serious candidates so that they may solve serious problems. 

Mr. Trump belongs in national politics just about as much as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad belongs in the cast of ABC’s Dancing with the Stars.  Mr. Trump’s lack of experience in the public sector—coupled with his lack of respect for others—has all but guaranteed that the man will never serve his country.  The problem is, Mr. Trump knows this.  He’s well aware that he’s never going to get anywhere near the White House (except for those media-hogging press dinners at which he is allowed to show his artificially-tanned face).  All of his affiliation with politics is meticulously planned to coincide with his “work” on various entertainment ventures of his.  He announced his run for president just before the premiere of his new show.  Now he endorses Mitt Romney just before another premiere.  He is all about the ratings, as is the mainstream media, and that’s why they get along so well. 

I would have given anything to see Mitt Romney graciously reject Trump’s endorsement.  If he had told Trump he wasn’t interested, I would have bought a ticket out to Nevada and would have immediately become a full-time volunteer for Romney’s campaign.  Alas, a man is only as strong as his hair is flexible—and in that respect, Trump and Romney find solace in their shared weakness.  Trump’s endorsement of Romney, combined with his criticism of Santorum, shows his underlying lack of understanding about the current race.  During a telephone-interview this week, Trump stated that it’s senseless for Santorum to be running for president given that he lost his last bid for Senate.  Are you kidding me?  The rule is, if you lose a race you can’t run?  What about Mitt Romney?  Not only did he lose for Congress for years in Massachusetts—he lost in his bid for president four years ago! 

Donald Trump spends his days seeking the limelight and badmouthing certain, select individuals on his Twitter account.  His victims range from Rosie O’Donnell to the first lady.  In essence, Mr. Trump is the high school bully of the adult world.  He is morbidly unhappy and it shows through his narcissistic and egocentric efforts to utilize his (unfortunately) major presence in today’s society for the common bad.  If parents are ever searching for a way to explain to their children that money doesn’t buy happiness, they need look no further than Mr. Donald Trump.

What Happens in Vegas (Sometimes) Stays in Vegas

The original phrase, “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” has been used countless times and in relation to a wide range of events.  But the truth is, the tagline is misleading.  What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas.  Sure, it’s a good motto for a bachelor party, but it isn’t a rational notion when it comes to national politics.  Make no mistake about it: Governor Mitt Romney will take his Saturday win in Nevada and run with it—possibly all the way to the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, FL late this summer.

This isn’t the defining moment of the campaign, though.  From what I’ve seen thus far, I’d have to say that Gingrich’s win in South Carolina was the most important—and startling—event so far in the GOP race for the nomination.  It sent such a ripple through the mucky water that has characterized this race because it was proof of his (second) resurrection.  Twice before, he had been essentially discounted by national polls.  There is something about Gingrich, though.  Some call it the “X” factor; I call it the “XXL” factor.  Whatever it is, it continues to propel him to the top even after some wild, outlandish statement relegates him to the pit of the gang.  And, as people who have followed him for more than an hour know, wild, outlandish statements aren’t an anomaly when it comes to Newt—they’re an integral part of the recipe, and many say the recipe is one for disaster.

Romney regained his lead following the Florida primary in part by advertising himself as a man of “constancy” with regard to his faith, career and personal life, many of which stand in stark contrast to Newt’s.  That said, Romney’s impressive Florida finish should be looked at as part of the bigger picture.  The state, contrary to what Romney has said, is not “a microcosm of the entire country.”  If that were the case, Medicare would need some serious improvements and the federal government would have to start giving some serious consideration to the prospect of subsidizing the manufacturers of golf carts and walking canes. 

What’s so important about Romney’s Nevada win is not that he finished twenty-seven percentage points ahead of Newt, who finished in second.  What’s so remarkable about the win is that it marked the first time in this up-and-down series of campaigns in which someone has won two states in a row. Romney will go into Tuesday’s contests with a two-state win streak, and that’s something that no other candidate will have.  The Republican electorate has seen a wide variety of characters in this race and many of them have said very, very stupid things.  We must remember, however, that whichever way this race turns, we must take everything the candidates say with a pound of salt and acknowledge that we’re getting an up-close look at what's inside the DSM IV. 

Look, the race is far from over.  Romney’s win was a crucial one, but it wasn’t a definitive game-changer.  Let’s not forget Howard Dean’s tailspin (or Mitt Romney’s flame-out in 2008).  Who knows?  Maybe Republicans will go with the most consistent candidate (and that would be either Santorum or Paul). Surely, the Massachusetts Governor has not been guaranteed the nomination—not even close.  And Newt will make Romney’s work over the next six months just as difficult as possible.  Newt’s handling of his campaign is reflective of his narcissistic personality; he’s more interested in inflating himself than promoting the ideals of his party.  I genuinely believe that he will vote for President Obama just to spite Romney if, in fact, Romney gets the nomination. 

With Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri opening their polls on Tuesday morning, the race could change in a matter of days (or less).  Nevertheless, what happened in Vegas on Saturday won’t stay there.  Romney’s momentum will follow him wherever he goes.  We’ll see it in his smile, we’ll hear it in his voice, and we’ll see it vilified in Newt’s ads.  And that, my friends, is when we’ll know that Newt’s chances of securing the nomination are dwindling away.

