The election is over and the right man won!
Congratulations to President Barack Obama for your election to a second term.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Major Differences - Fund-raising
Mitt Romney and President Obama have two entirely different fund-raising styles that perfectly reflect their political personae. Mitt Romney seems to specialize in $50,000-a-plate fundraisers, while President Obama welcomes donations of as little as $5. Obama also keeps advertising the fact that they'll draw a name from everyone who makes a donation during a specific period of time, and you can win a chance to have dinner with the President.
Can anyone imagine Romney doing something like that?
I can actually imagine Romney's reaction to someone in his camp telling him he should try some fund-raising where he'll have dinner with someone who donates as little as $5.00. "What? You mean eat? With one of the little people? God, WHY?!?"
President Obama should stick to caring about, standing up for and directing fundraising efforts to the people who can only afford to give $5 or $10 at a time. Governor Romney should stick to rubbing elbows, fighting for and fundraising from the rich and the "elite". When November 6th comes around, we'll get a chance to see which type of people outnumber the other.
Can anyone imagine Romney doing something like that?
I can actually imagine Romney's reaction to someone in his camp telling him he should try some fund-raising where he'll have dinner with someone who donates as little as $5.00. "What? You mean eat? With one of the little people? God, WHY?!?"
President Obama should stick to caring about, standing up for and directing fundraising efforts to the people who can only afford to give $5 or $10 at a time. Governor Romney should stick to rubbing elbows, fighting for and fundraising from the rich and the "elite". When November 6th comes around, we'll get a chance to see which type of people outnumber the other.
Friday, October 5, 2012
The first Presidential Debate
The first Presidential debate occurred on Wednesday night in front of an estimated audience of 58 million people.
Most political pundits watched the debate and decided that Mitt Romney won the debate, simply in terms of body language, overall style and his seeming to be much more engaged in the process of the debate than President Obama was. President Obama spent a lot of time looking down at his podium, making notes on what Romney was saying and seemed to go out of his way to not argue with or correct the bullshit statements that Romney made time and again. Obama also often directed his statements to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, or the camera, where Romney addressed most of what he said directly to Obama. Romney seemed to be showing an especially aggressive or dominant side of himself, which Obama might have been responding to by looking down and refusing to engage. (Showing your back to someone who is trying to dominate you is the most profound way there is to put the other person in their place and show them that you are not at all worried about them. Maybe this was Obama's tactic.)
It could be that Romney's camp told him that in order to combat the perception that he is not a very exciting or passionate person, he should be very aggressive and enthusiastic during the debate. Maybe. Or he ate a lot of sugar before the debate and was working off a sugar rush.
However, debates and politics are not only about body language and who is trying to be the Alpha dog. Facts and policy are a very important part of it, at least to me. Showing the American audience the main differences between yourself and your opponent is incredibly important and probably one of the main reasons people tune in to the actual debate instead of just watching the wrap-us later.
The enthusiasm Romney showed was just one of the changes he seemed to make at the debate on Wednesday night. The same ultra-conservative Mitt Romney who has spent the past year and a half stumping about things like his desire to cut taxes 20% across the board, saying that regulations are responsible for killing jobs and ruining the economy suddenly became a moderate who claimed to have never said he'd cut taxes for the very rich, and that he liked regulations and understood that they were necessary. Mitt Romney, who also said that 47% of the country were dependent on government and would never vote for him so he wasn't even going to worry about them, has now changed his view to see that people out there are hurting and he is "running to help 100% of America".
Obama could have simply and handily "won" the debate by uttering one simple phrase in response to anything Romney said about his own policies: "Since when!?!?" Or perhaps, when given a chance to ask Romney a question directly, asking him "Who are you and what have you done with the real Willard Mitt Romney?" Because the man at the debate standing opposite President Obama seemed to be less the ultra-conservative out-of-touch millionaire that he has portrayed himself to be over the past year and a half and more a new-and-improved moderate Mitt Romney who wants policies that are only slightly to the right of Obama's, instead of all the way to the other end of the political spectrum. Some of the things Romney said directly contradicted statements he had made within days of the debate. While it's almost a given at this point that Romney likes to re-invent himself, the degree to which he did it at the debate borders on the utterly ridiculous and fantastical.
