Modern Whig Party

A Farewell for Now..

2012-01-19T16:44:00.005-06:00

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.

Santorum's Hypocrisy is Overwhelming

2012-01-16T21:03:00.008-06:00

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 fulfil 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 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 sleep 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:

1. What a Big Government Conservative Looks Like http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/09/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like-2/

2. Santorum: RomneyCare a 'Real Scarlet Letter' http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/santorum-romney-healthcare-evangelical/2012/01/15/id/424238

President Obama setting a Dangerous Precedent..

2012-01-05T00:42:00.006-06:00

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 conduction 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 are 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 try 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!

2012-01-04T01:44:00.004-06:00

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...

Starting to Get Real Interesting here in Iowa

2012-01-02T00:25:00.005-06:00

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:

1. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/headed-for-a-photo-finish-in-iowa.html

2. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/29/rick-santorum-earmarxists-and-the-pro-life-statist/

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.

2011-12-31T21:34:00.004-06:00

First off, Happy New Years to my readers! Technically it isn't 2012 yet but hey, no sense in waiting to celebrate now is there?

But to the gist of this post. In typical anti-climatic fashion, the Des Moines Register GOP Caucus poll was released a day before the Des Moines Register is to be sold in gas stations/stores and delivered to the homes of countless Iowans tomorrow. This poll will likely be one of the last "decent" polls til the actual Iowa Caucus on Tuesday, January 3rd. Why is this poll more "decent" than others? Because instead of just asking Iowa GOPers who they would like to see win the Caucus vote, the Register asked Likely Caucus "goers" who they planted to vote for thus making the poll more accurate than the countless other polls released recently.

The results are as follows (also showing the point rise from last month's poll):

Mitt Romney- 24%, +8
Ron Paul- 22%, +4
Rick Santorum- 15%, +9
Newt Gingrich- 12%, -13
Rick Perry- 11%, +5
Michelle Bachmann- 7%, -1

Sadly, I am not a "trained" or experience analyzing polls. I do feature them often in my posts but I largely only comment on the facts directly mentioned in such polls. For a proper and detailed analysis of this poll and several other recent ones pertaining to the upcoming Iowa Caucus, I give you Nate Silver of the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/amid-lead-for-romney-in-iowa-poll-momentum-for-santorum/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Iowa's 3-Time Electorial Loser Calls on Bachmann to Quit..Say What?

2011-12-20T16:19:00.005-06:00

Firstly, I want to make quite clear: I am not a fan of Michelle Bachmann. And while I am therefore biased against her generally, it doesn't mean I won't give her some credit when it's rightfully due. What has brought this up you ask?

As reported today by POLITICO, source within Iowa are claiming Bob Vander Plaats (a conservative politician here in Iowa) called Michelle Bachmann this past Saturday and called on her to end her presidential run and instead endorse Rick Santorum as Mr. Plaats did publicly today. (1) While such attempts to get candidates to quit the race and endorse others is hardly uncommon, the source of this call is what bothers me.

For those who don't know, Bob Vander Plaats is an Iowan businessman who has a less than stellar political career here in the great state of Iowa. Actually, that's being a little too generous. He is by all definitions a political loser who has tried not once, not twice, but three times to get the Republican nomination for Governor here in Iowa..and failed every time. So why would any of the GOP candidates care about what Vander Plaats has to say? It's because where Bob has been somewhat successful at is exhorting his influence on Iowa's conservatives. On two occasions Bob has met with some success. First, in 2008 he threw his support behind Mike Huckabee and with his victory in the subsequent Caucus, Huckabee made Bob the State Chair for his presidential campaign (which ultimately failed).

His second political victory here in Iowa was his effort to oust 3 of Iowa's Supreme Court justices during their retention election in 2010. Why did Vander Plaats want these justices dismissed? Because of a now semi-famous Iowa Supreme Court decision: Varnum v. Brien. In this decision, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a state law that only permitted heterosexual couples to apply for marriage licenses, de facto allowing same-sex couples here in Iowa to marry legally. Even though the court rule unanimously (shocking considering the justices were appointed by Republican and Democratic governors), it was rejected by conservatives across the state and Vander Plaats saw an opportunity to get his name back in the news and became the "white knight" for a movement to dismiss three of the justices up for retention in 2010 because he their decision exceeded the bounds of authority of the courts (which I personally believe is ridiculous) and were out of step with Iowa's values. Regardless of the merits, he and his supporters succeeded in dismissing the justices. This feat was shocking because it is the first time it has been done since 1962. (2) Sadly for Bob, it was a bit of a mixed night since it was Terry Brandstad who carried the GOP back to the governor's mansion instead of him but hey, a win's a win right?

Regardless of the merits of the court's decision (I have my own opinion but I don't want to wander), Vander Plaats high profile support for the justices' dismissal propelled him to be something of a leader among Iowa's social conservatives and as such he likely believed he was entitled to some respect for the GOP Presidential candidates when it came to matters in Iowa. As such, he and The Family Leader group (which he helped found) published a marriage pledge for the GOP candidates to sign that would ensure that only those who agree gay marriage should be illegal could possibly get his group's endorsement. However, this time Bob got a bit carried away. The group's pledge was immediately controversial because a section of it's language that claimed the following:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.” (3)

Needless to say, this idiotic section of the pledge drew fire from many of the major candidates, lead by Mitt Romney, that thankfully forced the group to remove that section from their pledge. However, even with that section removed the pledge remained controversial amongst even Iowa Republicans (including Iowa House member Jeff Kaufmann and former gubernatorial candidate Doug Gross), who claimed such a pledge did more harm than good. Mr. Kaufmann's criticism was particularly striking since he personally sponsored a bill in Iowa's legislature to create a constitutional amendment to overturn the Varnum v. Brein decision. (4) Regardless, the first two candidates who agreed to sign the pledge (both of which did so before the slavery section was removed) were Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann.

