Sunday, December 30, 2012

Manchin Introduces 'CALM' Act to Ease Fiscal Cliff - Joe Manchin, United States Senator, West Virginia

Manchin Introduces 'CALM' Act to Ease Fiscal Cliff - Joe Manchin, United States Senator, West Virginia

Have to give Manchin credit for being brutally honest about his own proposal, it isn't great but it sure beats the hell out of nothing. The fact that any Senator has had to resort to preparing such a "contingency plan" is truly pathetic and shameful.

I haven't really posted much on the Fiscal Cliff crisis because I think the news pretty much speaks for itself. You folks don't need me to tell you that what has been going in Washington D.C. for the last few weeks is beyond the usual idiocy and lunacy of D.C.. Congress (and to some extent the President) have not only disgraced their hallowed institutions, they have proven what many of us have been saying some time now: Congress has become so dysfunctional that they can't even come together for the most basic needs of the nation. The only "good" thing that will come from this crisis is millions of Americans have had their eyes opened about the disgraceful behavior of the federal government and perhaps now they are prepared to hold our "representatives" truly accountable for their actions.

I still hope some kind of deal can be achieved before the deadline just ~36 hours from now, but I'm not holding my breath and I thank Senator Manchin for actually bothering to prepare a contingency plan in-case the talks fail at the last moment.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

10 facts about Chuck Hagel - Leigh Munsil - POLITICO.com

10 facts about Chuck Hagel - Leigh Munsil - POLITICO.com

Much talk has floated around today about Chuck Hagel being a strong contender for Secretary of Defense for President Obama's 2nd term. Mr. Hagel is certainly a man full of surprises with many rather bold (some may say dangerous) positions on many political topics. Since there is so much talk about Mr. Hagel, I wanted to re-post of Gee-Whiz knowledge about the man so that my readers can get a better idea of who this fella is.

As always, I strongly encourage my readers to go out and do their own research on Mr. Hagel before jumping to the conclusions created by the Partisan Media.

Good luck folks!

The Republicans Have Failed the Nation | RedState

The Republicans Have Failed the Nation | RedState

Monday, December 3, 2012

Rick Santorum, WorldNetDaily columnist...So Funny It's Sad

Rick Santorum, WorldNetDaily columnist

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel but hey, what does a rag like the WND care about the "authenticity" of one of their columnist's so-called conservatism? We're talking about a political loser so awful, the good folks at sites like RedState rightfully pointed him out to a conservative fraud with about as much fiscal conservative credentials as the President (see Santorum's Hypocrisy is Overwhelming).

Wait a second, you say Rick Santorum has an irrational hatred of gays and thinks they will be the end of America as we know it and various other hateful things (see Tea-baggers' Greatest Hits)? Well in that case, what took WND so long to recruit him!

I'm just glad that Rick has found yet another method of making himself more political irrelevant, with any luck, maybe next year he can get a job as Terry Jones' spokesman!


Thursday, November 29, 2012

Geithner’s fiscal cliff offer: Obama wish list - Steven Sloan and Joseph J. Schatz - POLITICO.com

Geithner’s fiscal cliff offer: Obama wish list - Steven Sloan and Joseph J. Schatz - POLITICO.com

After you read through this "list of demands" and you have to acknowledge how confident the President must feel in the economics department to propose such outlandish ideas to solve the so-called "Fiscal Cliff". In particular, the proposal to effective take away the ability of Congress to raise the debt ceiling and give it to the President is downright disturbing. Not that I don't understand the appeal: with the President is charge of raising the debt ceiling, the decision would relatively quick and not the painfully drawn process it has become today. Problem is, political convenience of this type almost always goes hand in hand with corruption and goes again the fundamental nature of our government: a balance of power.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

When All Else Fails: Blame it on Race

Here we go again..

To some degree, I feel like I'm beating the issue of "Criticism towards Susan Rice = Racism/Sexism" to death but what is a fella to do when Pathetic Lefties keep giving me such great material? Give'em Hell that's what!

Friday, November 23, 2012

The Problem With Susan Rice- RealClearPolitics

The Problem With Susan Rice

I'll keep my response to this piece short and sweet. This is probably the best article I've read in the last week about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice: her role in the response to the Benghazi attack, and the disgusting and pathetic attempts by Democrats and equating any criticism of her about race or sex. A must read for those who do not fully understand the entire controversy surrounding Susan Rice. My kudos the author, Carl M. Cannon for this great piece.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

WND: Wins the Oscar for Best Rag Impersonating a Newspaper! Congrats!

For those of you who don't know, there is a news website out there called World Net Daily that claims to be an independent news agency and is world-renowned for posting literally the most moronic and pathetic articles you will probably ever read on the net. To be honest, I feel a bit dumber every time I visit their site..

And they have added to that grand collection of crap with this piece today entitled, "How Obama can be stopped in Electoral College". Here is the brief point made in this point: Citing the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the author (Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation) claims that there is a section in the amendment that states that if for whatever reason, a quorum of the Electoral College electors (who actually do the voting after the general election) is not found than the results of the election are null and void. Phillips claims this is the "last chance" to stop President Obama from being elected President. (1) Interesting and provocative idea right? Here's the thing, I'm 99% sure he is completely and totally pulling this theory out of his proverbial ass.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Clyburn: Susan Rice Criticism Is Race-Based - NationalJournal.com

Clyburn: Susan Rice Criticism Is Race-Based - NationalJournal.com

I'll keep my response to this article brief and to the point. This claim that the recent criticism of UN Ambassador Susan Rice is based not on her questionable handling of her job but on the fact that she is a woman and African-American is so pathetic it's just plain sad. Now to some of my readers this may seem harsh but there is a simple logic behind this.

If your first reaction to criticism of a prominent member of your party is that it must be based on race and/or sex and not offer a single intelligent challenge to said criticisms, then it's pretty likely these criticisms are dead-on now isn't it?

It is possible Susan Rice is being used as a scapegoat? Quite possibly, but there is no evidence or sense in adding accusations of racism and sexism to this issue. If you think she is a scapegoat, fine, that's a fair point but to inject these other accusations into it just makes the whole issue even murkier than it already is. Further, other than these "code words" Congressman Clyburn babbles on about, there is no evidence to support this claim in the first place.

So about we just stick to the issue at hand aye?













Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Status Quo Ante - Red State

This is arguably the best article I've read all right about the election's outcome and it comes from no other than Erick Erickson of the website Redstate.com..My kudos sir.

Status Quo Ante - RedState

2012 Election Observations

I just finished watching the election coverage with my friends and sadly I don't have anything very dramatic or stirring to say. What I do have are some observations that will likely have repercussions both short term and long term:

1. Status Quo- Clearly, this election has not been a repeat of 2008 in terms of "Red states" and "Blue states" and it's my observation that the Red State/Blue State equation has returned to the status quo of before the 2008 election in which many traditionally "red" states went "blue". North Carolina and Indiana are prime examples of this.

2. Too Close to Call- Many political "insiders", such as Karl Rove are disputing the news media calling of Ohio for President Obama with so small a gap between them. As of right now (10:24pm MT), President Obama has a lead of only ~10,000 votes over Mitt Romney with 82% counted. Florida is in a very similar situation with just ~50,000 votes separating the two candidates, which is quite close to the 0.5% margin for an automatic recount.

3. Blame Game- Before the night is up, prepare to see Conservatives blame the Romney campaign for either being too lazy in the final days before the election, for being too soft on the President, being too moderate or any combination of those.

4. Voter Fraud- Just as the blame game with start, so too will claims of voter fraud (especially in Ohio). There were already reports of this during the day before the polling stations closed on the East coast. How true any of these claims are is a mystery to me. Personally, it's likely as with most things, there is likely a grain of truth to these claims and then bloated to incredible proportions.

5. Speeches- I would be a little shocked if either candidate gives a speech tonight. At last check, the Romney campaign is not ready to concede Ohio and as such is not giving up just yet. So we might be in for an all-nighter or multi-day affair.

