Obama cutting through the Red Tape..And Stretching the Truth

President Obama's press conference yesterday has certainly caused a bit of a stir in the political world and among the chief issues was the President's comments on the economy and his finger-pointing at Congress for not coming to any major agreements on the national debt and the upcoming debt limit.

While I won't get into the entire can of worms the President opened up, one of his comments did catch my eye, and apparently caught the eyes of the good people at Politifact.com.

Specifically, President Obama claimed this during his speech yesterday:


"What I have done -- and this is unprecedented, by the way; no administration has done this before -- is I've said to each agency, 'Don't just look at current regulations or don't just look at future regulations, regulations that we're proposing. Let's go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them.'"

Now when I first heard that I immediately wondered, "really?" Politifact apparently wondered the same thing and checked..And it turns out the President fibbed just a tad.

It turns out during President Clinton's presidency, he too tried to cut through the government red tape when it came to regulations and had some success through the creation of National Partnership for Reinventing Government. This group, headed by then Vice President Al Gore, succeeded in removing some 16,000 pages from the federal books.

Not only that but previous Presidents have also some kind of attempts at re-evaluating and removing regulations over the last few days which makes the President's claim not only outright false but also rather bold in its falsehood. Not only that, but as far as I know, the President has yet to actually show any progress on getting rid of unnecessary regulations even though he has talked about it for a few years now.

Just goes to show, our President is no better than his potential Presidential challengers when it comes to "wandering from the truth"..

Kudos to Politifact
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/obama-claims-his-regulatory-review-unprecedented/

Ms. Bachmann..You Can't Handle the Truth!

Ok so maybe it's not the best time for a movie reference, but today I was inspired..

As many political observers know, Michelle Bachmann has now become something of a star in the GOP Presidential field after her "not bad" performance at the last Republican debate and here recent visits to Iowa including yesterday in which she formally announced she is running for the Republican nomination for President.

Now as my readers may remember, to say I am not a big fan of Ms. Bachmann would be something of an understatement. In fact in the past I have called her a "twit", a term I reserve for those who speak out of their asses about things they clearly know nothing of, as opposed to political voices I may dislike or disagree but I believe actually know something about what they are speaking of. However I wouldn't be doing my job if I simply ignored Ms. Bachmann recent rise to political stardom.

And I am not the only one putting Ms. Bachmann through a little extra scrutiny as of late.

First there was FoxNews' own Chris Wallace who on live TV asked Ms. Bachmann is she was a "flake". Personally I thought it was quite funny but was a bit shocked that Mr. Wallace would ask such a thing to any GOP candidate let alone Ms. Bachmann. Many immediately pointed out that in previous interviews, FoxNews commentators were never so blunt and arguably quite rude to any other possible GOP Presidential contender and many wondered what motivated this journalistic "oops". No big surprise then that the next day Mr. Wallace apologized on FoxNews for his question; for which Ms. Bachmann swiftly rejected (can't really blame her there).

On that same Sunday, CBS News' Bob Schieffer also interviewed Ms. Bachmann and was much more professional in his questioning of Ms. Bachmann. Specifically Mr. Schieffer asked her apparently record of stretching the truth as reported by the site Politifact.com. Politifact is an organization that has recently won a Pulitzer and is well known as one of many "factcheck" websites out there and in my opinion of the best in terms of up-to-date reports and analysis. When it comes to Ms. Bachmann, Politifact has evaulated 23 statements made by Ms. Bachmann over the years and found only one was completely True while seven others were deemed "Pants on Fire", which is Politifact's most serious rating.

When Mr. Schieffer asked Ms. Bachmann about these "wanderings of truth", this was the response:


SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you about something else. A lot of your critics say you have been very fast and loose with the truth.

You know, the PolitiFact, which is a website that won a Pulitzer, did an analysis of 23 statements that you made recently. Of these 23, only one they said was completely true. Seven they call "pants on fire" kind of falsehoods. Four were "barely true" and two were "half- true."

How do you answer that criticism?

Because here's one of them. You know, you said on the record there had been only one offshore oil drilling permit during the Obama administration. And in fact, at that time, there had been 270. How do you explain that?

BACHMANN: Well, you know, I think that what's clear more than anything is the fact that President Obama has not been issuing the permits that he should have been issuing on offshore drilling. That's why we're in the problems we're in.

