It's been a little while, but I have some sweet new blog posts coming up thanks to my lumpy friend, Newt Gingrich. Not to Mention the awesome events of CPAC!!! (uggghhh, I can't believe I just linked to that.) I am going to compare and contrast both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich so everyone can really get a feel for who is the better candidate, if you're a republican.
On to today's post; recently Newt Gingrich has been trying to peg Obama with a nickname that he thinks will stick to justify his positions against the incumbent president. It has worked for the Tea Party before with names like, "Obamacare", "Kenyan President", "Nobama", something to do with Hussein, really the list goes on and on. For having such poor taste, Republicans are into the flavor of the week. This week however the chosen buzz phrase is... "The Food Stamp President."
Well as it turns out (as usual) Newt Gingrich's rhetoric got it wrong again. To my own personal shock, the more I learn about President Bush, he may have been a more compassionate person than previously thought. (It was that Dick, Chaney that really screwed us over.) It turns out that Bush was handing out food stamps like he had just won the lottery. Which is a good thing, but Republicans need to quit inserting their foot into their mouths. If they're that hungry we've got food stamps.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Is Santorum the Right Choice?
As the New Hampshire Primary approaches, I thought it important to discuss the newest Romney contender. After reading article after article about Rick Santorum, I found him to be a complex man that would be terrifying as a commander-in-chief. I say that from a purely academic standpoint and not from any other elitist, liberal bias epithet that might be hurled my way.
To begin, he appears to be the perfect conservative candidate. He's hardworking, fiscally responsible, and morally opposed to everything liberal; on the other hand he is what many are calling, a "cultural warrior." To put that in layman's terms, he is essentially a fanatic religious zealot, which keeps him from securing the independent voter. For instance, Rick Santorum has likened entitlement program participants to drug abusers and democrats as their dealers. That would include entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, all of which are used by the largest voter turnout group: the elderly.
He further alienated voters with his defense of Catholic priests and cardinals during the sex abuse scandals by defending the church and casting the citizens of both Boston and Massachusetts as the real villains of the abuse:
"No surprise that culture affects people's behavior . . . liberal culture. The idea that sexual inhibitions should be put aside and people should be able to do whatever they want to do, has an impact on people and how they behave."
"No surprise that the center of the Catholic abuse took place in a very liberal, or perhaps the nation's most liberal area, Boston."
As a consequence of his action, the former governor and now campaign rival Mitt Romney came out and defended the Massachusetts voters, condemning all remarks made by Santorum. The former senator never apologized for the remarks towards the citizens of Boston.
On a more humorous note, Santorum has a "Google problem." Columnist and gay activist Dan Savage launched a full-blown grassroots campaign in the form of a webpage titled, "Spreading Santorum." Created in response to remarks that Santorum made equating homosexuality to "man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be," it has surged faster than his poll rankings to the top of Google's organic search list for his name.
None of this, however, affects me. I've seen it all before, and it's just standard Republican procedure. The thing that got to me and should have gotten to Child Protective Services, is his actions as a result of his hyper pro-life stance.
In a book written by Santorum's wife, she discusses the birth of their last child, who was born prematurely and dying in the hospital. Though I personally can't relate to that experience, I imagine I would have handled it a bit differently than their family. After the child died, they brought the body of the 20 week-old fetus home to show their children. As each of the children held the lifeless body, they were told that their brother was an angel now. If that's not weird to you, I say vote Santorum.
So what should this mean for Republicans in New Hampshire? It means electing Santorum is a good move for the Obama campaign. People can tell you they hate socialism all day - until that day is their 62nd birthday. They can slander gays openly - until they run against a Democrat, and they can blame Massachusetts for their problems - until they run against Mitt Romney.
To begin, he appears to be the perfect conservative candidate. He's hardworking, fiscally responsible, and morally opposed to everything liberal; on the other hand he is what many are calling, a "cultural warrior." To put that in layman's terms, he is essentially a fanatic religious zealot, which keeps him from securing the independent voter. For instance, Rick Santorum has likened entitlement program participants to drug abusers and democrats as their dealers. That would include entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, all of which are used by the largest voter turnout group: the elderly.