And that's where the story out today from POLITICO is particularly annoying to me. Even though Michelle Bachmann was the first to sign his group's idiotic pledge, won the Ames Straw Poll, and has consistently polled higher than Rick Santorum (though that's not a difficult feat, even John Huntsman can do that for pete's sake), and has run a better campaign here in Iowa, Vander Plaats thinks Bachmann should be the one to pull out of the race..Say what?

Thankfully, Ms. Bachmann pointed out the later of those points to Bob when she turned down his idea of stepping down and for that I give her credit. When presented with a idiotic proposal, she had enough sense to tell Bob off and move on with her campaign.

The real question is..What was Vander Plaats thinking? Why endorse Santorum over Bachmann? The two candidates are virtually interchangeable on issues that concern social conservatives most here in Iowa and further The Family Leader hasn't endorsed any candidate so far..So why did Vander Plaats throw his weight behind Santorum? I personally can think of only one "logical" reason..But I'll keep that to myself and leave that question for my readers to answer for themselves.

References:

1. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70713.html

2. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/Iowans-dismiss-three-justices

3. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/family-leader-under-fire-over-slavery-comment-in-marriage-defense-pledge/

4. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/07/22/presidential-marriage-pledge-has-ridiculous-implications-gop-leader-tells-vander-plaats/

Disclaimer:

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

Iowa is Starting to look like Ron Paul-country

2011-12-19T00:15:00.003-06:00

One thing I do like about the Presidential primary season is my home state of Iowa is seemingly in the news a lot (as opposed to the other 9-10 months of the year), and the currently chaotic GOP field has certainly kept Iowa in the headlines. The main reason for this is how quickly the "front runner" seems to change, which has also been true nationally. And up until recently, the front runner here in Iowa has normally also been the front runner nationally. However, if the new poll out tonight by Public Policy Polling is accurate, that trend has changed.

Why is that? Because none other than Ron Paul has just climbed to the top of the political ladder here in the great state of Iowa. The current GOP breakdown via PPPolling is as followings: Ron Paul 23%, Mitt Romney 20%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Rick Perry 10%, Rick Santorum 10%, Michelle Bachmann 10%, John Huntsman 4%, and 2% for Gary Johnson. (1)

Now if you had suggested such a thing several months ago, it might have shocked many (except Ron Paul supporters of course) but to those of us leaving here in Iowa, his current raise in Iowa polls is not only unsurprising, it seemed to have taken longer than many (including myself) expected. Now to be honest, I have personally discounted Ron Paul as having a real chance at the overall nomination and was even skeptical about how well he would do in Iowa. But one thing I did know was if Ron Paul was going to win anywhere, it would be here in Iowa. Why is that?

Well for one, I still remember the many Ron Paul fans/supporters here in Iowa from his 2008 campaign and few if any of them have ever lost faith in Mr. Paul's chances of winning. Not only that, but I was often surprised how many of my fellow Political Science majors in college like Ron Paul especially considering many were of VERY differing political views. There can be no doubt, Ron Paul is something of a political "rock star" with young voters like myself. Personally I chalk a lot of that support the fact that young voters are traditionally not only more cynical of politics but are also paradoxically idealistic in general and the "radical" message Ron Paul presents can be very appealing.

Another element of Ron Paul's success is his largely non-existent "flip-flops" in his political positions. In other words, the positions he holds on the major issues today haven't really changed for DECADES, and that kind of political morality is also very appealing to folks used to lying, thieving, and cheating politicians...ESPECIALLY here in Iowa where from a pretty young age I was taught that most if not all politicians are "slimy" and one normally has to choose between the lesser of two evils come election day. For a Presidential contender to come to Iowa with such a consistent message as Ron Paul is going to win him popularity regardless of his specific views on the issues of the day.

Further, some of Ron Paul views (especially about smaller government and deficit control) are issues that many Iowans are very supportive of and have been mobilized for thanks in part to the Tea Party movement (hence why Paul stylizes himself the "godfather" of the Tea Party movement) that gives me a solid base of support with not just Republicans but also with independents.

However, there has always been something of a ceiling for Ron Paul's support, both nationally and in Iowa. Part of this stems from the fact that Ron Paul is not exactly what you would call a social conservative, a group that holds a fair amount of sway in Iowa politics lately (much to my personally disgust) and as such will likely never really win them over. On a side note, keep an eye on Rick Perry come caucus day, I have a feeling these folks will flock to him when finally pushed to make a choice..

Reinforcing these points is some of the other results from the new poll. For example, when asked who Iowa Republicans thinks has run the best campaign here in Iowa, Ron Paul scores at 22% compared to just 8% and 5% for Gingrich and Romney respectively. Only Bachmann scores close to Paul at 19% (and as many times as she calls my folks that's no big shock). So clearly, more Iowans think Paul has done a better job of campaigning here in Iowa than any of his rivals, and MUCH better than the other two "front runners". And that brings me to Paul's campaigning here in Iowa.(1)

For the first time that I can remember, Ron Paul has actually invested A LOT in television ads, certainly much higher than any previous election. His first ads were somewhat dark and gloomy and didn't exactly catch most folks attention. However that changed with his more recent ads which are much more..Eye-catching. This includes a setup that really reminds me of a Ford truck ad, which is telling since truck commercials are like political ads in that they are trying to embarrass and one-up their competitors. It also includes a comical comparison of how politicians often talk a big talk in the election season but after the election they get kinda quite (using dogs no less). Overall, its a pretty unusual political ad and because of that it has likely caught a lot of folks' attention and this seems to have translated in this new poll (and several others that have come out over the last 3 days). And when you take these new tactics into account with the rather blatant absence of the other two front runners in Iowa over the last few weeks, its no shock their numbers have either yo-yo'ed or remained unchanged.