SCHIEFFER: But it has to be more than 300 now. At that time, there had been 200-and-something, and you said there had been only one.

BACHMANN: But, as far as drilling goes, we hadn't been drilling what we need to. That's why we just saw this week...

SCHIEFFER: But that's different, isn't it?

BACHMANN: Well, that's why, this week, it's ironic and sad that the president released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve because the president doesn't have an energy policy.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think that was a good move?

BACHMANN: He has a politically correct environmental policy.

SCHIEFFER: Was that a good thing?

BACHMANN: It was a very bad move. It put -- it has made the United States more vulnerable. There's only a limited amount of oil that we have in the Strategic Oil Reserve. It's there for emergencies.

We do not -- the emergency that we have is the fact that the -- the president of the United States has failed to give the American people an energy policy.

Here's the good news that a lot of Americans don't even realize. We are the number one energy-resource-rich nation in the world, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the president of the United States has unfortunately put American energy resources off- limits. We need to open those up so we can bring down the price of gasoline at
the pump. The president has it exactly wrong when it comes to energy.

SCHIEFFER: Just quickly, though, the original question I asked you is all of these statements that you have made that have later proven to be sort of true or totally false in some cases -- what's your answer when people say that to you? Do you feel you have misled people?

BACHMANN: No, I haven't misled people at all. I think the question would be asked of President Obama, when you told the American people that, if we borrow $1 trillion from other countries and spend it on a stimulus, that we won't have unemployment go above 8 percent, and today, as we are sitting here, it's 9.1 percent and the economy is tanking -- that is what's serious. That's a very serious statement that the president made.

Did he mislead the American people? Not only did he mislead the American people, he's caused our economy to go down to depths that we haven't seen. That's what's serious.

SCHIEFFER: Again, I have to say, Congresswoman, I asked you a question and you -- to my knowledge, I don't believe you answered it. But I want to thank you. I know you're -- you're very excited about what happened out in Iowa and we wish you the best. Hope to see you down the trail.

BACHMANN: Thank you, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you.

Now as you might have picked up on, Ms. Bachmann was quite evasive when it came to explaining those statements that were deemed untrue by Politifact and others. Shockingly, she didn't outright deny them but instead attempted to change the topic several times, for which Mr. Schieffer had no interest in and continued to push, though he ultimately failed. I however give Mr. Schieffer a lot of credit for trying..

So what should one make from Ms. Bachmann rather busy week so far? That she is actually nothing special as a politican and instead has already proven to be no different than most politicans today, unable to face the truth and instead choose to change the subject instead of dealing with the issue at hand...

Ironic from someone who claims the President only acts in his own political interest..How are you any better Ms. Bachmann?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/27/schieffer-asks-bachmann-about-her-record-accuracy/

Herman Cain...Where do I start?

I have thought of writing something about GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain in the past but decided against it..

But today one of the members of the Facebook group I administer brought up the idea of Herman Cain being having a real chance of winning the GOP nomination and it started a conversation that has encouraged me to finally write a piece on Mr. Cain.

Now I will be the first to admit that my first impression of Herman Cain was a good one. He struck me as charismatic and very confident in himself, generally considered to be good things in any politician and especially in those who wish to win the highest office in the land. However, as first impressions normally go, it was premature.

And that change of opinion was pretty abrupt.

Firstly, like many less serious Presidential contenders, Mr. Cain is quite vague when it comes to policy specifics and like many Presidential candidates is a bit clueless on certain issues. The first area of problems Mr. Cain has to deal with is foreign policy.

Now on the issue of Afghanistan, Mr. Cain in the past freely admitted he didn't know enough about the conflict to have a proper opinion and I give him credit for that since most politicians simply choose to speak out of their asses.

Sometime later, he was asked by Fox News host Chris Wallace about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which was in the news at the time. Specifically he asked Herman Cain about the the issue of the Palestinians claim of a "Right to Return", which for those who don't know is the idea that the descendants of the Palestinian Arab refugees who fled what was the British Mandate of Palestine after Israel declared Independence and the armies of the neighboring Arab nations invaded should be allowed to return to their former lands, which are largely now in what is the State of Israel. For fairly obvious reasons, the now nearly 5 million Palestinian refugees are not welcomed by the Israelis because should they all be allowed to return Israel will cease to be a "Jewish State".