He further alienated voters with his defense of Catholic priests and cardinals during the sex abuse scandals by defending the church and casting the citizens of both Boston and Massachusetts as the real villains of the abuse:
"No surprise that culture affects people's behavior . . . liberal culture. The idea that sexual inhibitions should be put aside and people should be able to do whatever they want to do, has an impact on people and how they behave."
"No surprise that the center of the Catholic abuse took place in a very liberal, or perhaps the nation's most liberal area, Boston."
As a consequence of his action, the former governor and now campaign rival Mitt Romney came out and defended the Massachusetts voters, condemning all remarks made by Santorum. The former senator never apologized for the remarks towards the citizens of Boston.
On a more humorous note, Santorum has a "Google problem." Columnist and gay activist Dan Savage launched a full-blown grassroots campaign in the form of a webpage titled, "Spreading Santorum." Created in response to remarks that Santorum made equating homosexuality to "man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be," it has surged faster than his poll rankings to the top of Google's organic search list for his name.
None of this, however, affects me. I've seen it all before, and it's just standard Republican procedure. The thing that got to me and should have gotten to Child Protective Services, is his actions as a result of his hyper pro-life stance.
In a book written by Santorum's wife, she discusses the birth of their last child, who was born prematurely and dying in the hospital. Though I personally can't relate to that experience, I imagine I would have handled it a bit differently than their family. After the child died, they brought the body of the 20 week-old fetus home to show their children. As each of the children held the lifeless body, they were told that their brother was an angel now. If that's not weird to you, I say vote Santorum.
So what should this mean for Republicans in New Hampshire? It means electing Santorum is a good move for the Obama campaign. People can tell you they hate socialism all day - until that day is their 62nd birthday. They can slander gays openly - until they run against a Democrat, and they can blame Massachusetts for their problems - until they run against Mitt Romney.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Cat Fight in Iowa Caucuses
As many of you have already heard, the Iowa Caucuses have just concluded, deciding once and for all who the Republican nominee for president is going to be. Just like the Iowa Straw Poll predicted the winner of the Iowa Caucus a few months ago. (JK! Michele Bachmann took dead last and announced her presidential campaign suspended.) Since 1972, the Granite State (Iowa) has been the first in the nation to hold its caucus where voters of the state are supposed to set the tone for rest of the nation on how successful a presidential candidate will be. So how many times has it been an accurate indicator that the winner will go on to win the presidency? Just once in the entire 40 years that it's been running!
There are several reasons to suspect the Iowa caucus of being a faulty guide for the entire county's view on a single candidate. One reason could be that of the 313 million members that make up our melting pot, it's not nearly as white as the 91% white population of Iowa. It could also be that of all of our counties in the nation, 88% aren't classified as rural like Iowa. Or to put it more bluntly, I'll turn to the delicate words of Iowan resident, Professor Stephen Bloom. In an article he wrote on this very topic he said that, "Iowa isn't a place that's representative of America and why then should it be the spring board for the national presidential election?"
So why then do I believe in my heart of hearts that this time it got it right? Because, Mitt Romney is the candidate that everyone seems to fall back on. Even after sampling every flavor of the week, including "Black Walnut," he has consistently been a GOP front runner after every debate. This clearly being summed up with his 8 vote "Landslide win" declared by John McCain over the Frothy Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. (Another flavor of the week, just not a taste you want in your mouth.)
Though this early primary process is somewhat absurd, it does enlighten the uninformed voter to some of the individual candidates ideas on issues. It also gives the out of office political party exposure that it would not normally have had, maintaining a somewhat civil discourse that many other countries are lacking. However, with the addition of so many debates by the Republican Party, each of the rival candidates have effectively hung out everyone's dirty laundry. In my mind this is not an effective tactic for a party that justifies itself on a moral platform based on conservative principles. (How much did all of those debates cost anyway?)