And that is the second big story of this poll: the fall of Newt Gingrich. Newt got a big boost when Herman Cain finally imploded (long over due) and soared to the top of polls across the nation even though his campaign has been largely non-existent (especially here in Iowa). This was likely partially thanks to his existing name recognition and the fact that he was just the latest of the "Not-Romney" candidates to rise and now seemingly fall. Now for the record, Newt's fall isn't just limited to here in Iowa. While he remains on top of most state polls as of late, his lead in these states is beginning to erode and his national numbers have fallen as well. For example, Gallup's tracking has Gingrich's national support falling from 37% in the 1st week of December now down to 28%, a nine point drop in less than two weeks. (2) Now whether Newt's lead will completely collapse as his predecessors to the "Not-Romney" position did is unclear. I think he has some real staying power but his massive lead is likely to disappear between now and the Iowa Caucus, which will actually make the race a bit more exciting.

But here is the difference between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich's rise here in Iowa. Newt's was based on his simply NOT being Mitt Romney and did so without even really campaigning here. Paul's rise is based on the fact he isn't Romney OR Newt in that he has been politically consistent over his career not a flip-flopper. Further, he has actually campaigned heavily in Iowa and has a dedicated corps of supporters that are determined to get his name out there (including by placing signs in seemingly EVERY corn/bean field between my home and Des Moines). Long story short, Ron Paul's numbers are based a real foundation where as Newt's is based on..little more than hot air.

So at least for the moment, Iowa is starting to look like Ron Paul country, and if so, good for Mr. Paul. However, as Mike Huckabee will testify, simply winning here in Iowa will not guarantee victory, it's translating this small victory into real momentum and in his cause proving the nation his not just some crazy guy from Texas (as opposed to the other Texan who is not so much crazy and just.."not sharp") and can really win the highest office in the land. He isn't really the candidate for me, but I will give credit where it is due, and Mr. Paul has earned this new poll. I just hope he doesn't squander it.

References:

1. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html#more

2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Disclaimer:

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

Michelle Bachmann: Proving, any idiot can run for President

2011-12-18T20:52:00.005-06:00

As readers of my blog know, I am no fan of the Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota and often ridicule her for being what I call a "political twit", which I define as someone who on a constant and regular basis speaks out of their arse on issues they clearly know nothing about. Ms. Bachmann has been a rather exceptional twit in that she is not only caught either lying or speaking from her ass, she does so with such a brazen passion that high school drop-outs everywhere look to her as their hero. Further, in general, I find her to be an embarrassment to the office she serves and I am ashamed to admit she was born in my home state of Iowa. However as of late, I haven't picked on Ms. Bachmann much because of various things (including mocking Herman Cain's idiotic statements), but today the woman has inspired me..And NOT in a good way.

And in today's installment of "What ignorant thing did Bachmann say now?", we turn to the issue of Iran and its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons. In the most recent GOP debate this past week, this issue came to the forefront when a rather exchange between Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul occurred. Specifically, Bachmann repeated a whooper of a claim she has made before in her campaign, that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons they wouldn't hesitate to use them against Israel and United States and even claims that Iran's president actually specifically threatened to use such weapons against the United States. Ron Paul, for all his faults, rightfully corrected Bachmann by referring to her claims as exaggerations and outright inaccurate. Bachmann however has refused to admit her error (or more accurately, her LIE) and has continued her attack on Ron Paul by accusing his views on the issue as "dangerous" (1).

For clarity, here is the issue. Whether Iran is pursuing the technology for building nuclear weapons was not the issue at the debate, the GOP candidates are pretty resolute in that position. The issue is what would Iran possible do IF they did actual nuclear weapons. Now as a general question, it is a valid one but Bachmann took the issue to a whole new area by blatantly fibbing on her claims. She specifically claims "Because they have stated unequivocally, once they gain a nuclear weapon, they will use that weapon to wipe Israel off of the map and they will use it against the United States."(1) Here's the thing, the Iranian government has never said such a thing.

For one, technically speaking, Iran's REAL ruler, Ayatollah Khameni has actually issue a fatwa (or religious ruling) AGAINST the building of nuclear weapons. Now how reliable such a fatwa is from such a man is definitely debatable but that is the information we have. Iran's President on the other hand has never threatened the issue of nuclear weapons against Israel or the US. Never, not once, not occasionally, NEVER. Why? Because the Iranian government is not that stupid. Contrary to right-wing claims, Iran's government has never shown itself to be suicidal or deeply irrational (both of which would be required to actually contemplate using nuclear weapons against Israel or the US). In fact the regime's entire history tells one real lesson about their real motives: Survival. In other words, the government of Iran's main purpose is to survive and remain in control and to launch nuclear weapons against a nuclear power such as the US or Israel would surely be the fastest way for them to be REMOVED from power (and existence for that matter). So it's no wonder Iran's leaders have never been foolish enough to threaten the US and Israel in such a way. (2)

So for Michelle Bachmann to continuously beat this LIE to death and try and make Ron Paul look like a quack on this very real foreign policy issue is not only pathetic, it's downright disgraceful. What's worse, she tried to claim at the last debate that the "factcheckers" at PolitiFact.com said everything she said was true, which was another blatant LIE. (3) I'll say it once, and I fear I'll have to say it again, but Bachmann shouldn't be treated like a serious candidate for the simple fact that she ISN'T one. Her only accomplishment in her political career is that she wouldn't know the truth if it was standing in front of her holding a sign.