Herman Cain at first seemed admittedly clueless about what the "Right of Return" was and that is fair and many Americans probably don't much about the conflict other than what they hear about in the news. But then Chris Wallace gave Herman Cain a brief description of the issue (as I just did) and Mr. Cain's response was as follows: “I don’t think they have a big problem with people returning,”. Now as he did with Afghanistan, Mr. Cain probably should have just said he wasn't sure but he didn't. Now that alone is not all that damning, as I said many Presidential contenders know very little of foreign policy but I do give Herman Cain credit for not talking out of his ass on things he clearly knows next to nothing about.

The second issue Herman Cain has run into is the issue of the debt and economics in general. Now this is a real problem for Herman Cain because he is using his background as the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza as a major element of his candidacy. However, recently he went on the O'Reilly Factor and discussed how to possibly end the current debt crisis here in the US that is threatening to destroy our economy..and lets just say it didn't go well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rD_MvU5Heow

Now as my readers know I am not normally a huge fan of Mr. O'Reilly though I do enjoy his show from time to time, but when Bill O'Reilly schools you on the very basics of government finances and does so very convincingly as he did with Herman Cain, you've got a seriously problem. This is largely because "Bill-O" is not only seen as a major conservative voice out there, his audience is made up of not just Republicans but also independents and as such ALOT of Americans probably watched that interview and wondered, "Does this guy have a clue?" And that's a very good question and one Herman Cain is going to struggle with for the next year or so (assuming his candidacy lasts that long) and if he can't convince Bill-O he knows what he is talking about and is qualified for the highest office in the land, then good luck winning the GOP nomination let alone the General election.

And finally, Herman Cain seems to have any issue with people asking and poking fun of public statements he has made during the campaign. At a campaign stop here in my home state of Iowa (in the town of Pella more specifically), Herman Cain made a comment that Congress shouldn't pass bills that are thousands of pages and promised that as President he wouldn't sign any bill over 3 pages long. And ever since he made that comment, the media and comedians alike have had a fair share of fun with the statement. Mr. Cain in turn called these reporters "stupid" for taking what he said seriously. I personally have watched a video of that speech and to me it does seem Mr. Cain was simply trying to make a point about overly lengthy congressional bills and such anyone who honestly though he was serious is in my mind an idiot.

However, comedians are another matter. Since I think Mr. Cain was just joking, it makes good sense that comedians to have a little fun with his statements. As such, Jon Stewart poked fun at his statement and did so in a manner that to some may have been seen as a bit risky. Apparently so much so that Herman Cain called Jon Stewart's jokes "racist" and claimed it was because he is something of a rarity in American politics, an American Black Conservative. Now for anyone who watches Jon Stewart's show, accusing him of making racist remarks are pretty unfounded and just shows that Herman Cain either has no sense of humor or just doesn't watch Jon Stewart's show very often. And for Herman Cain to pull the race card so early in the campaign in a situation that is quite clearly not so..

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/herman-cain-calls-reporters-who-quoted-him-stupid-and-jon-stewart-a-racist.html

As such, my overall opinion of Herman Cain is that while very charismatic, he seems to lacking in the areas that are truly vital in this next election: Foreign policy and the economy. Personally, I find him to be the political opposite of Tim Pawlenty. Mr. Pawlently is often the butt of many jokes because of his lack of charisma but is recognized as being pretty well versed in the most the major issues of the day including the economy. Funny enough, in the short term Herman Cain will get more headlines than Mr. Pawlenty because of his charisma and his occasional gaffes, but Pawlenty will likely survive longer in the GOP primaries because of his knowledge of the issues...Or at least that's the traditional political thinking.

All of these problems are seemingly adding up and Mr. Cain is likely going to have a rough road this Presidential season and I personally don't see him as having much of a chance of winning th nomination and to me that is a good thing because while the man has charisma, this election we need a man who knows the issues and Herman Cain just doesn't seem to have a clue.

Where Should I Send My Check?

A good article on the debt crisis we face and how to better understand the mess we are in..Courtesy the Public Interest Institute.


Where should I send my check?