With only 32 days before the election, I'm wondering how many revisions of Romney his campaign can fit in between now and then. On Election Day, we might be on Romney version 20.0. Who knows what his beliefs and policies will even be by then.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There have been a number of articles written in the days since the debate that fact-check everything that was said in the debates. If you're looking for the absolute truth of what was said, please read these. They can get sort of number-driven and wonkish, though. Politi-Fact.com, The Washington Post, Politico.com and USA Today.
Most political pundits watched the debate and decided that Mitt Romney won the debate, simply in terms of body language, overall style and his seeming to be much more engaged in the process of the debate than President Obama was. President Obama spent a lot of time looking down at his podium, making notes on what Romney was saying and seemed to go out of his way to not argue with or correct the bullshit statements that Romney made time and again. Obama also often directed his statements to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, or the camera, where Romney addressed most of what he said directly to Obama. Romney seemed to be showing an especially aggressive or dominant side of himself, which Obama might have been responding to by looking down and refusing to engage. (Showing your back to someone who is trying to dominate you is the most profound way there is to put the other person in their place and show them that you are not at all worried about them. Maybe this was Obama's tactic.)
It could be that Romney's camp told him that in order to combat the perception that he is not a very exciting or passionate person, he should be very aggressive and enthusiastic during the debate. Maybe. Or he ate a lot of sugar before the debate and was working off a sugar rush.
However, debates and politics are not only about body language and who is trying to be the Alpha dog. Facts and policy are a very important part of it, at least to me. Showing the American audience the main differences between yourself and your opponent is incredibly important and probably one of the main reasons people tune in to the actual debate instead of just watching the wrap-us later.
The enthusiasm Romney showed was just one of the changes he seemed to make at the debate on Wednesday night. The same ultra-conservative Mitt Romney who has spent the past year and a half stumping about things like his desire to cut taxes 20% across the board, saying that regulations are responsible for killing jobs and ruining the economy suddenly became a moderate who claimed to have never said he'd cut taxes for the very rich, and that he liked regulations and understood that they were necessary. Mitt Romney, who also said that 47% of the country were dependent on government and would never vote for him so he wasn't even going to worry about them, has now changed his view to see that people out there are hurting and he is "running to help 100% of America".
Obama could have simply and handily "won" the debate by uttering one simple phrase in response to anything Romney said about his own policies: "Since when!?!?" Or perhaps, when given a chance to ask Romney a question directly, asking him "Who are you and what have you done with the real Willard Mitt Romney?" Because the man at the debate standing opposite President Obama seemed to be less the ultra-conservative out-of-touch millionaire that he has portrayed himself to be over the past year and a half and more a new-and-improved moderate Mitt Romney who wants policies that are only slightly to the right of Obama's, instead of all the way to the other end of the political spectrum. Some of the things Romney said directly contradicted statements he had made within days of the debate. While it's almost a given at this point that Romney likes to re-invent himself, the degree to which he did it at the debate borders on the utterly ridiculous and fantastical.
With only 32 days before the election, I'm wondering how many revisions of Romney his campaign can fit in between now and then. On Election Day, we might be on Romney version 20.0. Who knows what his beliefs and policies will even be by then.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There have been a number of articles written in the days since the debate that fact-check everything that was said in the debates. If you're looking for the absolute truth of what was said, please read these. They can get sort of number-driven and wonkish, though. Politi-Fact.com, The Washington Post, Politico.com and USA Today.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Conservatives and Birth Control
The focus of Conservatives on birth control lately may surprise some people out there, but it's actually not all that surprising to me.
Conservatives for years have been focused on issues that make it pretty obvious that they miss the days of women being subservient to men.