Actually, I take that back. She has accomplished something else in her attempt at winning the highest office in all the land. As prescribed by the Constitution, any natural-born American citizen of a certain age can run for President of the United States..And if Michelle Bachmann is the best the GOP can come up with, then maybe any "average Joe/Jane" really can run for President and no matter who that average Joe/Jane is, they would be a damn sight than Michelle Bachmann.

References:

1. http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2011/12/bachmann-iran-would-use-nuke-against-united-states-107923.html

2. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/

3. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/15/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-politifact-came-out-and-said/

Disclaimer:

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

Rick Perry's War on Common Sense

2011-12-07T15:06:00.004-06:00

In all the excitement of Newt Gingrich's rise in the GOP polls nationwide, many have forgotten about one of the other "once-front runners", Rick Perry. Now Mr. Perry is attempting to jump back to the top with an array of new television ads, many of which airing in my home state of Iowa. And in true political fashion, they are full of as many holes as a congressman's soul.

Now normally I don't get too excited about political TV ads because they are always full of exaggerations and because after one watches them you often find yourself asking, "do they really think we are that stupid to buy this crap?" As such they should be treated like Infomercials and muted when they come on the television. But occasionally, one or two ads will annoy me enough to call them out for the steaming crap that they are and it just so happens that one of Rick Perry's ads is the aim of my fury today.

Which ad I am talking about? The newest Rick Perry ad of course. In this video, Perry discusses his faith and at the same time attacks President Obama for supposedly launching a "war against religion" in America. He does so with phrases like "I'm not ashamed to admit I am a Christian", and "“But you don’t have to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion, and I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.”(1)....Where do I even start?

Firstly, President Obama for his many faults has NEVER been ashamed of his Christian faith. He has made frequent statements about his Christian faith during his tenure as President and has never shown any signs of being ashamed to admit it. Does the President wear his religion on his sleeve like Rick Perry does? No and there's nothing wrong with that. Since when did it become a crime for the President not to mention God every time he opens his mouth like Rick Perry does? Oh that's right, the US Constitution actually FORBIDS religious tests for those wishing the office of President of the United States. Strike one for Mr. Perry's ad.

Perry's second point in his video is even more mystifying. What exactly is the correlation between having openly gay Americans serving this nation in our armed forces and kids supposedly not being allowed to pray in school? One has NOTHING to do with the other. The President's decision (and the Congress' support) to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with removing the final barrier of discrimination in the US military that forbade gay Americans from serving their nation without having to hide who they really are. Strike two for Mr. Perry's ad.

Further, contrary to Rick Perry's claim, students in schools CAN pry openly if they so wish. Students are fully allowed to pray openly in schools, their teachers simply can't lead them in such prayers because as employees of the state such as action would be arguably an endorsement of a certain faith which goes against the Separation of Church and State legal standard. Nor has the President done anything to change that in his tenure as President. Current policy on prayer in public schools has been set not by the President or Congress but by the US Supreme Court. So if Rick Perry has a beef with that policy he can take it up with the United States Supreme Court who has set those policy and boundaries in place.

But arguably the worst part about Rick Perry's ad is the massive hypocrisy that involve his supposed Christian faith. For a unabashed Christian man, Mr. Perry certainly has a funny way of showing it, by de facto stating that the US military should have the right to discriminate who can and can not serve their nation simply because of a sexual preference/lifestyle choice. The faith preached by Jesus Christ taught above all else tolerance and love towards our fellow man/woman and his and others' hatred towards those different from themselves is a disgrace to the Christian faith (cough Rick Santorum cough) they claim to be such strong followers of.

Instead of President Obama's supposed "war on religion", perhaps Rick Perry should worry more about his war on common sense..Does he really think we are that stupid?

Strike three, and your out Mr. Perry.

References:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-perry-ad-condemns-obamas-war-on-religion/2011/12/07/gIQAZHpZcO_blog.html

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.

Pearl Harbor..May We Never Forget

2011-12-07T13:38:00.003-06:00

May we never forget those who paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in defense of our great nation on that terrible day 70 years ago..

And may we never forget the millions of American men and women who volunteered to serve in the aftermath of that terrible day, whether it be in the factories or on the frontlines, they put their lives on hold to do their part in defense of this nation. This is the reason we call them the "greatest generation", and that spirit of sacrifice and duty lives on today in the hearts of every serviceman/servicewomen of our armed forces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VqQAf74fsE

The American Spectator: Occupiers "only one or two steps away from becoming the Brown Shirts of our era."

2011-11-29T15:25:00.006-06:00

Busy day indeed. One of the greatest scourges of politics in American today is plain old laziness. When it be politicians being lazy to actually look up the facts about the topic they are speaking about (aka talking out of one's ass) or writers and commentators making historical references without actually READING a history book. The later is the target today and sadly I can't even name the offending author since he goes by the pen name of "The Green Lantern"..So apparently I am clashing with a superhero..