But, after sampling each and every member of the GOP it comes right down to the designated driver. He's nothing special, but he's who you're going home with. Yes that man time and time again is Mitt Romney. Though I don't believe the Iowa Caucus really decided this outcome, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. I'll bet you $10,000.
There are several reasons to suspect the Iowa caucus of being a faulty guide for the entire county's view on a single candidate. One reason could be that of the 313 million members that make up our melting pot, it's not nearly as white as the 91% white population of Iowa. It could also be that of all of our counties in the nation, 88% aren't classified as rural like Iowa. Or to put it more bluntly, I'll turn to the delicate words of Iowan resident, Professor Stephen Bloom. In an article he wrote on this very topic he said that, "Iowa isn't a place that's representative of America and why then should it be the spring board for the national presidential election?"
So why then do I believe in my heart of hearts that this time it got it right? Because, Mitt Romney is the candidate that everyone seems to fall back on. Even after sampling every flavor of the week, including "Black Walnut," he has consistently been a GOP front runner after every debate. This clearly being summed up with his 8 vote "Landslide win" declared by John McCain over the Frothy Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. (Another flavor of the week, just not a taste you want in your mouth.)
Though this early primary process is somewhat absurd, it does enlighten the uninformed voter to some of the individual candidates ideas on issues. It also gives the out of office political party exposure that it would not normally have had, maintaining a somewhat civil discourse that many other countries are lacking. However, with the addition of so many debates by the Republican Party, each of the rival candidates have effectively hung out everyone's dirty laundry. In my mind this is not an effective tactic for a party that justifies itself on a moral platform based on conservative principles. (How much did all of those debates cost anyway?)
But, after sampling each and every member of the GOP it comes right down to the designated driver. He's nothing special, but he's who you're going home with. Yes that man time and time again is Mitt Romney. Though I don't believe the Iowa Caucus really decided this outcome, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. I'll bet you $10,000.
Rupert Murdoch Buys Out Politifact?
First off, to answer you query, NO!
No, Rupert Murdoch of the Newscorp organization did not buy out Politifact. What you have just experienced is just one of the many ways in which political candidates draw attention to themselves by using extreme rhetoric that will ultimately confuse the average American voter. Like when someone says that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is fund abortions, or that no federal official is allowed to say Merry Christmas. To most of us with rational brains this would seem absurd, but these are the types of stories that are being endorsed by our modern media. Sad, but true.
As a concerned citizen, I have decided to exercise my First Amendment Right to help simplify the wide world of politics as only a Feline can. Though it would seem that our media already puts so much emphasis on the subject that it litters our televisions, newspapers, etc. Time and time again when ranked against the rest of the world America is among the lowest in its understanding of it's government and continues to have the lowest voter turn out! Why is that? It's a democracy, the whole system was designed for citizen participation. The founders are rolling in their graves, I'm sure.
So Follow along as I take you through the never ending hijinks that is our country's political system. Together we can demystify the world of politics and create an engaged/educated voter populous.
No, Rupert Murdoch of the Newscorp organization did not buy out Politifact. What you have just experienced is just one of the many ways in which political candidates draw attention to themselves by using extreme rhetoric that will ultimately confuse the average American voter. Like when someone says that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is fund abortions, or that no federal official is allowed to say Merry Christmas. To most of us with rational brains this would seem absurd, but these are the types of stories that are being endorsed by our modern media. Sad, but true.
As a concerned citizen, I have decided to exercise my First Amendment Right to help simplify the wide world of politics as only a Feline can. Though it would seem that our media already puts so much emphasis on the subject that it litters our televisions, newspapers, etc. Time and time again when ranked against the rest of the world America is among the lowest in its understanding of it's government and continues to have the lowest voter turn out! Why is that? It's a democracy, the whole system was designed for citizen participation. The founders are rolling in their graves, I'm sure.
So Follow along as I take you through the never ending hijinks that is our country's political system. Together we can demystify the world of politics and create an engaged/educated voter populous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)