Things like:
*Trying to cut down on the availability of abortion - because you women should have to suffer from whatever happens when you sluts decide to have sex with someone.
*Trying to prevent women from having affordable access to birth control - because birth control is only for slutty sluts, while Viagra is an important and valuable medication that usually is (and should be) gladly paid for by health insurance companies. What? You men can't get an erection? That is terrible! Let us go right ahead and fix that for you at no charge to you.
*Voting against things like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - because how dare you require that companies pay men and women with equivalent education and experience similar wages? You ladies are just lucky that we let you work at all!
*Voting against reauthorizing the the Violence Against Women Act, which has reduced domestic violence rates by 58% since it was first passed in 1994 - because if women are being beaten by their husbands, it's probably because they did something to deserve it!
We women have been getting pretty uppity over the last 100 years or so, and it seems that these conservative men merely want to set things right. First women campaigned for the right to vote (Nineteenth Amendment - passed August 26, 1920). Then they wanted to also be educated like men are (compulsory schooling for women - passed by states in different years of the 1800's and 1900's). Women then wanted the right to be able to go to college to get a higher education. Then we wanted the right to go to work and earn a living, in order to not be totally dependent upon our husbands. Then women started reaching for the stars. We wanted to be able to hold office. We wanted to be able to legislate all types of issues, including the ones that directly affect us.
Women want. They want. We want. Want, want, want.
Conservative men seem to long to go back to the days when women were seen and not heard. Women were merely spouses, helpmates, the people who took care of the children and the home and we did not make demands or ask for anything. If you kept a roof over their heads, did not beat them too severely and occasionally bought them pretty things, they were happy. THAT is what Conservative men miss the most about how things work in the current day.
The very bottom line to some of these issues is this: Conservative men want to believe that women have no sexuality or sex drive of their own. Sexuality should be dependent on their husbands. The only time they should want sex is when their husbands initiate it and they should be content with whatever happens. ("Oh, honey, you didn't get to finish? Oh well! Better luck next time!") That way they don't have to actually be concerned about anyone but themselves, which is really what they want.
Conservatives also think any repercussions caused by this sex should also be decided by men. Men should decide if you actually were raped. Men should get to have the final say as to whether or not you get to have an abortion. Men should be able to choose whether or not you're going to have that baby you're carrying. Men should get to decide if you have access to prenatal health care and food and nutrition programs.
Unfortunately for Conservative men, a woman is more than a walking uterus. We are much more than the sum of our parts. We are whole, fully-formed human beings with wants and needs, desires and passions, intellect and caring and - that thing that makes us very dangerous to the Conservative agenda - determination. Perseverance. We will work as long as it takes to finally make sure we get as many rights and opportunities as men have, even if we have to earn them slowly, one at a time, instead of all at once like men have. We will fight as long as we have to in order to assure that we get full autonomy over our own bodies and what happens to them. Eventually we women will win, and we will come out of this all the more strong for having had to work so hard for it.
Conservatives for years have been focused on issues that make it pretty obvious that they miss the days of women being subservient to men.
Things like:
*Trying to cut down on the availability of abortion - because you women should have to suffer from whatever happens when you sluts decide to have sex with someone.
*Trying to prevent women from having affordable access to birth control - because birth control is only for slutty sluts, while Viagra is an important and valuable medication that usually is (and should be) gladly paid for by health insurance companies. What? You men can't get an erection? That is terrible! Let us go right ahead and fix that for you at no charge to you.
*Voting against things like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - because how dare you require that companies pay men and women with equivalent education and experience similar wages? You ladies are just lucky that we let you work at all!
*Voting against reauthorizing the the Violence Against Women Act, which has reduced domestic violence rates by 58% since it was first passed in 1994 - because if women are being beaten by their husbands, it's probably because they did something to deserve it!