As the title of my pieces suggests, this author writing for "The American Spectator" has attempted rather stupidly to compare the Occupy Wall Street protesters to Sturmabteilung or SA of the Nazi Party that arose in the 1920's. The SA or "Brown Shirts" as they were called (for their brown uniforms, and in reference to their Italian counterparts the "Black shirts"), were formed by the early Nazi Party (at the time called the DAP or German Worker's Party) to act as "hall defenders" for the party members. In other words, when Adolf Hitler or other major party members were giving speeches it was their job to remove any hecklers or dissenters in the audience. They also served as bodyguards against the DAP/Nazi party's political enemies, the Social Democrats and Communists. They were by all definitions of the word, thugs who kept political dissenters at a distance from the Nazi Party leadership. They were by modern terms a paramilitary organization (an organisation with military-like characteristics but not active members of the armed forces).

So why exactly does the author think there are parallels to the Brown Shirts and the Occupiers?
He/she believes the Occupiers clashes with police (and occasionally clashing with the media in the case of Occupy Oakland) is equivalent to the actions of the Brown Shirts during those early years of the DAP/Nazi party. He/she also seems to think there are parallels between the message of the Occupy Wall street movement and that of the Brown Shirts.

Now as a graduate of history in college, I was appalled and greatly irritated by the author's rather pathetic and moronic attempt to compare the Occupy movement with the fascist brown shirts of Germany in the 1920's. Sadly, comparing one's political opponents of being Nazis is hardly new in American politics, but it's something that truly makes my blood boil. Such petty and pathetic tactics are reserved solely for small-minded individuals. Of course the author is welcomed to his opinion but that doesn't entitle him/her to distort facts.

The main point of comparison the author seems to make is in reference to the Occupy Iowa protesters claiming they plan to "occupy" the Iowa Caucus. Not quite. The hacker group Anonymous did sent out a video calling on Iowa protesters to occupy the Caucus but the Occupy Iowa movement denounced the video and stated that while they will be protesting that day of the caucus, they have no intention of disrupting those taking part. Based on this erroneous belief, the author is attempting to compare the intimidation tactics of the Brown shirts to people protesting outside Caucus sites here in Iowa. Now even IF the Occupiers here in Iowa decided to more actively protest the Caucus (such as blocking the entrances or conducting a sit-in), such tactics are NOTHING compared to the tactics of the Brown shirts in the 1920's. In addition to keeping political dissenters away from the party leadership, the Brown shirts also harassed and routinely attacked their political rivals with deaths often the result. They also would provoke clashes with their political rivals in hope of either having them arrested and therefore removing them from the streets allowing the Brown shirts to move about more freely.

So what exactly is the author trying to get at? The main point the author seems to be trying to make is the Occupy Wall Street movement preference for "occupying" city parks and other public areas instead of "occupying" politicians offices in D.C. is similar to the actions of the many political factions of post-WWI Germany who took to the streets with their political messages instead of solely relying on the political structure that existed at the time. However his error is the specific reference to the Brown shirts. The Brown shirts were the storm troopers of the Nazi party whose job was keeping dissenters away from the Nazi leadership and attacking its political rivals and no comparison can be made between their tactics and current tactics of the Occupy movement. While both movements choose to operate outside the traditional political system, the Occupy movement has remained large non-violent while the Brown shirt's very start was rooted in violently shutting up those who heckled Adolf Hitler.

So I would strongly suggest the anonymous author this piece to actually pick up and OPEN a history book next time he/she tries to make a historical comparison between political groups because not doing so makes it rather hard to take the article as whole seriously and not just the work of some partisan hack.

Disclaimer:

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

Herman's fall and Romney's Nightmare

2011-11-29T13:24:00.004-06:00

The last 24 hours or so has been rather interesting in the GOP rat race, perhaps even "fluid" as the media would say (I honestly hate this word now because of how often it is used in politics). Some of the news was predictable, but some...Not so much.

First, as reported on POLITICO last night, a new accuser has come out against Herman Cain in which she claims to have had a 13 year long affair with the GOP hopeful. She broke this story with a local Atlanta, Georgia TV station who were shown cell phone records that showed a number that she claimed was Cain's private phone number. When the reporter texted this number, Herman Cain personally called right back.(1)

Now I have largely remained quiet about Herman Cain's "problems" because I didn't consider worth my time since the whole issue has nothing to do with the man's politics (which is all I am concerned about). I only detail this most recent "problem" because it may be the tipping point for Cain's campaign.

As reported by POLITICO (2), this latest incident has Herman Cain seriously considering pulling out of the race depending on how he call sell this latest "problem" as no different than the rest. Cain's departure, while foreseen by many, will nevertheless have a major impact on the GOP race for the White House. This is because Cain still polls well in many states and his supporters will have to find someone else to throw their weight behind. The question is..Who is that candidate?

As I talked about in my last piece, polls seem to so Newt Gingrich is the candidate to gain the most if Herman Cain finally implodes and by a pretty wide margin. This was reinforced today by a report released by the Public Policy Polling. This report compiled the results of 6 recent GOP polls and found that on average 37% polled would pick Newt Gingrich as their second choice if Herman Cain pulls out of the race while only 13% would pick the other "front runner" Mitt Romney. (3)

Strangely though, Mitt Romney's campaign to date has shown no interest in these polls and is instead focusing on attacking the President as if he was the nominee.(4) Now such a strategy does have benefits since it keeps Romney from attacking his fellow GOPers and giving him a "cleaner" image than earlier in the campaign when he and Rick Perry would constantly clashing. However it also risks making him look out of touch with the GOP voters who aren't so sure the GOP race is all over.

But a new poll out today may make that disconnect look even more apparent..Mainly because of where it taken: New Hampshire. Rasmussen reported today that in a new poll taken in the 1st in the nation primary that Romney's seemingly invincible lead is being wore away at an alarming rate. The breakdown of the poll was as such: Romney 34%, Gingrich 24%, Paul 14%, Huntsman 11%. (5) Now the biggest surprise of this poll isn't Gingrich's rising numbers, it's John Huntsman numbers that are surprising. At 11%, this is Huntsman's best showing yet in any state poll and while he may only be polling 4th, with every gained number he is further chipping away at Romney's lead with a little over a month until the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary.