Justin Stern: An interview with Eric Cantor

Justin Stern: An interview with Eric Cantor

Florida Votes and Gingrich Chokes

Catchy headline, right?  Almost terrifying.  Some of us think that Floridians shouldn't be able to vote -- that the votes and vote counters of the state have, based on elections of twelve years ago, neglected to meet their duty of care in handling such an important event as a presidential election.

Nevertheless, today Republican Floridians will go to their polling places and cast their ballots for their chosen candidate.  Ostensibly, it would make sense that at the polling places they will have their choice of, in no significant order, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul.  However, if they voted by absentee ballot, they had their choice of those four PLUS Huntsman, Cain, Perry and Bachman.  That's because the ballots were printed before the latter bunch dropped out.

To begin with, let's hope that Florida Republicans actually go to the polls.  It's astonishing to hear the statistics about what percentage of registered voters actually end up voting.  The number one reason people don't go to the polls to vote is not that the lines are too long, it's that people felt that they had "better things to do."  WHAT?!

I say, if you are a registered Republican in Florida, and you don't vote today, you thereby forfeit your right to complain about the current political climate.  You have a say in the matter, and if you don't like something, fix it!  Don't just sit home on your computer ranting and raving about a who's a socialist and who's an out-of-touch millionaire; go to the polls and vote.

Now, who to choose?  Well, if the college-aged Republicans had their way, Ron Paul would be their nominee.  If the far-right evangelicals had their way, it would be Santorum.  If the businessmen had their way, it would be Romney.  And if Barack Obama's speech writing team had their way, it would be Newt Gingrich.  Of the four, I'd have to support Romney.  Not because of his political flip-flops and not because of his bashing of Barack Obama; frankly, I can't stand his constant criticism of a President who has done little to "strangle business," as Romney claims he has.  No, I am supportive of Romney because of his frugality.  In this campaign, many have smeared him as an out-of-touch multi-millionaire who doesn't understand the notion of spending a minimal amount.  To those, I say check out this great NYT article.

As for Newt, what else can we say?  I've spent a blog reprimanding him on his chronic infidelity which flies in the face of his "family values" conservatism.  I just want to make one more point about Newt based on his recent assertions that it would be a good idea for the US to fund a "colony on the moon" of upwards of "13,000 Americans" who can create a "51st state."  There are no words, Newt.

You vilify Obama as a big spender and this is what you want to do?  You don't think the government should help starving kids on our city streets, but you think we should spend billions -- if not trillions -- of dollars creating a 51st state on the moon?  Let's take care of the states we have before we start building new ones.

I don't know who I'll vote for in November.  I guess that all depends on how the economy looks, how Iran looks, and how many times Newt gets married in between now and then.  What I can say is that Romney deserves to take Florida today -- whether he will deserve to in November, well, that's an issue yet to be determined.

The Immoral Candidate and "the American Dream"

You'll notice that the majority of these postings are critical of the GOP candidates; that's because they're the ones currently in the rat race that has begun to characterize political campaigns.  Rest assured, when there's a DNC campaign, I'll be pointing out all of their hypocrisy and misfires.

BUT, for the time being, let's focus on Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.  Let's get Newt Gingrich out of the way first.  For a country that had no problem vilifying Bill Clinton for his out-of-wedlock sexual activity, we apparently are choosing to turn a blind eye to Newt Gingrich and his.  Maybe the mere image of it is revolting, and that's why we choose to ignore the issue, but that's still no excuse.  Newt is currently on his THIRD wife, after having CHEATED on the first two.  In fact, he asked his second wife if she would be interested in having an "open marriage."  How dare she "want him all to herself?"  Who does Newt think he is?  Then, he called it "despicable" for John King to bring up the issue of this sordid matter in a debate.  Why is that not an appropriate question?  Just like the American people should have access to Mitt Romney's tax returns, we should be able to know whether or not we are going to elect a misogynist such as Newt Gingrich.

For such a conservative, someone interested in "preserving the sanctity of marriage," he seemingly knows nothing about the institution.  This guy has zero respect for the bond between a man and a woman in "holy matrimony."  His sexual exploits alone -- which prove that he's the most hypocritical of the bunch -- expose him as a faux conservative only interested in petting his own ego.  At least Mitt Romney has been married to the same woman for 42 years.  That said, he's got a whole slew of other issues.

Why is he running on the premise that he should be president because of his experience in the private sector?  Why is he going around saying that he's lived the American Dream?  As far as I was taught, the American Dream was that you could go from nothing to something (or a lot) because of hard work and dedication.  Mitt Romney doesn't express those values.  He started a company, sure, but what kind?  A venture capital firm!  What do you need to start that?  Um.... MONEY!  Maybe it was helpful that his father was the CEO and Chairman of the American Motors Corporation.  Romney didn't come from humble beginnings, he was born into a multi-million dollar family and it was with that wealth that he "started" his own venture capital firm.

Frankly, if anyone knows about coming from nothing and attaining success, it's the most recent Democratic presidents.  Barack Obama and Bill Clinton both started out incredibly poor, attended elite schools and made their way to the top.  In contrast, George W. Bush (and candidate Romney) were born into wealth and therefore didn't "earn" anything.  If anyone knows what it's like to get to the top -- while playing by the rules and creating success from nothing -- it's the Democrats.