We women have been getting pretty uppity over the last 100 years or so, and it seems that these conservative men merely want to set things right. First women campaigned for the right to vote (Nineteenth Amendment - passed August 26, 1920). Then they wanted to also be educated like men are (compulsory schooling for women - passed by states in different years of the 1800's and 1900's). Women then wanted the right to be able to go to college to get a higher education. Then we wanted the right to go to work and earn a living, in order to not be totally dependent upon our husbands. Then women started reaching for the stars. We wanted to be able to hold office. We wanted to be able to legislate all types of issues, including the ones that directly affect us.
Women want. They want. We want. Want, want, want.
Conservative men seem to long to go back to the days when women were seen and not heard. Women were merely spouses, helpmates, the people who took care of the children and the home and we did not make demands or ask for anything. If you kept a roof over their heads, did not beat them too severely and occasionally bought them pretty things, they were happy. THAT is what Conservative men miss the most about how things work in the current day.
The very bottom line to some of these issues is this: Conservative men want to believe that women have no sexuality or sex drive of their own. Sexuality should be dependent on their husbands. The only time they should want sex is when their husbands initiate it and they should be content with whatever happens. ("Oh, honey, you didn't get to finish? Oh well! Better luck next time!") That way they don't have to actually be concerned about anyone but themselves, which is really what they want.
Conservatives also think any repercussions caused by this sex should also be decided by men. Men should decide if you actually were raped. Men should get to have the final say as to whether or not you get to have an abortion. Men should be able to choose whether or not you're going to have that baby you're carrying. Men should get to decide if you have access to prenatal health care and food and nutrition programs.
Unfortunately for Conservative men, a woman is more than a walking uterus. We are much more than the sum of our parts. We are whole, fully-formed human beings with wants and needs, desires and passions, intellect and caring and - that thing that makes us very dangerous to the Conservative agenda - determination. Perseverance. We will work as long as it takes to finally make sure we get as many rights and opportunities as men have, even if we have to earn them slowly, one at a time, instead of all at once like men have. We will fight as long as we have to in order to assure that we get full autonomy over our own bodies and what happens to them. Eventually we women will win, and we will come out of this all the more strong for having had to work so hard for it.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Mitt Romney - Living Mirror
The Presidential race at this point is less of a race and more of a case of one person running full out and one person figuring he'll get to the finish line eventually, if he can spend enough time without one or both of his feet in his mouth.
After the release of the secretly-recorded video of Mitt Romney speaking to campaign contributors who donated $50,000 a plate by Mother Jones this week, I believe the real Mitt Romney is finally being shown to the world. After weeks and months of changing his story based on the demographics of the group sitting in front of him, I think this is finally how he actually feels.
A politician who changes his mind is in no way a bad thing. Every single person goes through life thinking one way as they grow up, and their opinion often changes throughout their life (or even every few years) based on the experiences they have and the information they learn. I have no problem with someone who does this. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has different values and varying plans for the country within the same day, speaking in front of two different audiences. The benefit to this is that the group who is sitting in front of him, listening to his ideas and promises, think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread because he just totally gets us. The downside to this is that you are left with a candidate, and more basically a man, who has no actual values or beliefs or ideas of his own.
If the only thing a person can do is mirror back feelings, values, beliefs and ideals to their audience, what happens when that person is alone in a room? Or, in a highly unlikely scenario, in front of a group of jihadists who believe America is the devil and the American people should be punished with death for not believing as they do? What would he promise or tell those people?
If the only thing a candidate can do is be a living mirror and disparage the current President for the way he's handling things, what then does he really have to offer as a leader? I would be hard-pressed to come up with an answer to this question. Maybe in the coming days, the Romney campaign will attempt to provide us with one.
After the release of the secretly-recorded video of Mitt Romney speaking to campaign contributors who donated $50,000 a plate by Mother Jones this week, I believe the real Mitt Romney is finally being shown to the world. After weeks and months of changing his story based on the demographics of the group sitting in front of him, I think this is finally how he actually feels.