So indeed, the last 24 hours has been quite exciting for political wonks. I have a sneaking suspension that the next 24 hours will be just as interesting..Stay tuned.

References:

1. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69257.html

2. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69308.html

3. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/gingrich-still-rising.html

4. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69272.html

5.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_republican_primary

Disclaimer:

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

IowaPolitics.com: IowaPolitics.com: GOP presidential candidates eye changes to courts

2011-11-22T18:33:00.000-06:00

IowaPolitics.com: IowaPolitics.com: GOP presidential candidates eye changes to courts

Great article detailing many of the leading GOP candidates' bizarre, idiotic, and down right unconstitutional ideas of changing the Judicial Branch of government..Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if ANY of these people followed through with these ideas. Shame on them!

Propagandastan - By David Trilling | Foreign Policy

2011-11-22T00:09:00.002-06:00

Propagandastan - By David Trilling Foreign Policy

While I generally dislike cuts to the Defense Budget..This is one program I would have no problem cutting. Good to know the old Cold War policy of putting lipstick on dictators is not just alive and well, it's funded by we the taxpayers.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand WHY we are kissing Uzbekistan's butt (mainly we have a major airbase there and apparently can find no where else to put one). I fully understand that sometimes you have to make strange bedfellows to achieve a strategic goal. The problem I have is, it seems we are ALWAYS making such horrible alliances of convenience and at some point we are going to have to ask ourselves, when are we going to draw the line as to how far are willing to bend over to these people and betray our own ideals? Where does it end?

I honestly have no easy answer...And I don't fault those asked to carry out such policies as this propaganda website mentioned in the article because they are simply doing what the policy-makers in D.C. ask them to do. But one of these days I fear this "deal with the devil" will come back to haunt us..As they often do.

"Dump Obama"- Sounds Crazy...Like a Fox?

2011-11-21T15:58:00.006-06:00

Firstly, I have to admit that when someone first suggested this idea of "dumping" President Obama by the Democratic party, I was very skeptical that such an effort would do anything but give the GOP a green light to the White House next year (seems a little unsporting to me). This was mainly because the original idea being pushed by many (prominently Senator Bernie Sanders) was getting a Democrat to run against Obama in a primary. To me, as a student of history, the idea of a incumbent being challenged by his own party just sounded a plan for disaster for Democrats.

For one, there are few if any prominent enough Democrats to even pose a real threat to the President in the first place (making such a primary challenge a real waste of time) whose only real accomplishment could be to force the President to make new promises to his liberal base...Promises he can easily break after his re-election since he will no longer need their votes (as all 'good' politicians do). So what would be the point? And what would it accomplish?

So after arguing with several people on Twitter about this (who rather rudely called me an "Obamapoligist"), I figured any talk of "dumping" President Obama was just a crazy idea cooked up by some grumpy liberals...But it appears these folks may have the last laugh after all.

Because today, not one but TWO articles were published that called for the same thing: President Obama to NOT run for re-election and put Hillary Clinton in play or at least replace Biden for Clinton on the VP ticket.

The two articles in question are "The Hillary Moment" by Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell & Douglas E. Schoen for the Wall Street Journal (1), and "The "Dump Obama' movement has begun; Guess who'd replace him?" by Andrew Malcom (2). Mr. Malcom's piece was written in response to Caddell and Schoen's so I will focus on the points they made and only note that Mr. Malcom seems to have enjoyed writing his response a little too much..

In "The Hillary Moment", the authors make a pretty fair argument for President Obama deciding not to run for re-election and instead have his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton run in his place:

1. Precedent- IF Obama decided to step aside, it would hardly be the first time. Harry Truman (one of my personal favorites Presidents mind you) knew that even though he managed to win his own term in 1948, he did so just barely and come 1952 he was not likely to be able to full off that trick twice (though one does wonder if he hadn't stepped aside if Ike would have run against his former boss). LBJ too realised that his actions in the Vietnam War would make it very difficult to win another term and decided it would be best for his party if he chose instead to not run again.

2. Ready Replacement- UNLIKE Truman and LBJ, President Obama has a strong possible replacement on the Democratic ticket who has enough political experience to have a good chance of defeating the eventual GOP candidate (cough Romney cough) on her own right.

3. Clean Slate- In theory, since Clinton has been busy running the State Department (quite well according to most polls of Americans), she won't have to deal with President Obama's failures as president (especially his economic ones since she had no say in such decisions/policies), making for a "nicer" presidential campaign than the overly negative one most political wonks currently predict.

4. Doing the Honorable Thing- In theory, if President Obama decides not to run for re-election, that could give him more leverage in negotiating with Republicans over fiscal matters since his job is not longer in 'danger' and perhaps his decision could inspire Republicans to play ball.

I however have a lot of problems with this seemingly logic reasons for President Obama stepping aside for 2012.

1. While Obama wouldn't be the first to choose this path of political suicide, there is one other glaring similarity with Truman and LBJ's decisions: Their stepping aside didn't stop the GOP from coming out on top in the Presidential rat race. So is it best for the nation? Maybe, but history certainly doesn't invoke confidence if the Democrats want to win.

2. I actually have no problem with the idea that Hillary Clinton would be the ideal replacement for President Obama on the Democratic ticket, because no one else could even remotely pull off such a huge gamble.