By Deborah D. Thornton

After the April 18 tax filing deadline, Financial Advisor Dave “We’re Debt Free!” Ramsey compared the federal budget and debt with that of a family or household in the United States. The analysis was shocking, and one all Iowans should seriously consider.

He first lists the basic facts about the federal budget:

1. Federal taxes collected in 2011 will total $2.173 trillion.
2. The amount spent, authorized by the United States Congress – including the
Senators and Congressmen from Iowa – will be $3.818 trillion.
3. The difference is $1.645 trillion in the negative, or the amount of the federal deficit
for one year.
4. Based on several years of this behavior, the current total federal debt is over
$14 trillion.1

Recognizing that most people can not visualize or readily manage trillions or even billions of dollars, Mr. Ramsey then brings the analysis down to the household level. When 3.818 is divided by 2.173 the ratio is 1.75. Currently the federal government is spending 75 percent more than it makes. The debt ratio, total debt divided by current income, is 6.44. The federal government would have to bring in the same $2.1 trillion for almost 6½ years, without spending another dime, to break even and be debt-free.

For people in the state of Iowa, on a personal, household basis, that means the following:

The median household income in Iowa in 2009 was $48,044.2 If that family behaved as the federal government does and spent 1.75 times the amount they are bringing in, they would be spending $84,077 dollars a year. They would be spending over $36,000 total or $3,000 per month more than they make – every month. Currently their total debt would be $309,403, and growing – every month. This debt, like that of the federal government, was accumulated over the past eight years of out-of-control spending. They too would have to work another 6½ years at the same salary, without spending another penny, to be debt-free.

If Dave Ramsey asked that family what they were spending the money on, they would attempt to justify the overspending. “We had to have that new car.” “We needed the new playset for the children.” “Grandma needed new glasses.” “We wanted to go out to dinner.” And unless they were Dave Ramsey followers, they would probably not recognize the difference between “needs” and “wants.” They would continue to indulge every person in the family with everything they thought they needed, and continue to ignore the destructive results of their decisions.

Dave would then kindly and gently proceed to “yell at them for their dumb behavior.”3 He would strongly encourage them to visit his Website and attend a “Financial Peace University” workshop at the closest local church. He would probably even take pity on the poor fools and give them a free registration.
Most Iowans do not spend every penny they make, plus $3,000 more, every month. Iowans are a more sensible bunch.

Nevertheless, we have continued to elect people to the United States Senate and House of Representatives who have supported and continue to support these foolish spending policies. Many of the 150 members of the Iowa Senate and House of Representatives are almost as foolish, as the state budget has grown from $5 billion to over $6 billion in only seven years, during a major recession.4

We have two options, either vote them out of office or force them to attend “Financial Peace University.” There were 37 classes being offered within 100 miles of Des Moines in May – the cost is $100.5 If we took up a collection it would only cost $15,700 to send all 150 State Legislators plus Iowa’s seven federal Legislators to a class.

I’ll be the first to donate.
Where shall I send my check?
Wonder if they will agree to attend?
Or would they prefer to be defeated in 2012?

"Reprinted by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute."
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of
Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.

http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/briefs/pdfs/brf18-17.pdf

Something Refreshing in Politics..Seriously!

On Friday, something rather rare and amazing happened in the world of politics..A well known public official called for not stooping to shallow personal attacks against a politician of the opposing party...Hang on, I'm now getting reports that...yes, I have reports that it is snowing in Hell!

OK so perhaps it's not quite that rare but I honestly can't remember hearing such a statement from a well known and well liked political figure in some time and I almost feel like it should be celebrated. This is especially true of Modern Whigs such as myself who see childish personal attacks by politicians on their opponents as part of the reason I began searching for a new political direction.

But back to the story at hand. So who was this seemingly crazy person who would dare to state publicly that the GOP should refrain from demonizing the President? It was none other than Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

More specifically, Mr. Jindal cautioned his fellow Republicans (one assumes he is primarily talking to the would-be GOP Presidential contenders) against demonizing President Obama as Democrats did during President Bush's tenure."We must not mimic their shallow approach," in Mr. Jindal's words..

However one should not take from these statements that Mr. Jindal is a fan of the President. In fact he is a firm believer that defeating the President in 2012 is crucial for the nation and states that, "Hating President Obama is foolish, but defeating President Obama is absolutely crucial".