That's all for now. I want to thank all those who exercised their Right to Vote for this election. It may seem like a small thing but there are so many in America that don't exercise this right and just shrug it off for any number of reasons: their votes won't count, nothing will change, etc. The sad thing is, as long as so many Americans think that, the more likely it is that their attitudes will prove true. I've said it once and I'll say it again, the low voter turnout in America is THE greatest threat to our vital democracy..

Disclaimer
Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

U.S. Voter Turnout Will Likely Fall Short of 2004, 2008 - Gallup

U.S. Voter Turnout Will Likely Fall Short of 2004, 2008

Not the best news this election year, but not shocking I'm afraid. Voter turnout in America is to me one of the greatest threats to our democracy and the fact that is largely gets ignored by both the major media organizations and by our federal "representatives" bothers me GREATLY. One wonders if they honestly don't think its a problem or they are quietly taking advantage of this problem..Just my thoughts of course. 

Leno: Obama's Policy For Libya Questions Is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Leno: Obama's Policy For Libya Questions Is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

GOP Sees Path Emerging for Romney Win in Iowa - RealClearPolitics

GOP Sees Path Emerging for Romney Win in Iowa 

There have been so many pieces come out lately about my humble home state of Iowa, it's crazy! Should be a hint to folks out there how close the race really is that both candidates are putting some serious effort to win my home state's 6 whole electoral college votes..

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Why I'm Not Voting for President Barrack Obama



For some time, I have contemplated writing this piece. Honestly, the main thing that kept me from posting it sooner was the idea of actually endorsing a candidate for President of the United States seemed rather presumptuous for a humble little blog like mine. However, I have sat on the sidelines watching the race get closer and closer to the finish line for long enough. 

Saturday, October 27, 2012

The Des Moines Register Endorsement: Mitt Romney

Wow, two stories from my home state of Iowa in one day, my lucky day!

Now for those not from Iowa, this probably isn't a terribly surprising headline. Iowa after all is a "toss-up" state according to most election projections and as such the paper's endorsement would be something of a toss-up as well.

In Iowa, Disappointment with Obama runs deep - AFP

AFP: In Iowa, disappointment with Obama runs deep

From time to time, I'm glad to see a story from my home state of Iowa make the political news ticker and this story is as good as I've seen in some time. Disappointment is a good word for how many back home feel not only about the President but also the election as a whole. Kudos to Ivan Couronne for this piece.

Friday, October 26, 2012

2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008 - Gallup

2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008

This title REALLY needs a subtitle to really explain the results of the most recent Presidential poll by Gallup but it's the contents that ultimately matter the most right? I STRONGLY advise my readers to take a look at this report because it is arguably one of the most telling polls I've seen in the last few week. For political wonks like myself, this is a HUGE story!

Thursday, October 25, 2012

“Your First Time” | RedState

“Your First Time” | RedState

I don't always agree with Mr. Erickson but he's got a point, this ad by President Obama's campaign is not just a little creepy, it comes off as a bit desperate. President Obama got a HUGE boost from the youth vote in 2008 but now, as many polls show, the President is not likely to gather quite the haul of young voters this time around and this ad seems to be a rather sad attempt at fixing them problem.

Mr. President, it might be time to go back to the drawing board with this one..

Monday, October 22, 2012

Third Presidential Debate - Full Transcript

TRANSCRIPT: Presidential debate on foreign policy at Lynn University | Fox News

For those interesting, here is a full transcript of tonight's debate. No better way to figure out what happened then to read what the candidates actually said.

If Obama Wins, Will He Be Another Woodrow Wilson? - RCP

If Obama Wins, Will He Be Another Woodrow Wilson?

A very interesting piece that brings up some VERY real concerns a lot of folks have with the idea of an Obama 2nd Term..Give it a read!

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Gallup vs. the World - FiveThirtyEight Blog

Recently, a poll came out from Gallup that caused a bit of a stir. For one, it showed Mitt Romney was 6 points ahead of the President. This was certainly different than pretty much every other poll that released during the same time.

The funny thing was, at first, only Fox News covered the poll. No other major news agency even mentioned it. At first I just chalked that up to the usual Left-Right media bias but then I noticed that indeed, no other polling agency had anything even close to Gallup's result.

So what's going on? Well I leave it to Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight blog:

Gallup vs. the World

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Chris Matthews At It Again..

Good grief..Chris Matthews is just full of material the last few days now isn't he?

First the man insults everyone's intelligence with that idiotic "Shariah" remark right before the last debate and now, he is honestly accusing Mitt Romney of violating the U.S. Constitution via his debate performance.

In other words, Mitt Romney was much too rude to the President during the debate and he should have given the President more reverence in his performance...What a joke. Anyone with eyes will tell you that BOTH candidates were rather rude towards each other and Matthews' mentioning of the Constitution in all this is further insult to injury. I'm starting to think Chris Matthews thinks we're all idiots. Newsflash Chris, look in a mirror lately?

I hate to make my readers watch this, but you have to see it to be believe it:
Chris Matthews: Romney Challenging Obama Is Against Constitution - RCP

Chris Matthews IS the Sideshow..

I read a rather idiotic political story last night that mad me laugh out loud a bit, so much so that I wasn't going write about it. I changed my mind however, when I discovered a very simple but humorous irony to the story that I felt the urge to write.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

News Flash: Nobody REALLY won the Debate..

As promised, I've held my tongue on last night's debate til now, for a number of reasons (mainly due to time constraints) and because I honestly like watching the first 12 hours or so after a debate. Why? Think about it, at what moment during a Presidential campaign can you see both sides spin the same event in two TOTALLY different lights? Let me put it to you this way, who exactly won the debate last night VERY much depends on what cable news channel you watched it on and where you get your online news from.

Second presidential debate: 6 takeaways - POLITICO.com

Second presidential debate: 6 takeaways - POLITICO.com

Later tonight I will put up a post about my exacts thoughts on the Presidential race to date, including last night's debate, but for now I leave you in the capable of hands of POLITICO with a pretty good rundown of the night's events.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Saturday Interest Report

Due to the hustle and bustle of late of the weekend, instead of re-posting a news report or "writing" my own piece today, I am going to do something a little different.

Here is a list of interesting stories/reports I have found floating the net that I hope will not only interest my readers but also inspire them to learn more..Enjoy!

Foreign Policy:

Next President's Foreign Policy Crises to Watch
With Foreign Aid Ads Rand Paul Battles Both Parties - IVN

Third-Party Politics:

In Nevada, Johnson is Pulling Votes From Obama Camp - IVN
Open Primary Could Unseat Five Incumbent Partisans in CA - IVN

2012 Presidential Election:

Spengler Must Be Joking - IVN

Thursday, October 11, 2012

VP Debate: One Hell of a Show!

First off, I have to thank Vice President Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan for participating in tonight's debate and giving American viewers and potential voters one hell of a debate. To be honest, I was a bit surprised about the outcome of the debate and I ALWAYS appreciate being surprised in American politics. Now to the debate!