3. I think the guys at WSJ are a bit delusional if they think the GOP won't dump all of President Obama's political baggage on Clinton's head should she decide to run in Obama's place. She may have had a good record working on the State Department but as far as the GOP is concerned, Clinton and Obama could be interchangeable (and that's exactly what they will tell prospective voters come election time).

4. Doing the honorable thing is nice and very refreshing in politics and I have no problems with that.

Personally, if President Obama decided not to run for re-election today or early next year (hint hint), I would be among the first to applaud him since overall it would probably result is at least some healing in politics. And I agree with the authors that to win, President Obama will either need a miracle, or have to run a rather nasty campaign. The later will only deepen the political divide that currently exists in Washington and while such a divide will never fully disappear..The last thing we need right now is that gridlock to get any worse (as the Super Committee's admission of failure proves). Do I think Clinton running will end that gridlock? Probably not, but I think it's possible it could be moved in the right direction regardless of who wins in the end.

So what sounded like a crazy idea to me a few weeks is starting to make some sense..I'll admit it. But will this movement to 'Dump Obama' really catch on? Only time will tell..

Disclaimer:

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

References:

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html

2. http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=592314&p=2

Support for "Occupy" Unchanged, but More Criticize Approach

2011-11-21T14:58:00.000-06:00

Support for "Occupy" Unchanged, but More Criticize Approach

My thanks to Gallup for putting together a short & sweet report on American's views toward the "Occupy" movement.

Lazy Rhetoric

2011-11-17T15:26:00.001-06:00

Lazy Rhetoric

FactCheck's critique of Romney and Perry's attempt to claim President Obama called Americans "Lazy"...Too bad he didn't. Let the shameless peddling begin!

Newt's Rise...Too Fast?

2011-11-15T14:46:00.006-06:00

In my second piece on the political scavenging from Herman Cain's political corpse (harsh but accurate), we turn to Newt Gingrich who has amazed many, including myself, in how fast he has risen in just a week or so.

Admittedly, I wrote off Newt's campaign some time ago like many political observers because of various reasons (money being the key one in my opinion, and Newt's lack of it). And in the end, Newt's recent rise may be for not, but I have to give credit where credit is due.

Ever since Herman Cain's "misfortunes" started, many waited very little before speculating which of the GOPers would benefit most from Herman's fall. Most of more, unoriginal thinkers, predicted that Mitt Romney would be the greatest beneficiary not because Cain's supporters liked him best but because his supporters would flock to multiple candidates, leaving Romney right where he is. However that belief seems to have been short-sighted. On the contrary, it has been the candidate everyone wrote off that has benefited the most from Herman's fall: Newt Gingrich.

What has astonished me the most is the shear distance Newt's poll numbers have covered in a very short amount of time, rising from single digits to leading in many new polls out this week. This is largely remarkable in that such rises normally only occur after a new candidate enters the race (see Rick Perry's entry into the rat race), not to a candidate that has been in it from the start.

But thanks to a poll released yesterday by the Public Policy Polling group, we can see both where Newt's new found support comes from and that his rise may not yet be complete. When supporters of Herman Cain were asked how favorable they were towards the "other three" top GOP contenders, the results were quite interesting. 73% of Cain supporters hold a favorable opinion of the Newt while his closest competitors (Perry and Romney) only garner some 30 or percent from Cain's supporters. Take in account that Cain has yet to drop out of the race and therefore should he decide to before the Iowa Caucus (or do so soon afterwards) it's quite possible Newt could see a further bump in the polls. For note, this same poll already has Newt in the lead with 28% and Herman Cain at 25% and Romney pulling in just 18%. (1)

And that is hardly the only poll showing Newt's miracle rise. According to POLITICO, Newt manages to pull in second to Romney in a new CNN/ORC poll at 22% and at 19% in the McClatchy-Marist poll released last Friday. (2) Further, in the CNN/ORC poll, Newt leads the field when it comes to support among the Tea Party movement with 29% of TP folks preferring Mr. Gingrich, and increase of 19 points from the last CNN poll in October. Further, Newt's rise amongst Tea Partiers is matched by Herman Cain's fall, which Cain falling from 39% support from the TP to now just 22%. (3)

However, with all fast rises, there is always a risk of burning out. And many are wondering what kind of staying power Newt has and whether his recently talked about ties to Freddie Mac will sabotage his rise in the polls just as the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary are just around the corner. (4)

Personally, I am not sure how long Newt's lead in the polls will last, but at the very least I have to give Newt credit for running an underdog campaign, often ridiculed by many from both parties as wasting our time and should just drop out. Whether it be dumb luck or political smarts, Newt has finally gotten the respect he probably deserves...But will it last?

References:
1. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ppp-newt-leads-nationally_608071.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
2. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68328.html
3. http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/11/why-newt-is-next-in-line.php
4. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68394.html

Disclaimer:

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

Rick Perry's Rebirth?

2011-11-15T13:20:00.004-06:00

As my readers have noticed, I have yet to address Mr. Cain's recent "problems", largely because I don't feel I have anything to contribute to such a discussion and because I have been saying for some time that Herman Cain doesn't deserve to run for President, (for reasons that are so numerous that I could go on all day), and as such I see no need to waste my time on him. What I will address about Herman Cain is how his fall is benefiting the true contenders for the GOP nomination.

As such, I am now working on a two-part piece on the possible rise of two GOP contenders hoping to benefit from Cain's "problems": Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry.

Since Rick Perry's not infamous blunder a few weeks ago at a GOP debate (in which he couldn't seem to remember the third of three federal agencies he wanted to eliminate as President), most politician commentators have officially written off Mr. Perry's chances of winning the GOP nomination. To a degree they are quite justified in this belief when one looks at any major presidential poll taken in the last few weeks in which Perry has been unable to achieve double-digit numbers. This has partially been because of the rise (and now slow fall) of Herman Cain.

