Divided and Conquer?

As many of us have seen in the last week or so there is a hotly contested political fight in New York Congressional District 23 between the Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate and a Conservative Party candidate. Many have claimed this is a preview of what the 2012 election will be like, and if so I don't see why any Conservatives would be celebrating. I did some research and normally the Conservative Party of New York doesn't field candidates and instead throws its support behind either the Republican or Democrat, but not this time. Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee, is apparently not conservative enough for not only the conservatives in the NY-23 but also prominent Republicans across the nation including Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and others. The only real prominent support from the Republican party Scozzafava is getting is from Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. This rift between the party establishment and its more conservative elements is very telling.

So why don't they think Scozzafava is the right person for the job? Because while she is endorsed by the NRA, she also is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and is supported by local "Leftist" groups such as the Working Families Party and New York State United Teachers. So instead these prominent Republicans are supporting Doug Hoffman, who is very conservative and seems only to want to talk about the national issues and not local issues which he apparently knows little about. In a recent interview with a local newspaper, Hoffman was asked about local issues and problems and couldn't answer any of them! Now while having opinions on national issues is good there is big difference between Senators and Representatives. Senators represent the entire state and therefore are expected to to represent the entire state's interests in the Congress. Representatives on the other hand are elected by smaller districts and therefore are expected to represent their District's interests in Congress first, national interests second. So the idea of a candidate for Congress who knows little or nothing about the district he is trying to win over is just simply ludicrous. This point is reinforced by Newt Gingrich who believes the local Republican party leadership is the ones who should making the decision on who to run since they know the local interests and electorate best, I couldn't agree more.

The Larger issue with this situation is that in all likelihood the infighting of the Republicans is likely going to give the Democrat (Owens) a good chance of winning. And then where would that leave the Republican Party? It leaves many of its members confused and conflicted as to where the direction of the party is. What is says to me is that come 2012 the Republican party will have to choose whether they will be the party of Conservatives or the Party of Moderates and that choice is probably going to be very messy and more importantly..counter-productive. Divided and Conquer? Guess what, You're doing it wrong!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28760.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/conservative-partys-hoffman-unable-to-answer-questions-on-local-issues-in-ny-23.php

Can Tort Reform really save our healthcare system?

Well not quite, or at least not as much as some Senators/Representatives would have us believe...according to the good people at FactCheck.org (who originally debunked President Bush's claim of hundreds of Billions that could be saved) has recently revised their opinion of malpractice reform. While reform wouldn't save us (the taxpayers) HUNDREDS of Billions, it would still save a good chunk of change. According to FactCheck and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), could save 0.5 percent which translate to $11 billion a year. Now while this isn't the massive savings Republicans have claimed, I definitely think that when it comes to Healthcare reform every little bit of savings is step in the right direction.

Here's FactCheck's analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/

Fair and Balanced?

Lately we Americans have been bombarded with headlines about the media war between the White House and Fox News, mainly over the claim that Fox isn't really a new organization and instead is the media wing of the Republican party. To be honest I do find Fox's motto of being "Fair and Balanced" quite comical, but I believe that most citizens are missing the overall point, that News media is almost ALWAYS BIASED! But is it really such a terrible thing? When I was in college I took a class in Comparative Politics which compared the political systems of Western Europe to the United States and one interesting point is that in the United Kingdom most of the major news media are not only politically biased, they are proud of it!

Now do I believe that this is the right way for news media to act? I believe that true news agencies should just talk about the facts and give both sides of an arguement a fair chance to defend their stance...For example, Fox news early on in the Healthcare debate broadcasted several erroneous claims about the various bills...which were then echoed by other news agencies and many people watching just naturally assumed that these claims were true because they "trust" Fox. The amazing thing to me is that these news agencies with their vast research resources didn't seem to have anybody actually READ the bills which makes them just as bad as so many politicans that never read the bills they vote on....though all this missinformation did give the good people at Factcheck lots of work to do lol.

To me, I have always believed the news media is biased and it doesn't surprise me. These media groups are owned and controlled by very wealthy people and they know that they can display their political views THROUGH their news stations without taking any of the heat. So while I believe the media should try its best to be as un-biased and just tell you the facts and not take sides, I don't believe any of us are going to see that anytime soon and I believe that this is just part of the nature of American politics.

Now don't get me wrong, I think personalities like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Keith Olbermann have every right to display their opinions on both television and radio. That is their 1st Amendment right. My issue is that some of these individuals purposely miss-represent the facts to advance their own agendas which is MAKING MONEY and they do this by saying controversial (or outright untrue) things that they know will draw in viewers, boast their ratings and make them more money. And I believe that the White House has every right to challenge any news agency that doesnt truthfully represent FACTS. Now do I go as far as Keith Olbermann in saying that Fox news isn't a real news agency and just the media wing of the Republican party? Not quite. Just as I wouldn't say that MSNBC is the media wing of the Democratic party or CNN or whatever...the real questions is are news media biased? Of course! Should we be shocked? Nope!

Going Out of Business?

Going Out of Business?

A recent TV advertisement has claimed that Medicare will be bankrupt in just 8 years...I think the good people at FactCheck.org might have something to say to that lol...

Shared via AddThis