Here are the major points of the debate that I think really stood out and affected the outcome:

Body Language:
  • To be blunt, tonight was a true mirror of the body language we show in last week's Presidential debate. Both VP candidates were very, "lively" in tonight's debate, having no problem interrupting each and getting into heated exchanges. In contrast, last week's debate was overly polite. 
  • On a similar note, Joe Biden was MUCH more animated than President Obama was last week. Though in this case, while Obama wasn't animated enough in his debate, Joe Biden was a bit over the top to put it mildly.
  • In the end, Paul Ryan had the better posture during the debate. While he was animated, he kept it to a safe level whereas Joe Biden clearly went a little overboard, especially with that toothy grin of his. 
Passion:
  • Both candidates were quite passion in their positions on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. 
  • Regardless of how "truthful" their statements of the various issues were, both Biden and Ryan stood their ground strongly. For Biden, this was definitely the case during the discussion on Medicare and Afghanistan. For Ryan, his most passionate arguments were during the discussions about the Federal Budget and Medicare. 
Entertainment:
  • I know what you're thinking, "debates aren't supposed to be entertaining", but just because it's not the norm doesn't mean it shouldn't happen from time to time. Debates are traditionally boring events that are normally only watched by political wonks and die-hards. The debate tonight was something altogether different. 
  • I can testify personally that when I watched this debate, I honestly didn't want to leave the room because I wasn't quite sure what was going to happen next. I wasn't the only one. I watched the debate with several of my friends (who come to the table with a pretty varied set of politics, something I personally like), and we all agreed the debate was far more entertaining and lively than we ever imagined it would be. 
Preconceptions:
  • There was a good deal of talk about how this debate was going to turn out. Many thought the gaffe-prone Vice President would be easy prey for Paul Ryan. This belief was further reinforced by the fact the Joe Biden hasn't participated in a debate or major one-on-one interview for some time whereas Paul Ryan has committed himself to dozens of television interviews over the last few months. 
  • Likewise, there were many on the Left who were talking about how the much more seasoned politician that is Joe Biden would be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat and stop the young Paul Ryan dead in his tracks. To be honest, even from commentators on MSNBC, this belief sounded much more like wishful thinking than an actual prediction. 
  • As it turns out, both predictions were a bit off. While Biden was overly animated, he didn't perform any major gaffe that I could make out and stood his ground far better than I ever imagined he would. Further, Paul Ryan also held his ground and made a lot of good points. 
Which brings me to probably the most important and obvious question you are all probably having about this debate: Who won? To be honest, this isn't the most clear cut decision.

As Steve Schmidt put it on MSNBC after the debate, and I am paraphrasing since I can't find an printed version of his statements, this debate was something of a victory for both sides. Joe Biden stood his ground on his party's platform despite attacks from Ryan. At the same time, Ryan make some rather powerful blows on the Obama/Biden administration on the recent events in Benghazi and their somewhat sluggish reactions to other events in the Middle the last three years. His attacks on the Administration's economic policies also struck hard. Biden may have stood his ground, but that doesn't mean he won the exchange.

Ultimately, I would say Ryan handled himself better overall during the debate and while he got a bit lost during the discussion about Afghanistan (for which Biden actually did make a few good points), he overall came out just ahead of Biden. But ultimately, the performance of both candidates was strong enough that both sides of the political spectrum will claim for victory and will no doubt argue til the end of time over who really won.

For me, this was honestly one of the best debates I have ever watched and it was a rare treat in American politics. My congrats to both candidates for a good show and a good debate. I also want to give a shout-out to the moderator of the debate, Martha Raddatz. She did a hell of a job keeping the two candidates from taking control of the debate as the two Presidential contenders did last week. Some will likely criticize her for one of her final questions in which she asked how the two VP candidates' Catholic faith guided their political positions but her overall job was excellent. Her foreign policy know-how was key in provoking a rather sobering debate on the war in Afghanistan and our rising tensions with Iran.

Overall, a great debate with a good moderator. I political wonk like myself can hardly ask for much more during a Presidential race these days and my kudos that all three participants in the debate!


Disclaimer
 
Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell' - Associated Press - POLITICO.com

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell' - Associated Press - POLITICO.com

Further proof that "any idiot" can run for Congress..and win. Not sure what's worse, his outright stupidity or the fact he serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology! 

Judge Halts Controversial Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

Judge Halts Controversial Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

This is a very real issue in the US today and isn't talked about enough. My own home state of Iowa has gone on something of a "witch hunt" for voter fraud which the GOP Sec. of States claims is there and to date has found practically nothing. Regardless, the issue of needing a photo ID to vote is a serious one and comes down to a fundamental question: Does requiring a photo ID to vote constitute a poll tax?

SCOTUS Denies Hearing Washington ‘Top-Two’ Open Primary Case

SCOTUS Denies Hearing Washington ‘Top-Two’ Open Primary Case

A very interesting topic..Give it a read!

Religion and Political Parties are Suffering from the Same Problem

Religion and Political Parties are Suffering from the Same Problem

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Post Debate Thoughts..

Well, it seems my prediction was fairly accurate after all.

In my piece from earlier tonight, I suggested the talk before the debate from the Romney campaign downplaying the debate's importance was more a ploy to make any hits Romney did make more potent than him just not being a good debater. 

The reports all over the net is a bit mixed. The initial reaction by many new agencies (including Fox News) was that while the debate was lacking in major confrontations, Romney did make a good number of jabs.


Pre-Debate Chat..

Before the debate starts tonight, I just wanted to touch on a few things and do something rather strange for me: make a prediction about its outcome.

First off, there was been a good deal of interest surrounding this debate because of reports coming from both Presidential contenders' camps about how low expectations should be set for the debate. While being something of a talented orator, President Obama hasn't had to debate anyone for four years and many doubt his ability to react well to unscripted questions. On the other hand, while Romney has had more practice at debating thanks to the GOP primaries, his "style" (if you can even call it that), much like his personality leaves a bit to be desired.

Many have theorized that Romney's campaign is deliberating trying to lower expectations so that as long as Romney doesn't fair terribly, he will look like a winner (think of Sarah Palin's debate with Joe Biden, she didn't win but she survived which was victory enough). Personally, while I think there is some merit to this theory, I don't think it tells the whole story.

My theory is, Romney is planning on tonight being his big "coming out" moment, where for the first time he will try to put the President in his place and try to force him to answer some tough questions. By setting the tone for the debate a little low, it makes any punches he manages to land on the President look at that much better. If he had set the expectations for the debate high, and his attacks on the President were only sub-par or worse, it would make him look like a failure.

Which brings me to the rather unusual part of this post. I normally don't like making making predictions about elections or such but tonight I have moved to make one. In my humblest opinion, this debate will not likely go well for the President. Considering all the material Romney has to choose from and the current momentum of the race to date, I believe this is Romney's final chance to finally challenge the President and get out ahead for the first time in this race. At the same time, if he fails to grasp this chance, Romney's chances to win the highest office in the land will be diminished and I am not sure his campaign can survive such a failure of opportunity. The race will still be close even if Romney's fails tonight, but HOW close it will be could well be determined tonight, in just 15 minutes or so.

We'll find out soon enough if my theories about tonight are right..I'll check back later readers!

Disclaimer
 
Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

Obama's "Other Race Speech"- My Take..

Much of the political buzz last night was word that the Drudge Report had released a supposedly damning video of then Senator Obama giving a speech at Hampton University in 2007 in which he reportedly makes many racial comments that are causing a bit of a stir.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Jon Stewart Tackles White House Response to Benghazi Attack

Funny enough, there were many who were shocked by Mr. Stewart's coverage of the White House's completely idiotic public response to the TERRORIST attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. However to those of us who have watched the Daily Show for awhile now, we're not shocked at all..Kudos Mr. Stewart. 

Sunday, September 30, 2012

US State Department to Remove the MEK From Terrorist List

US State Department to Remove the MEK From Terrorist List

Via IVN, this decision is arguably one of the dumbest foreign policy moves all year, and that's saying something. These folks are HATED by average Iranians as terrorists, was lock-step with Saddam Hussein for decades, likely took part in the crackdown on Shia Iraqis after the '91 Gulf War, and in their early years actively targeted Americans in the Shah's Iran. I'm not sure which is more disgusting, taking these "folks" off the terror-list or how well American politicians gladly took their money to lobby for them.

Absolutely idiotic, plain and simple.

Third Party Candidate Platforms Address Important Issues - IVN

Third Party Candidate Platforms Address Important Issues - IVN

Thursday, September 27, 2012

What Obama isn't saying about Medicare - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

What Obama isn't saying about Medicare - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

10,000 Views and Counting...

First off, I have to thank all my readers for helping this funny little political blog reach an impressive milestone. Early today, my blog officially went over 10,000 views. In fact the month of September so far is headed to be one of the most successful in this blog's fairly short history. I can't thank you all enough for taking time out of your busy schedules to read my humble blog.