Now whether defeating Obama in 2012 is so crucial or not is a matter of opinion for most (but not for everyone clearly) but I believe his point is dead-on and I find his attitude against demonizing one's political opponent very refreshing in today toxic political environment and gives me a little tiny bit of hope that there still are smart and civil politicians out there.

Kudos to you Mr. Jindal.

In fact, I almost feel a warm-fuzzy feeling coming on..That is until I turn on Cable News..Or check Twitter..Or Politico..Oh well it was nice while it lasted.

Quotes courtesy Jonathan Martin at POLITICO:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57251.html

FACTCHECK.ORG- DCCC Robocalls Caught Fibbing

DCCC+Dials+Wrong+Number

Here's a big shock...Recent "robocalls", arguably the most annoying phone calls in all of America, have been stretching the truth a bit about the Debt, GOP Budget plans, and Paul Ryan's Medicare "Reform"..

I am suddenly reminded of this E-Trade commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBTpjkPiVyg

Romney Skippin Ames and Newt's aides skippin town..

Two political "bombshells" went off today.

First, it became public that the vast majority of presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's advisers and aides have quit his campaign. Not is not unusual for aides and advisers to be fired during a campaign for any number of reasons, but such a mass exodus of key personel is almost without precedent especially so early in the campaign. However, this exodus is not very shocking to many keen political wonks who were more shocked it didn't happen sooner.

This is because, to be blunt, Newt has had a pretty damn rough start. Within the first few weeks of launching his campaign for President he called Paul Ryan's budget plan "right wing social engineering" and seemed to speak in favor of the dreaded "individual mandate" element of Obama's Healthcare reform. Within days of course Newt denied this things and claimed his words had been taken out of context, though he fooled no one. Many believed then that his campaign was over.

However he did shock some in the following weeks when he was able to get pretty good crowds at various events across the nation (including my home state of Iowa). But then, he seemingly disappeared from the political rat race. This is because he went on vacation with his wife to Greece. This apparently was the last straw for his advisers. They had apparently begged Newt not to go and he had ignored them, assured that he would apparently "re-launch" his campaign after he came back but his advisers apparently thought otherwise.

And now, Newt is far worse off than he was before, when he only had to deal with damning statements. Now he has to deal with that and having virtually no senior advisers and the man does not have a reputation of being a good manager.

The second "bomb" was just announced this evening; Mitt Romney plans to skip the Ames Straw Poll in August. Now this was also not a huge shock to many political wonks as lately many have openly critized the Ames Straw Poll and even the Iowa GOP Caucus in general because of as a general rule, Iowa Republicans are pretty socially conservative and as such if you aren't big on social issues they aren't going to give you the light of day (I can speak from experience).

Now a bit of history likely has something to do with Romney's decision. In the 2008 Presidental season, Romney tried to run as a social conservative and won the Ames Straw Poll but lost the Iowa Caucus to Mike Huckabee. This was especially hurtful considering how much money Romney had spent to end up finishing second.

Now this election cycle, Romney has changed gears and is running on the issue that is prime in the vast majority of Americans' mind: the economy. By abandoning the social issues and focusing on the economy, Romney likely believes taking part in the Ames Straw Poll is too much of risk because if he loses, it will likely be because he is softer on social issues not the issues most Americans care about.

And for that reason, I believe Romney has made the right decision in skipping the poll in Ames. There is no sense in risking his leader status on something as shaky as the Ames Straw Poll and Romney is also doing something else important: He is not abandoning Iowa. While he is skipping the poll in Ames, he plans to keep up his campaign schedule here in Iowa which will likely pay off in the long run. This is because while he may take second in the Iowa Caucus again, his focus on the economy could deliver him the state in the general election should he win the nomination.

So, hats off to Romney for his political bomb. When it comes to poor Newt..All I can say is..Quit now!

Newt's Aides Heading for the Hills!

Via POLITICO


By JONATHAN MARTIN 6/9/11 3:24 PM EDT

Newt Gingrich’s top staff quit en masse Thursday, throwing into question whether his already troubled presidential campaign can continue.

