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.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Rick Perry Drop-Out
Now, I don't claim to be a prophet of any kind, but I will admit that something very strange happened last night: I had a dream that Rick Perry dropped out of the GOP race. And now it's happening.
This morning, news has broken that Gov. Perry has told supporters he will be leaving the race. The reason I had the dream is that I was discussing with family members that its asinine for Perry, Santorum and Gingrich to all remain in the race. They all want to be the conservative alternative to the man they claim to be the "Massachusetts Moderate," Mitt Romney.
While I don't agree with Gov. Perry's domestic policies, I commend him for being the "bigger man" in the race and having the humility and wherewithal to understand that sometimes the hardest thing to do is the right thing to do. His leaving the race will bolster the chances of either Gingrich or Santorum securing the nomination. Now, if Santorum or Gingrich followed suit, the conservative wing of the Republican party would have a real chance to knock out Mitt Romney.
Don't confuse my strategy for passion; I'm not a fan of a lot of what these guys say. I'm just looking at this from a politically strategic standpoint. Again, well done, Gov. Perry. He has maintained his reputation, increased the chances of his closest allies and saved himself a ticket to the next GOP race (whether it be in 2016 or 2020).
This morning, news has broken that Gov. Perry has told supporters he will be leaving the race. The reason I had the dream is that I was discussing with family members that its asinine for Perry, Santorum and Gingrich to all remain in the race. They all want to be the conservative alternative to the man they claim to be the "Massachusetts Moderate," Mitt Romney.
While I don't agree with Gov. Perry's domestic policies, I commend him for being the "bigger man" in the race and having the humility and wherewithal to understand that sometimes the hardest thing to do is the right thing to do. His leaving the race will bolster the chances of either Gingrich or Santorum securing the nomination. Now, if Santorum or Gingrich followed suit, the conservative wing of the Republican party would have a real chance to knock out Mitt Romney.
Don't confuse my strategy for passion; I'm not a fan of a lot of what these guys say. I'm just looking at this from a politically strategic standpoint. Again, well done, Gov. Perry. He has maintained his reputation, increased the chances of his closest allies and saved himself a ticket to the next GOP race (whether it be in 2016 or 2020).
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Enough with the "Food Stamp President" Remarks
Look, I'm not for wealth distribution via government intervention, but to label POTUS as the "food stamp president" is misleading. To say that makes people believe that he got into office and just decided to hand out food stamps to people who didn't need it. We forget that this government had already acquired a considerably large amount of debt by the time he took office. Following years of military extravaganzas in the middle east, the US had racked up quite a deficit.
So, when he took office, the economy was already in shambles. The stock market begun its downward spiral in the summer of 2008 and when he took office in January of 2009 his primary responsibility was to, aside from protect the country, stabilize the languishing economy. Consider this analogy: when a terribly injured person comes into the ER, surgery is not the first course of action. Before any diagnosis or procedural plan can be drawn up, the patient first must be stabilized to secure a natural point before any invasive work can be done. So, before he could have started to fix the economy he had to stabilize it.
Furthermore, what do his critics think people on food stamps do with the food stamps? Hang them up in their living rooms as testaments to their supposed laziness? No, they spend it on..... that's right, food! And who does that benefit? Oh, yeah, the grocery stores. And when grocery stores sell more products, what gets a boost? Food ordered from companies like Cisco, CBI, etc. Then they hire more people to process the food and, in turn, the farms hire more people to grow the food to begin with.
To act like food stamps just adorn the walls of the poor and serve no further purpose is short-sighted and, frankly, ignorant. I don't always agree with President Obama, but to criticize him -- so repeatedly -- for lending a helping hand to those who need it most (and in turn allowing the economy to maintain its customer base) is just wrong.
So, when he took office, the economy was already in shambles. The stock market begun its downward spiral in the summer of 2008 and when he took office in January of 2009 his primary responsibility was to, aside from protect the country, stabilize the languishing economy. Consider this analogy: when a terribly injured person comes into the ER, surgery is not the first course of action. Before any diagnosis or procedural plan can be drawn up, the patient first must be stabilized to secure a natural point before any invasive work can be done. So, before he could have started to fix the economy he had to stabilize it.
Furthermore, what do his critics think people on food stamps do with the food stamps? Hang them up in their living rooms as testaments to their supposed laziness? No, they spend it on..... that's right, food! And who does that benefit? Oh, yeah, the grocery stores. And when grocery stores sell more products, what gets a boost? Food ordered from companies like Cisco, CBI, etc. Then they hire more people to process the food and, in turn, the farms hire more people to grow the food to begin with.
To act like food stamps just adorn the walls of the poor and serve no further purpose is short-sighted and, frankly, ignorant. I don't always agree with President Obama, but to criticize him -- so repeatedly -- for lending a helping hand to those who need it most (and in turn allowing the economy to maintain its customer base) is just wrong.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Jon Huntsman Drop-Out
I'm sad to see Jon Huntsman leave. This marks the departure of the rational Republican from the current GOP race. He says his followers should join ranks with those of Mitt Romney's. I'm hesitant but perhaps I'll follow. I'm skeptical of his corporate looting with Bain and I'm irritated by his insistence that he's not a lifelong politician. Make no mistake, that fact isn't by choice. If he had it his way, he'd have won elections since 1994 and would have been in Washington for nearly twenty years.
There was a funny cartoon in the New Yorker this week that depicted a yard sign for Romney. In small print above his name, there was the following: "Oh, alright, fine." I think that cartoon does a good job of outlining the sentiments of those who are slowly trotting along toward Romney's camp.
There was a funny cartoon in the New Yorker this week that depicted a yard sign for Romney. In small print above his name, there was the following: "Oh, alright, fine." I think that cartoon does a good job of outlining the sentiments of those who are slowly trotting along toward Romney's camp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)