Secondly, for those who may be wondering why my blog has been shy of any in-depth and lengthy posts the last week or two. Honestly, I've been pretty busy with work and haven't quite had time for a major piece. I am however quietly working on a major piece in the coming weeks concerning the Presidential election. I will also try this weekend to post some smaller pieces on some of the bigger pieces of political news to help keep the momentum up.

Finally,  I am contemplating the idea of having others contribute to this blog in the near future. In other words, I am quietly starting the search for a co-author for this blog to make sure it stays active in the long term.

Again, thanks to all for helping push this blog to over 10,000 views..I honestly never imagined this little blog would be so successful and I can't thank my readers enough. Cheers!

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

PolitiFact Busts a Disgusting Batch of Election Year Lies..

Quite recently it seems the good folks at PolitiFact.com have had their work cut out for them. Specifically, they debunked not but one, but four "stories" being spread by a single PAC called the "Government is Not God PAC".

First off, I find the name of this PAC to be deeply humorous since the same people who accuse the President (and Liberals in general) of pushing an overly secular and hostile agenda towards Christians in America seemingly have NO problem pushing their religious beliefs down the throats of all Americans (such as banning abortion, unconstitutional school prayer, repeal DADT, etc). Of course to anyone with half a brain, there isn't any real difference between groups like this and the folks they claim they are against. When it comes to social issues and the federal government, EVERYBODY has an agenda whether it be religious or secular in nature. As such, trying to push either on the nation as a whole is equally "bad". It the same kind of incredible hypocrisy that allows many social conservatives to demand the government get out of our lives while simultaneously demanding the government get involved in social issues that are literally in our bedrooms. At least Libertarians have the decency to see one can't advocate one while denouncing the other.

But that's enough about worthless and hypocritical UBER-conservatives (as opposed to plain and decent conservatives who are generally good folk with sense). I'll the proper critiquing of these idiots to the folks at PolitiFact.

PAC's Newspaper ads Full of Crap- Politifact

Early Voting Puts Iowa Back in the Spotlight-RCP

Early Voting Puts Iowa Back in the Spotlight

Always glad to see my home state of Iowa in the news, especially come election season. Iowa is actually an interesting place to be come election time since the state is traditionally won by only a few percentage points and as such is a rather politically diverse place. You will find folks from pretty much every ideological background across the state. To some degree I do miss not being home right now, just so I can hear them all argue!

Monday, September 24, 2012

Half of Americans in Poverty Are Politically Independent- GALLUP

Half of Americans in Poverty Are Politically Independent

Admittedly this data is a little old but it's an interesting set of figures to take into account when re-listening to Mitt Romney's comments on the "47%". Long story short, he is KIND OF right, but as many have pointed out this group isn't nearly in Obama's camp as many hard-core conservatives would lead you to believe. Gallup once again helping us make sense of political BS with cold-hard facts. Kudos.

Poll: Local TV, newspapers still lead

Poll: Local TV, newspapers still lead

Proof that a good chunk of Americans are smart enough to TURN OFF the "noise" of cable news and get it from more reliable and (relatively) unbiased local TV/newspapers. Makes good sense too, who are you more likely to be trust: some grossly overpaid windbag on cable news who is just out for the ratings (not to name any names, Hannity), or the local editor of the newspaper or anchor of the local TV news who are normally just doing their jobs (aka JOURNALISM)?

Case closed.

Ryan: Conservative pundits always complain

Ryan: Conservative pundits always complain

For obvious reasons, I find this story rather funny.

The truth hurts fellas! 

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Veterans jobs bill stalls in Senate - Stephanie Gaskell - POLITICO.com

Veterans jobs bill stalls in Senate - Stephanie Gaskell - POLITICO.com

This has to be one of the most disgusting pieces of political news I've read in a while now. You know our political system is screwed up when a jobs bill for VETERANS can't even make it out of the Senate because of a few Senators idiotic objections. In this case it's even worse because the reason for the Filibuster is Senator Rand Paul (son of Libertarian hero Ron Paul) is upset that the Pakistani doctor that played a role in our killing of Osama bin Laden in being held in Pakistan..

Listen, I too am upset that this informant seemingly got thrown under the bus and something should be done to secure his release, but I couldn't think of more disgusting way to do then to hold up a bill for the nations military veterans. There is just no excuse for this partisan crap when it comes to a subject that SHOULD be bipartisan.

Even more pathetic is Rand Paul's excuse that his filibuster only lasted "15 minutes" and was a for a good cause. I'm sorry, but IMHO there are few causes better than for our veterans and to hold up the vote on such a bill because you are pissy with the President over a foreign policy decision that has NOTHING to do with the aforementioned bill is beyond childish. The sad thing, this is hardly the first time such a thing has occurred and sadly it probably won't be the last but if Americans need any more evidence our political system is broken, I present you the junior Senator from Kentucky.

Rand Paul, you should be ashamed of yourself. 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Romney Receives Mass Media Scrutiny Over Viral Video - IVN

Romney Receives Mass Media Scrutiny Over Viral Video

The Independent Voters Network has posted a good and fairly straight forward piece on the "secret" Romney videos that hit the net a few days ago and caused such a political stir. Sadly, this story has clogged the news waves (shutting out any other interesting bits of political news). Regardless, I highly recommend this piece and the website to all my readers!

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Media needs to a better job at covering third party candidates - Commentary - The Daily Campus - University of Connecticut

Media needs to a better job at covering third party candidates - Commentary - The Daily Campus - University of Connecticut

To mix things up a little bit, I wanted to post this piece about how "the media" largely ignores third-party candidates regardless of that particular media organization's ideological tilt. Give it a read and comment on what you think of third-parties in American politics, especially with the election coming up and how fed up so many folks seem to be with the entire system. Happy reading.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Mother Jones Secret Video: Romney Campaign Death-nail? - UPDATE!

Well, the last few days have certainly been interesting in the world of American politics; with today being especially chaotic. At the beginning of the day, much of the talk in the news was about two separate topics. First, that President Obama's administration seems a bit confused as to what exactly occurred last week in the Mideast. Second, that Mitt Romney was seemingly abandoning the topic of foreign policy (which is a shame, because while his foray into it was rubbish, the topic is highly important and is being ignored too much this year) and moving on with a new series of ads planned to refocus the election on the economy. Well, that all got a bit more complicated this evening. Why?

Because the magazine Mother Jones (admittedly a liberal paper but in this case it's worth a read) published a story and a series of clips from a private Romney fundraiser from earlier this year that at time depicts Romney as being a bit, let's say uncaring about President Obama's presumed supporters. (1)

Friday, September 14, 2012

Romney Doubles-Down on Foreign Policy Critique..and Falls Flat on his Face

As anyone with a television and a computer probably knows, the events in the Middle East the last few days have not only caused a good deal of foreign turmoil but also a bit of the domestic kind as well. Strangely, most of this political intrigue is not surrounding President Obama's handling of the situation (which spread today with protests again in Cairo and an attempted siege of our embassy in Yemen), but with the rather early reaction of his political adversary: Mitt Romney. 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Tragedy and Confusion surround Benghazi/Cairo Attacks


The news today has been filled with reports about the tragic events that occurred yesterday at the US Embassy in Cairo and a US Consulate building in Benghazi, Libya. There has been a great deal of confusion about yesterday's events and after a bit of independent research I have come up with some of the main points that I hope will help to clear that up a bit.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Observations on September 11th.

Normally on September 11th, I usually post several heart-felt quotes said about that tragic day and just leave it at that. But due to a few stories I saw on the news today, they made me wonder if perhaps I should break with that tradition this year.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Jon Stewart Slams FOX News For Coverage Of RNC And DNC

Jon Stewart Slams FOX News For Coverage Of RNC And DNC

Leave it to a comedian to best sum off how FauxNews covered the two Presidential conventions. The best line of the whole clip:

Fox News' possible new catchphrase: "Just Shut Up and Watch"...Which is exactly what they want you do when you turn on Fox News.