A politician who changes his mind is in no way a bad thing. Every single person goes through life thinking one way as they grow up, and their opinion often changes throughout their life (or even every few years) based on the experiences they have and the information they learn. I have no problem with someone who does this. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has different values and varying plans for the country within the same day, speaking in front of two different audiences. The benefit to this is that the group who is sitting in front of him, listening to his ideas and promises, think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread because he just totally gets us. The downside to this is that you are left with a candidate, and more basically a man, who has no actual values or beliefs or ideas of his own.
If the only thing a person can do is mirror back feelings, values, beliefs and ideals to their audience, what happens when that person is alone in a room? Or, in a highly unlikely scenario, in front of a group of jihadists who believe America is the devil and the American people should be punished with death for not believing as they do? What would he promise or tell those people?
If the only thing a candidate can do is be a living mirror and disparage the current President for the way he's handling things, what then does he really have to offer as a leader? I would be hard-pressed to come up with an answer to this question. Maybe in the coming days, the Romney campaign will attempt to provide us with one.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Here's How I See It
Here's how I see what's going on with the debt ceiling discussion:
Republicans: "We are going to hold the American economy hostage until we get what we want!"
Democrats: "Okay, what do you want?"
Republicans: "We want balloons! Lots of balloons!"
Democrats: "Alright! Here you go! Here are your balloons!"
Republicans: "Oh, wait...did we say balloons? We meant a pony."
Democrats: "You win! Here's your pony!"
Republicans: "Why won't you give us what we want!?!?!"
Republicans: "We are going to hold the American economy hostage until we get what we want!"
Democrats: "Okay, what do you want?"
Republicans: "We want balloons! Lots of balloons!"
Democrats: "Alright! Here you go! Here are your balloons!"
Republicans: "Oh, wait...did we say balloons? We meant a pony."
Democrats: "You win! Here's your pony!"
Republicans: "Why won't you give us what we want!?!?!"
**************************************
This whole situation is totally ridiculous. The debt ceiling needs to be raised. We need to assure our creditors that the United States will pay what we owe. Not what we're GOING to owe. That's an entirely different discussion, or at least it should be. The debt ceiling relates only to what we currently owe, what we've already borrowed and spent. The Republicans have, with Democrats and Independents, raised the debt ceiling without hesitation numerous times before. They did it seven times under George W. Bush. They did it EIGHTEEN times under Reagan. They've done it a total of 74 times since 1962.1
It's only now, after 8 years of recklessly writing Dubya a "blank check" (to use a phrase that they seem quite fond of), of spending money like they have an endless supply, that Republicans are suddenly very concerned about balancing the budget. It's only now, with a strong Democrat in the White House, that Republicans take issue with the idea of passing a simple bill consisting of something we need to do for the future financial health of the country. And not just for the government's financial health; it's also for the financial health of nearly every citizen of this country, as well as for the standing of our country in the world.
This is a BIG DEAL. A very big deal. And the fact that the Republicans seem happy and willing to drive the country they claim to love and want to serve into the ground to further their political agenda should be a neon warning sign to both Republican and Democratic Americans. There's really no point in being elected to an office if you don't actually accomplish anything once you're in office. And despite what Republicans apparently think, refusing to let "the other side" get anything done does not actually count as doing anything yourselves.
So, enough of the political posturing, playing to the most extreme members of your constituency, and turning the simple concept of paying the bills we've already racked up into an elaborate and strategic game of chess. Enough of the Republicans pretending they've compromised with Democrats in coming up the Boehner Bill. Compromise, for anyone who is wondering, is defined as "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands". I have a feeling Republicans think compromise means that they can make the other side give up some of their principles, so that Republicans can keep all of theirs in tact. Reality, and dictionaries, would demonstrate otherwise.
In summary: The government needs to raise the damn debt ceiling, even if it means President Obama having to use the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to do so. It needs to be done, preferably before we suffer any negative consequences due to the up-in-the-air, goat rodeo atmosphere in Washington right now.
1. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/10/What-Is-the-Debt-Ceiling.aspx#page1
Here's a very informative and interesting article I found about Americans views on debt: Why Taxpayers Are So Angry and So Wrong About Spending
It's only now, after 8 years of recklessly writing Dubya a "blank check" (to use a phrase that they seem quite fond of), of spending money like they have an endless supply, that Republicans are suddenly very concerned about balancing the budget. It's only now, with a strong Democrat in the White House, that Republicans take issue with the idea of passing a simple bill consisting of something we need to do for the future financial health of the country. And not just for the government's financial health; it's also for the financial health of nearly every citizen of this country, as well as for the standing of our country in the world.
This is a BIG DEAL. A very big deal. And the fact that the Republicans seem happy and willing to drive the country they claim to love and want to serve into the ground to further their political agenda should be a neon warning sign to both Republican and Democratic Americans. There's really no point in being elected to an office if you don't actually accomplish anything once you're in office. And despite what Republicans apparently think, refusing to let "the other side" get anything done does not actually count as doing anything yourselves.
So, enough of the political posturing, playing to the most extreme members of your constituency, and turning the simple concept of paying the bills we've already racked up into an elaborate and strategic game of chess. Enough of the Republicans pretending they've compromised with Democrats in coming up the Boehner Bill. Compromise, for anyone who is wondering, is defined as "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands". I have a feeling Republicans think compromise means that they can make the other side give up some of their principles, so that Republicans can keep all of theirs in tact. Reality, and dictionaries, would demonstrate otherwise.
In summary: The government needs to raise the damn debt ceiling, even if it means President Obama having to use the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to do so. It needs to be done, preferably before we suffer any negative consequences due to the up-in-the-air, goat rodeo atmosphere in Washington right now.
1. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/10/What-Is-the-Debt-Ceiling.aspx#page1
***********************************
Here's a very informative and interesting article I found about Americans views on debt: Why Taxpayers Are So Angry and So Wrong About Spending
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Huge Republican Wave
Wow. The Republicans actually did it. I'm somewhat amazed and really, quite sad.
It is the humble opinion of this blogger that the reason the Democrats lost so many races last night was not due to what they did over the past two years, but what they didn't do. And what was that? Well, it's a simple thing, really: their jobs. If the Democrats had not been nearly so worried about what their opponents' campaign commercials would look like and had actually done the jobs that they were elected to do, perhaps people would have had a bit more confidence in their ability to actually get anything done.
So, hey Democrats! How about, just for shits and giggles, you all do the stuff you were elected to do...all the stuff you promised to do when you were campaigning? If you don't remember what those promises were, go do a search for your name on YouTube and watch one of the speeches from your campaign. For once, don't focus so much on getting re-elected that you are afraid to do even one little thing that might not be popular with 100% of the voting public. Because you know what? I have the sneaking suspicion that if you do as little during the next two years as you have the last two, you won't really need to worry about getting re-elected when your time comes.
Now, all you Dems who are still in office - let's get out there, start getting some stuff done and piss some people off!
It is the humble opinion of this blogger that the reason the Democrats lost so many races last night was not due to what they did over the past two years, but what they didn't do. And what was that? Well, it's a simple thing, really: their jobs. If the Democrats had not been nearly so worried about what their opponents' campaign commercials would look like and had actually done the jobs that they were elected to do, perhaps people would have had a bit more confidence in their ability to actually get anything done.
So, hey Democrats! How about, just for shits and giggles, you all do the stuff you were elected to do...all the stuff you promised to do when you were campaigning? If you don't remember what those promises were, go do a search for your name on YouTube and watch one of the speeches from your campaign. For once, don't focus so much on getting re-elected that you are afraid to do even one little thing that might not be popular with 100% of the voting public. Because you know what? I have the sneaking suspicion that if you do as little during the next two years as you have the last two, you won't really need to worry about getting re-elected when your time comes.
Now, all you Dems who are still in office - let's get out there, start getting some stuff done and piss some people off!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)