Two sources close to the situation confirmed that campaign manager Rob Johnson, strategists Sam Dawson and Dave Carney, spokesman Rick Tyler, and consultants Katon Dawson in South Carolina and Craig Schoenfeld in Iowa have all quit to protest what one called a “different vision” for the campaign.

The sources said Gingrich was staying in the race.

The mass resignation was, one source said, “a team decision.”

“We just had a different direction in which we wanted to take the campaign,” said a second source.

Gingrich was intent on using technology and standing out at debates to get traction while his advisers believed he needed to run a campaign that incorporated both traditional, grassroots techniques as well as new ideas.

One official said the last straw came when Gingrich went forward with taking a long-planned cruise with his wife last week in the Greek isles. After his bumpy start, rumors began to circulate in the political community the former House speaker’s days as a candidate were numbered. But the collective decision by his high command to quit makes it likely that his demise will be hastened. Officials like Dawson and Tyler have advised for Gingrich for years. And Johnson, who ran Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign last year, was seen as bringing a measure of stability to the organization. Now, speculation will immediately begin as to whether Johnson and Carney, Perry’s chief political adviser, will start planning a presidential campaign for the Texan.

Sources familiar with Perry’s thinking continue to insist, however, that such an eventuality is still unlikely.

Gingrich stumbled almost immediately out of the gate, after declaring in a May appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the House Republican budget plan was too “radical” and represented “right-wing social engineering.”

As his campaign struggled to clean up that mistake – Gingrich took days to apologize to Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the budget’s author – the former House speaker was hit by the embarrassing revelation that he and his wife had once racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt at the luxury jeweler Tiffany & Co.

Gingrich and his top aides insisted at the time that the botched rollout had not affected the candidate’s standing with voters, blaming instead the Washington “literati” for their predicament.

But Gingrich then virtually vanished from the campaign trail, taking more than a week off the campaign trail. His whereabouts were unknown until this week, when POLITICO revealed that he and his wife, Callista, were on a cruise in the Mediterranean.

Gingrich returned to the campaign trail briefly on Wednesday, signing a deficit-reduction pledge in New Hampshire.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56631.html

Considering how Newt's campaign as gone so far, I wouldn't want to be one of his advisers either...Especially if I wanted a future in the GOP.

POLL: Mitt Romney qualified, Sarah Palin not

By JUANA SUMMERS 6/6/11 2:09 PM EDT


Voters see Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential hopeful most qualified to take the Oval Office, according to a new survey.

In a Rasmussen survey out Monday, 49 percent of likely voters said the former Massachusetts governor was qualified to be president, compared with 25 percent who said Romney was not qualified.

Voters were less positive on Sarah Palin. The former Alaska governor is seen as the least qualified potential GOP contender.

Only 23 percent of voters surveyed say Palin is qualified to serve as president. Sixty-three percent say Palin is unqualified.

Other candidates included in the survey included Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich.

Paul, the Texas congressman, and Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, were both viewed as qualified by 27 percent of respondents.

Paul was viewed as unqualified by 43 percent of respondents, and Pawlenty was viewed as unqualified by 32 percent.

Twenty-six percent of those surveyed viewed Gingrich, the former House Speaker, as qualified, but 48 percent said Gingrich was unqualified.

The telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters nationwide was conducted June 2-3. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56346.html

Palin Flubs on Paul Revere's Ride..

As most of my readers know, I am not fan of the former half-term Governor of Alaska for various reasons, including but not limited to: Quiting barely half-way through her 1st term of Governor of Alaska, Being clueless about foreign policy issues but talks about it like she is an expert (aka Talking out of one's ass), and for being proven to be a massive hypocrite on multiple occasions.

And admittedly, I personally just don't like her, not dissimilar to how I feel about folks like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. And normally I would prefer to leave my personal feelings aside but she just makes it too easy somedays..Like today.

I feel the article largely speaks for itself..

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/palin-flubs-explanation-paul-revere-ride-215549982.html

Romney: "We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy." Politifact Disagrees

Today as many political observers know, Mitt Romney finally announced he is running for the Republican nomination for President in 2012 in a speech today in N.H.

In his speech, Mr. Romney claimed the US was getting dangerously close to losing its free market economy in favor a government planned one. However the good people at PolitiFact strongly disagree..and have plenty of evidence to prove it!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/02/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-only-inches-away-ceasing-be-fr/