Friday, August 31, 2012

Election Year Shenanigans aka The Bullsh!t You see on TV

Now as some of you know, tonight the Republican National Convention is going on and you might be wondering if I am going to talk about that in my piece tonight. Well rest-assured, I don't honestly care about that particular Dog and Pony show for the simple fact that unless you are a GOP faithful, you're probably not going to watch anyway and nothing ground-breaking is likely to occur.

What I wanted to talk about tonight is something that occurs every American election cycle that is often ignored as "business as usual" and tolerated because sadly it seems, folks simply accept that political candidates spreading lies via the media is "OK". Well I got news for those folks, it's not "OK", not by a long shot.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

FoxNews on Akin's Story: Where's the Coverage "Fair & Balanced"?

In the past I have commented on the ridiculous idea that ANY major media outlet in America is non-partisan, especially in the cases of MSNBC and Fox News. There is numerous examples of how most of the major networks are either blatantly biased one way or another (or in the case of CNN, just desperate for ratings) so I won't waste any one's time with that just yet (don't worry it's coming)..

What I do want to talk about tonight is a rather sad and outright idiotic story out of the great state of Missouri; more specifically concerning its Senate race between Dem. Senator McCaskill and Republican challenger Todd Akin. What makes this race so newsworthy you ask?

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Jon Stewart Rips Media Reaction To Paul Ryan Pick

Jon Stewart Rips Media Reaction To Paul Ryan Pick

Jon Stewart really hits this one on the head for me personally. The media's reaction to Mitt Romney choosing Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate has been so all over the place with some saying he brings real credibility to the presidential campaign while others have at the SAME TIME compared his arrival on the Presidential scene to that of Sarah Palin four years ago...Which is probably the dumbest thing I've heard all week (mind you its only Tuesday so the week is young!).

Long story short, Paul Ryan has one very key difference between Sarah Palin and himself. Paul Ryan actually knows what the hell is talking about when he speaks!

Now to be fair, both Palin and Ryan did bring some energy to the party faithful when they were chosen by their respective candidates and neither were considered the "safe" choice for VP..But that's pretty much where the comparisons end. Ryan is well known about the GOP faithful and the party leadership whereas Palin was largely unknown to her own party! Not only that but he has bravely (though not so successfully) put himself out there with his various budget plans that offered at the very least bold changes which gives him credit with a lot of folks since it takes real political guts to create a controversial budget plan(s) and show it off to the world not fully knowing if even your own party will accept it. Kudos to him for that.

I hope to publish a piece later this week on my thoughts on Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his VP nominee so I won't go into anymore depth for now..

But I will say this, at least when it comes to the media, Mr. Ryan has certainly made a splash.


Disclaimer
Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Most OVERBLOWN Political Story of the Year..Are you Freakin Kiddin me?!

First I want to apologize for my absence as of late, life has gotten rather busy for me lately and I don't always have the time to think out a piece but today was I was pushed over the edge by what has to be one of the dumbest and most overblown stories of the year. And that story is the "Chick-fil-A controversy".

Now here's how it all started..

On June 16 of this year, Chief Executive Officer of the Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy stated the following on The Ken Coleman radio show:

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." (1)

Now the fact that this statement caused controversy is not in all surprising..How much controversy it started is what bothers me the most. Anytime someone of public stature makes such a strong stand on an issue that is a major arguing point in this great nation of ours is bound to make the news and rightfully so, but what happened afterwards is the really troubling part. But before I get to that, this is another interesting tidbit to this story. In January of this year it was reported that members of the leadership at Chick-fil-A had been major contributors to several organizations that oppose gay marriage including a charity ran by the company called the WinShape Foundation has made their policy to not allow gay couples to participate in marriage retreats sponsored by the group. Now if you combine that little bit of information with Mr. Cathy's statements one can get a better idea of where some of the anger that followed came from. But to me, that still doesn't explain let alone justify the events that followed.(2)

I'm of course talking about how the mayors of Boston and Chicago (and to some extent the mayor of San Francisco) not only denounced Chick-fil-A's stance on the issue (which alone is fine, they have the right) but also threatened to boycott & even ban the restaurant from their cities! (3) Ridiculous right?


For obvious reasons, these threats from the mayors are as empty and idiotic as they come..because you can't punish a company for the religious or political beliefs held by its employees/owners let alone ban them from your city. It's as clear a violation of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as can exist. So boneheaded is this stance by the mayors that politicos from both sides of the ideological aisle came to Chick-fil-A's defence..Hell even the UCLA (largely hated by conservatives) came to their defense!

But so bad was the firestorm against Chick-fil-A that Mike Huckabee (aka Huckleberry as I lovingly call him) called for a nation-wide day of appreciation for the restaurant chain to show their support and thousands of Americans actually came out specifically to support them.

Now I want to stop for a second and clarify something. I am not saying what pro-gay groups and the mayors of those three cities did isn't newsworthy or just outright moronic. I am just saying that THEIR reaction to the CEO of Chick-fil-A statements is so overblown it's almost not worth writing about. In other words, their actions MADE this into a big story and I hate it when that crap happens..

Also, before the pro-gay rights folks get all bent out of shape with me for thinking so little of the stance Chick-fil-A took on the issue of gay marriage, I was just want to clarify something. To be 100% honest, the issue of gay marriage is not one of my priorities. It is an important issue no doubt, but my exact opinion of the subject is somewhat complicated and I don't want to spend half this piece explaining it. Long story short, I think a fundamental change is needed to fix how both federal/state governments treat the institution of marriage to "solve" this issue, if that's even possible.

But the most fundamental element of this story is this..Mr. Cathy is entitled to his opinion on this issue (and any other for that matter) and efforts by the mayors of Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco are not just childish and idiotic, they are outright unconstitutional. IF and only IF Mr. Cathy and by extension Chick-fil-A decided to not serve gay/lesbian customers would what they said be "wrong" in the legal-sense.

But this story gets "better" and even dumber IMHO.

Not too surprising, many wondered how the two candidates for the highest office in all the land (President Obama and Mitt Romney) felt about this controversy. And both candidates were asked about it and guess what? Neither commented, with both simply making statements that made it clear they wanted nothing to do with it..And they were absolutely right in doing so. Here's why.

For one, such a STUPID and OVERBLOWN story is hardly a national crisis and has NOTHING to do with the election in November and is in my opinion beneath anyone running for that office to even respond to. Think of it this way, does it make sense to ask about such a controversy in an election-cycle that is centered on our shaky economy and rapidly changing world around us? Of course not. There are REAL issues we should be asking the candidates about, not some idiotic controversy started by the moronic actions of three mayors and pro-gay rights groups. But it gets worse, because some conservative groups are honestly outraged and disappointed by the fact that Mitt Romney chose to ignore this issue and actually focus on the issues (God forbid right?). (4)

Now I can understand their disappointment I supposed but some are making it out to be some big turning point for his campaign against President Obama and this could come back to haunt him...You have got to be kidding me! Honestly, what are social conservatives going to do..vote for somebody else? Of course not! Now if there was a more conservative alternative candidate for SOCONs to vote for then maybe Romney would have something to worry about..but they don't so for better or worse they are stuck with him. The only real risk is SOCONs using this issue as a reason to simply not show up and vote but considering how much they DISDAIN the President, does that sound very likely to anybody?

Moral of the story, while what the mayors of those three cities did was stupid and certainly worthy of the evening news, that doesn't mean you waste everyone's time by asking how the two candidates for the HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND feel about it..

Sources



Disclaimer

Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.


Friday, July 27, 2012

Jon Stewart: Congress Acting Like "A Bunch Of A**holes"

Jon Stewart: Congress Acting Like "A Bunch Of A**holes"

Couldn't have put it any better myself Mr. Stewart..What a bunch of A$$holes indeed!

Even better, one of the Congressmen from my home state of Iowa fully makes an ass of himself..Which is what happens everytime he opens his mouth so nothing really new there..Embarrassing the great state of Iowa with his every breath, thanks Mr. King!


Disclaimer:

Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

CBO: Supreme Court Decision Lowers Obamacare Costs

CBO: Supreme Court Decision Lowers Obamacare Costs

To be honest this announcement by the Congressional Budget Office is a bit surprising to me anyway but hey, some actual GOOD news from that recent Supreme Court decision is hardly anything to scoff at..

And if the President had any sense he would be yelling about this little tidbit from the roof-top of the White House..We shall see.

Disclaimer:

Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

‘You Didn’t Build That,’ Uncut and Unedited - FACTCHECK.ORG

‘You Didn’t Build That,’ Uncut and Unedited

For those who want the FACTS about this now famous quote from President Obama..

SPOILER ALERT: He MAY have been taken out of context..just maybe. Still waiting for a political news story to actually "surprise" me with something original, politicians are such predictable creatures!

Disclaimer:
Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization(s). Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Heathcare Law may be a Tax, but just how BIG?

There has been much talk lately about the recent Supreme Court decision on the Healthcare "Reform" law passed by Congress several years ago, better known as "Obamacare" (a term I honestly don't much care for). The main focus was the surprise move by Chief Justice Roberts being the swing vote and upholding the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate element of the healthcare law by calling it what many liberals and conservatives have called it from the beginning...A tax.

Regardless, the right-wing of the American political spectrum have had a field day with this decision ever since and many have attempted to now call the healthcare reform law one of the largest tax increases in US history...But according to the good folks at PolitiFact that is not so much the case. Here is their indepth report on the subject:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

SPOILER ALERT: Long story short, the healthcare reform law ISN'T the biggest tax increase in US history, infact it isn't even close by terms of percentage of GDP. It does however represent the first major tax increase in nearly 20 years.

There are ALOT of things wrong with the final product from that rather ugly chapter in American political discourse, but don't go calling it something it isn't alright folks?

DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in the above piece are solely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization(s).

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Farm policy overhaul clears Senate - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

We break from your regularly scheduled political shenanigans to bring this breaking story..An actual bipartisan, deficit-cutting bill has passed the United States Senate...Wait, we're getting something else over the wire..Apparently ladies and gentlemen, it has started snowing in hell. You heard it here first!

Okay, so maybe it's not that rare of an event, but hey I can't rag on Congress everyday now can I?...Wait what am I saying?? Oh just read the dang article why don't you?


Farm policy overhaul clears Senate - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

California State Gov't raids 9/11 Fund to Balance their Checkbook..Disgusting!

So far this news story hasn't really hit the net yet so I figure I better write about it now before all the fireworks start. And this is one of those stories that DESERVES to set off some fireworks..

Apparently, after the terror attacks on September 11th, the State of California started a fundraiser of sorts in which they would sell license plates that read, "We Will Never Forget" and the money raised from these plates would be given in the form of scholarships for families of those who perished that terrible day and to anti-terrorism training for local police and law enforcement. Sounds great right? Well as most things these days, it didn't really turn out according to plan.

For one, only 40% of the raised funds actually went to Anti-terrorism training (where 85% of all funds were supposed to go) and a mere 1.5% actually went to the scholarship program intended to 9/11 victims families in California. In total, the program raised roughly $15 million. The remainder of the funds are not so easy to track with some ending up at the Department of Food and Agriculture and various other government bodies.

Worse yet, some $3 million was taken from the fund by the previous and current governors of California to help fill holes in the state's budget deficit.

But possible the worst part about this story is that the California Department of Motor Vehicles still advertises the scholarship portion of the fund when you purchase or renew your license plates...Even though the scholarship program was shut down in 2005! The DMV merely stated that the program isn't "totally disingenuous" and they it would "probably" be a good idea to removed reference of the defunct scholarship program from their offices(1)....Gee ya think?!

California is often referred to as being a small-scale representation of America as a whole and when it comes to government programs and spending, this story certainly reinforces that belief...

UPDATE:

Here is a clip from Fox News about this story and the state government's excuse for raiding this 9/11 fund..

Disclaimer:
Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer. 

Reference(s):
1. http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-calif-9-11-fund-raided-deficits-070528674.html

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

"All Politics is Local"

That well known political quote was first attributed to Former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (who served in that role from an entire decade from January 1977 to January 1987) and in many ways it still holds true today and that's what I would like to talk about today in my first post in a while. And to "celebrate" my return I have decided to get off my soapbox and return my blog to its original intended focus: Helping folks filter to the political bull and do their own research on the political issues that effect our nation today and that includes local politics. I rarely if ever post about specific political races (except the Presidential rat race of course), but this one hits close to home and I feel a little extra exposure is the least I can do.



And on that very topic I so happen to know a man running for a seat in the Iowa House of Representatives (as you might have guessed its the larger of the two legislative bodies in Iowa). The particular district he is contending is arguably one of the most hard hit in the whole state, especially when it comes to the local economy. So just as the economy is a big issue in the national races, it is a major issue in Small Town America (in this case small town Iowa). Now as you might imagine there are more than one person vying for this particular seat. To help sum up the race, here is an article from one of the local newspapers, the Ottumwa Courier:



And before anyone gets all worked up, I will be the first to admit I am definitely a little biased as to who I want to win this particular race but for good reasons. Without getting into my personal life too much (a big no-no for me on the net), all I will say is Mr. Judge had a big influence on my interest in politics and I feel is the best person for the job. But don't take my word for it, here is a statement from that man himself:


"I am writing you today to ask for your support in my candidacy for the Iowa House of Representatives, District 80.I was born and raised right here in southern Iowa. Today, I live on our family farm east of Albia and I have the privilege of teaching Government and History in the high school where I graduated. I attended the University of Iowa where I earned a Bachelors Degree in Political Science, a Masters Degree in Social Studies Education and a Masters Degree in School Administration. I chose to come home to teach for the same reason I am now seeking to represent you in the Iowa House of Representatives - because I know how critically important strong leadership from my generation will be to the future of Southern Iowa.

But I can’t do it alone, please join me today with a financial contribution to help me get my message to the voters of District 80. A check to Judge for Iowa for $25, $50, $100 or more will make a big difference in this campaign.We know southern Iowa is a wonderful place to live. But, we also know that our communities face tough challenges today - like attracting and retaining good jobs for our families, ensuring the best possible education for our kids, and making sure we have access to quality, affordable health care. WILL YOU HELP ME MEET THESE CHALLENGES BY JOINING MY CAMPAIGN TODAY?



For far too long we have seen special interests direct efforts away from our part of the state. We need a strong voice to fight and make sure southern Iowa gets its fair share. I will be a voice that puts the families of Southern Iowa first and gets the job done! In order to stand up against interests that want to take away from southern Iowa, I need your help. Will you make a commitment today and lend your voice to my campaign? A check to Judge for Iowa for $25, $50, $100 or more will make a big difference in this campaign.


In both 2000 and 2008 I was elected to be a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions. I was elected twice to serve you on the Iowa Democratic Party State Central Committee, served as the chair of the Third District Democratic Central Committee and as Monroe County chair. With my political experience and my passion for serving our part of the state, I am ready to serve and contribute new ideas for our hometowns, our families, and our future.

Will you consider helping my campaign with a financial contribution, by volunteering to hold a house party, display a yard sign, make phone calls and talk to your neighbors about the campaign? With your support, I know this campaign will be a success."



DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the above posted link are purely those of Judge for Iowa House campaign and not necessarily of this blogger or the Modern Whig Party.


Now obviously for those reading this and who are not from Iowa (or the US for that matter) this story may not mean much to you, but for my American readers I encourage you to take a hard look at this race because local politics are arguably as important as the nationals because what these folks do DIRECTLY affects you and to ignore them is IMHO pure laziness as an American voter. Now am I telling you to vote for Mr. Judge? No. I fully encourage my readers to look over his campaign site and read the news article on the race and come to their own conclusion. If you think what Mr. Judge is saying is the kind of message you want to hear from an American politician than I do encourage you to help his campaign in whatever way you can. If you don't agree with what his saying, then I thank you for at least taking the time to read this blog post and more power to you.


DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author (unless otherwise noted) and not that of the Modern Whig Party or any other political organization(s).

Thursday, January 19, 2012

A Farewell for Now..

Well, I've put off telling my readers this for a while now..Mainly because I've been fairly busy because of it. But now is as good a time as any to spill the beans..

For the better part of a year I have been working on joining the United States Air Force and in less than a week I will be shipping off to basic training and as such, I won't be able to operate my blog at least for the next couple of months.

Whether I will continue to blog after basic training, I am not sure. There are of course rules to how active one can be in politics while in the Armed Forces so that has to be taken into consideration. Personally I would hate to have to close down the blog and unfortunately I don't anyone to run it in my absence for the moment. So for now, the blog will remain open but with no new updates at least for now.

With all that said, I want to thank all my readers/followers for putting up with my political rants and raves over the last two years and I especially want to thank those who not only read my pieces but were moved enough by them (either in agreement or stark disagreement) to comment on them from time to time. To be honest, when I started this blog I never imagined that many people would be very interested in my opinion on the various political issues concerning America today. To today with this blog was now approaching 7,500 views since I started it in May of 2009. Most of those views actually came during just the last 9 months or so (at the time the blog only had about 2,000 views). And even though I won't be blogging for some time, I hope folks will continue to view and read my work here. Whether you agree with my views on the issues or not, the fact that people even choose to visit this blog and read my pieces is prize enough for me. It gives me real hope that more and more people are taking matters into their hands when it comes to politics in America and not just accepting what they see/hear from the many political bobble heads at face value.

So again, thank you all for reading my blog and I wish you all the best of luck in your navigation through the dense fog that is politics in the good old U.S. of A.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Santorum's Hypocrisy is Overwhelming

Hypocrisy in American politics is hardly anything new and is something that I have touched on several times in my short "career" of blogging and surprise of all surprises, this presidential election cycle is no different. Who is the latest offender of politics number one crime you ask? Why, none other than Mr. Political Loser, Rick Santorum.

After his virtual tie (and probably actual victory) with Mitt Romney here in Iowa a few weeks ago, many wondered if perhaps he was the man to fulfill the "Anti-Romney" prophecy hoped for by many GOP conservatives. And while few really expected him to win in New Hampshire, his rather poor showing nevertheless took a good deal of wind out of his political sail. But many of the anti-Romneys looked past that and hoped that Santorum's social conservative credentials would give him a good chance at winning the South Carolina Primary with Saturday. To date, however, no poll out from S.C. shows much evidence of any strong support there, but hey there's still 5 days til Saturday..

Now I have focused a fair amount on Mr. Santorum as of late chiefly because of his rather gross hypocrisy when it comes to one of the GOP's biggest tenants: Anti-Big Government. Every candidate in the race to date (including those who have dropped out) has preached against "big government" to various degrees, traditionally with Ron Paul at one end of the spectrum and Mitt Romney on the other. Not surprising, many of the candidates have spent a good part of the race seemingly trying to one-up the other on this issue and Santorum is no exception to this practice. The thing is, he is about the LAST person to be claiming HE is the candidate to push through smaller government if he moves into the highest office in all the land. Why you ask? Well I leave that once again to Erick Erickson of Redstate.com :

"Consider, if you will, this contrast. Ronald Reagan said, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.” Rick Santorum, in 2008, said, “This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.” I can handle Santorum’s view of social conservatism and the need for cultural integrity. But he goes off the rails when he blends it with a version of fiscal conservatism that is anything but conservative and which fuels the government leviathan that, as it expands, takes away core freedoms and is run by entrenched progressive civil servants who are anything but conservative." (1)

Now Mr. Erickson, like myself, is hardly disillusioned to the fact the Mitt Romney is not a consistent "Conservative" (both fiscal and social). Further, Rick Santorum's statements on social issues makes it pretty clear he is definitely more socially conservative than Romney, but it's that other part of the conservative equation that Santorum shouldn't do so much gloating about. He is without any shadow of a doubt a "big government" politician as judged by his voting record in the House and Senate (which I wanted to post directly here from Mr. Erickson's post but it's rather extensive).

Now enter Mr. Santorum himself earlier today on the issue of which candidate is more of a "big government" Republican, via NewsMax:

“Romneycare is a real scarlet letter here,” he said. “We can’t have a nominee that takes away the most important issue in this election, which is an explosion of the federal government and robbing of people’s freedom on the federal level with Obamacare.” (2)

So lets get this straight.. Rick Santorum, the man who voted for some of the most expensive and unfunded federal government programs in recent history, is preaching to Mitt Romney that his healthcare reform program passed in the State of Massachusetts should disqualify him from being the GOP nominee because that reform is no different that the "explosion of the federal government" that Obama's healthcare reform is. My God man, the folks at home can smell that wreaking pile of hypocritical BS through their computer screens!


For one, while "RomneyCare" may have been used as a model for "ObamaCare", that was a state-only program and last time I checked the GOP was the party of "states rights" aka states should have the ability to effect their own healthcare reform is they so decide. When it comes to the issue of "big government", trying to connect RomneyCare with ObamaCare is not only disingenuous it's down right ignorant.

Secondly, funny how Rick Santorum seemingly had no problem when he voted for "explosively expansive" federal programs like Medicare Part D (which while being a nice program in spirit, no one seems to have thought about how to pay for it) when he was in the Senate, but the moment it becomes politically expedient he starts preaching to the choir about how much of a big government Republican Mitt Romney is..Pretty shameless eh?

Long story short, if Rick Santorum wants to convince GOP voters that he is the better candidate compared to Mitt Romney, maybe he should stick to his usual "gay marriage will destroy America" (I am paraphrasing of course) social issues bit and leave the small government argument to the candidates with REAL small government credentials..Like the two candidates from the Great State of Texas.

Disclaimer:

The opinions and views expressed in this work are strictly those of the author and not that of the Modern Whig Party or any other political organization.

References:



Wednesday, January 4, 2012

President Obama setting a Dangerous Precedent..

In something of a change of pace, I won't be commenting on the ongoing GOP race for the White House today and will instead focus my "wrath" on the current occupant of that building: President Barack Obama.

What has the President done to incur my wrath? To be fair, he makes a lot of decisions that either make me scratch my head or cause a "epic fail" facepalm moment. Oddly enough, the fact he has broken many of his campaign promises is not all the interesting to me since I am always quite cynical when it comes to the promises made by any politician, regardless of party. I am more concerned about the actions they DO take, and today the President made one doozy of a decision..One with very real consequences (both immediate and long term).

The decision I am talking about is when the President announced four Recess Appointments (which I will explain shortly) today. These appointments including three people to the National Labor Relations Board and one Richard Cordray to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now what are recess appointments?

Normally when a President wants to appoint someone to a federal government body (aka Cabinet position, federal judges, ambassadors, etc), he must submit his choice to the United States Senate for approval. This is based on the "Advise and Consent" clause enshrined in Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The only time the President can normally get around this is when the Senate is in recess (no not when they go outside and play, though I wouldn't be shocked if they did that), which is when they are not conducting business and/or adjourned. Further, there are two kinds of recess appointment: (both have been ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court)

1. Intrasession Appointment- This is an appointment made during a Senator recess while the Senate is still in session (aka during say the holidays).
2. Recess Appointment- This is an appointment made when the Senate is not only on recess but also not in session, aka when they are adjourned for long periods of time (generally from the fall til January).

Further, said recess appointee can only hold said position for a short amount of time (currently the usual time is 1 fiscal year), at which time they either must be submitted officially to the Senate or simply leave that office.

Not surprisingly the Senate figured out some years ago a way to keep the President from doing such appointments too easily, in which they would hold informal but official Senate meetings every three days so they aren't technically in recess. It is a tactic used against many a President to make sure they aren't abusing their executive power. Here is where the President crossed a line today..the Senate wasn't technically on recess or adjourned for the session. In fact the Senate has been holding informal but technically official meetings every couple of days lately to prevent such an action and yet the President has simply gone and done it anyway.

Now considering the back and forth the President has been having with Congressional Republicans of both houses of Congress, such an action isn't really that shocking but it is still a very bold and worrying move by the President. To date, no President has ever tried such an action before and as such, no one really knows what to do about it. To be clear, there will be some immediate retaliation against the President (possibly even from Senate Democrats), likely in the form of blocking ALL appointments by the President for the foreseeable future but that is nothing compared to the dangerous precedent it sets. What the President has done is arguably unconstitutional and at best it is a invitation for lawsuits by anyone "wronged" by the actions of the appointees and as worst is an affront to the separations of powers that is the backbone of the U.S. Constitution. If such an action stands, what is stop future Presidents from simply appointing people at will every time the Senate leaves the building?

And for that reason, I strongly call on President Obama to recall his decision to appoint these four people and instead go through the proper path of appointment/nomination as is dictated by the U.S. Constitution or else he will be remembered in the history books as the man who attempted to wreck the very balance of power that is at the heart and soul of our federal government...Not the kind of honorable mention anybody wants right?


Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in the above piece is solely those of the author's and not that of the Modern Whig Party or any other political organization.

Congrats my fellow Iowans!

Well, a few minutes ago the Iowa Republican Party committee announced that Mitt Romney has won the Iowa Caucus..And by just the skin on his teeth.

This ended what has been indisputably the closest and most heated Iowa Caucus in our history with the top candidates (Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney) going neck & neck all night with neither have much of a lead as each new precinct reported this votes. It made for one very interesting and exciting evening for political wonks and regular folks alike.

And for that, we Iowans should be proud. There was talk not too long ago that Iowa could become irrelevant this year and that our vote was unimportant and should not be treated with any real serious thought..But low and behold in a period of just a few weeks the race here in Iowa has possibly changed the whole dynamic of the GOP race. Why you ask?

Rick Santorum had seen a meteoric rise in the polls over the last week or so here in Iowa and unlike previous up & comers, his rise was timed almost perfectly to give him an impressive showing here in Iowa and only narrowly losing to Mitt Romney, and I congradulate him on that. I make no bones about my dislike of Mr. Santorum, but I give credit where credit is due and he has earned his 15 minutes of fame tonight. We shall see if this new found fame and success (not to mention scrutiny) will continue past Iowa..

For the record, here is the final rough results for the Iowa Caucus via POLITICO :

Mitt Romney- 30,015
Rick Santorum- 30,007
Ron Paul- 26,219
Newt Gingrich- 16,251
Rick Perry- 12,604
Michelle Bachmann- 6,073
Jon Huntsman- 745
No Preferences- 135
Other- 117
Herman Cain- 58
Buddy Roemer- 31

But enough about that. I know many Americans either don't understand how the Iowa Caucus works and what the appeal of such a process is for political wonks and regular folks alike and I hope I can try and explain it here briefly.

First, I must admit that with tonight I have officially voted in both Democratic and Republican caucuses (though obviously not at the same time lol) and many outside Iowa will be shocked to know there is a very stark difference. The main difference being Democrats don't do a simple preference vote and instead organize people into groups (based on their choice of candidate) and when the 1st round of voting is done, if your candidate didn't get at least 15% of the vote, you were told to pick your 2nd choice for a candidate and then vote again. As such, it is not a "secret ballot" and thus a bit difficult for many to understand compared to a normal election. Also as you might expect, such multiple rounds of voting can take a while depending on how big your precinct is.

The Republican Caucus is quite a bit different. Firstly, while you are of course organized by your local precinct (just as the Democrats do). However the biggest difference is the method of choosing your candidate. Instead of huddling in groups and possibly having to make another choice if your candidate isn't popular enough, you are given a simple piece of paper with a list of candidates and are asked to mark your choice, fold your paper and return it the precinct captains. That's it, short sweet and right to the point. For my part, I live in a pretty small area and as such my precinct only had ~20 or people. As you might expect, voting doesn't take long nor does counting said votes.

So sounds pretty simple right? Well, many are probably still wondering why anyone would willingly give up 30-45 minutes of their lives for such an activity? Personally, even though my one vote is no more important than anyone else's vote, the fairly small number of people that participate in the Iowa Caucus makes you FEEL like your vote counts a little more than in a regular primary, not to mention you feel a certain amount of comfort voting with one's neighbors.

So as I finally bid my computer farewell for the evening, I want to congratulate all my fellow Iowans who took part in the Caucus, regardless of their choice for GOP nominee. And for those who skipped out, I hope that next time around you take part in this most Iowan of activities, whether just out of curiosity or out of passionate support for a particular candidate. It may not be the fastest or most efficient way to pick a nominee, it's still a fun experience and one I hope all Iowans take part in at least once. But you know what the best part about the Caucus is? Those horrid and annoying TV ads and phone calls will FINALLY stop/slow down!...At least til this Fall...

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Starting to Get Real Interesting here in Iowa

Well, things certainly have gotten interesting over just the last week or so here in Iowa. Figures, I got on a little vacation to Michigan and the whole state goes crazy..Typical Iowa at its best!

And to be honest, I love an interesting political race. Races where the winner is clearly evident weeks before the actual vote is not only boring, but it's just plain unsportsmanlike in my political playbook. Many often claim that having too many candidates and too close of races makes for political chaos and internal party-bickering..But I think it clear evidence that even with all the money and the "establishment" behind a particular candidate, you can never be too sure. This is part of the reason the 2008 election was so interesting to young folks like myself I think. You just didn't know who was going to leading the polls next and it made it feel like your vote was more important than it normally does. This election cycle has been even more interesting than in 2008 and I think that is a good thing, no matter what the "experts" on TV tell you.

Which brings me back to the race here in Iowa. For most of the political season, the GOP race has shift dramatically here in Iowa which a new front runner taking over seemingly every few weeks or so. However that has all changed in the last few weeks. With Ron Paul's rise to the top of several polls here in Iowa a week ago, a sort of balancing force started. The result? The most up to date polls out today are showing a nearly statistical dead-heat between not two, but three different candidates! Of those, two are very family faces in Romney and Paul but a new challenger has now risen to the "big top": Rick Santorum. (1)

Now as my readers might remember, I've never been a fan of Mr. Santorum. I don't generally agree with him on ANY issue (which is fine), but the chief reason I dislike him is his outright bigoted statements he has made in the past towards the gay/lesbian community and a certain level of hypocrisy that goes with his positions on that subject and his claimed hatred of "big government". This is actually my problem with most Social Conservatives. Many preach against so-called "big government" as being too intrusive in their lives but yet they have no problem with largely morally-bankrupt politicians legislating morality from D.C.. Any one see the contradiction? Whether it's the federal government taking a bigger role in health care in this country or telling us what to do in matters of social issues, there is no different. They are two sides of the same "Big Government" coin and they should be treated as such.

And apparently I am not the only one who has picked up on this contradiction by folks like Rick Santorum. Erick Erickson of Redstate.com has also pointed out that the fundamental differences between such folks and liberals who want to use the Federal government to dictate on other issues is quite minimal. As Mr. Erickson puts it:

"That’s Rick Santorum. He sees government as the means to conservative ends. But in using government to get conservative ends he has expanded government and set precedents for liberals to use government in the same ways for more liberal government. Rick Santorum was complicit in making Americans more dependent on government and justified it under the rubric of compassion." (2)

So while the "mad rush" is now moving towards Mr. Santorum as the Tuesday Caucus nears, one does have to wonder..How is Santorum any better than the rest and how legitimate is his claimed stance as being against "big government" when he preaches almost exclusively on social issues the federal government has little business dictating in the first place? I suggest all Iowans take a VERY good look at Mr. Santorum before Tuesday and make sure they know the kind of politician they are voting for.

My kudos to Mr. Erickson in his recent posts covering the upcoming Caucus as well as his reports on the genuineness of Rick Santorum.



References:








Disclaimer:


The views and opinions expressed in the above piece are solely those of the author and not that of the Modern Whig Party or any other political organization.