Unlike Newt, Mr. Perry has yet to show any real gain from Cain's fall but that doesn't mean he will quit trying. Since his debate "oops", Perry has been doing everything to laugh off the moment and make the best of the situation (something I think was quite smart to do). And, starting today here in Iowa, Perry is hoping to relaunch his campaign with a bold new strategy.

His strategy? To propose major government reform on a scale not talked about for some time, even more rarely by a major candidate for the White House. What exactly does Rick Perry propose?

1. Judicial Terms- Rick Perry calls for the ending of life-appointments for federal court judges (though he makes no reference to the Supreme Court). This is likely meant to stir up social conservatives who often rant about so-called "activist" judges ruining our nation.
2. Taxes- Calls for a 2/3 majority threshold for raising taxes by Congress.
3. Congressional/Presidential Pay- First, he calls from Congress' and President's pay to be slashed in half.
4. Balanced Budget- Should the Congress be unable (or unwilling) to achieve a balanced budget, he calls for a further cutting of Congress/Presidential pay by half. Therefore, under his plan, it's possible Congressional and Presidential pay could be cut by 3/4. (1)

Now to be fair, Perry's proposals are definitely pretty bold and far greater than anything any other GOP contender has proposed. And for many who believe the federal government needs major reform (including myself), such a proposal sounds VERY interesting..However there is one huge problem: Congress. For ALL of these proposals the power lies not with the President but with Congress. Having a threshold for raising taxes is actually being seriously discussed in Washington as we speak so it's possible that provision could come true, but it would be the only one.

Cutting Congressional pay is something of a can of worms in Washington these days, very much in the same class as term limits for Congress in that they cause political realists and cynics (such as myself) to roll their eyes because believing Congress would actually give themselves a pay cut is about as likely as the CEO of Goldman Sachs cut his pay..It's not going to happen anytime soon. And there's nothing a president Rick Perry could do about it.

So the real question is, is Rick Perry serious with these proposals or is he just saying these things to try and win back the Tea Party's support that has recently shifted to Herman Cain? If the goal is to scoop up Herman Cain supporters, he already seems to have an uphill battle. Yesterday a poll released by the Public Policy Polling that showed only 32% of Herman Cain's supporters have a favorable opinion of Rick Perry.

Personally, it doesn't matter much to me since the reasons for his proposal are largely irrelevant since they will be DOA if they ever reach Congress. I do however believe that is a bold gamble for Perry. Should he succeed in passing the word about his proposals and convince enough folks that he honestly thinks he can achieve these reforms then it could be just the thing to buoy Perry back into the double-digits and make him a serious candidate again. However, should his proposal not be taken seriously and simply be laughed off as a poorly veiled attempt at pandering to the Tea Party, this will likely be Perry's final breath in this presidential marathon. And with less than 2 months til the Iowa Caucus, Perry's gamble maybe too little, too late...Time will tell.

References
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/perry-government-overhaul-plan-would-end-lifetime-judicial-appointments-cut-congressional-pay/2011/11/15/gIQAnpYjON_story_1.html
2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ppp-newt-leads-nationally_608071.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in the above work are purely those of the author and not those of the Modern Whig Party or any other political organization.

Veterans Day Tribute

2011-11-11T14:15:00.006-06:00

Something of a change today, there will be no mention of partisan political bickering, political scandal, or anything of the like. Today, along with Memorial day, is one of the most important days of the year to me. Sure, they are many holidays a year, but today is one of the rare ones whose sole purpose is the honoring some of the finest among us, veterans.

I personally keep this holiday rather high on my list because of the many veterans I have met in my life and the many stories they have told me over the years, all of which instilled in me a sense of awe and respect from even a young age. These range from family members, teachers, classmates, and even perfect strangers I have met at restaurants or while at work. And while they come from very different backgrounds, these brave men/women all share one thing in common...When our nation needed them, they fought not just for themselves or their families, they fought for all Americans.

I find it strangely ironic that I recently felt the urge to re-watch the Band of Brothers mini-series, just days before Veterans Day. I personally have watched the series several times and it never gets "old" to me. And no matter what, the words of Dick Winters at the end of the series always strike me..

"I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day when he said, 'Grandpa, were you a hero in a war?', grandpa said 'No, but I served in a company of heroes.' "

It has always amazed me how humble the many veterans I have met over the years are about their service, often simply saying they were just doing their job or that the real heroes where the ones who never came home. To me, they are ALL heroes and are the finest of us all and as a nation we should never forget the great risks and sacrifices our veterans had to make.

As such, I would like to say Thank You and God Bless to all veterans for their service and hope that their example inspires all Americans to serve their nation in what ever function they can, whether it be in military service (as I will soon do) or helping out in your community. Today is not just a day to honor the veterans themselves, but also the ideals they fought for.

I leave you with one of my favorites quotes, courtesy President John F. Kennedy:

"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2W429x_oA

A Rare Moment of Bipartisanship..

2011-11-10T18:47:00.003-06:00

I don't do this often, but I would like to give kudos the United States Senate today for this passing legislation slated to help the far too many American veterans who are unemployed in America today.

The legislation in question, which was part of President Obama's proposed Jobs bill, passing by a 94-1 vote gives tax credits to companies/employers who hire unemployed and/or disabled American veterans (1). The legislation is meant to stem the employment crisis that far too many veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have to deal with everyday. According to a recent government report, the unemployment among veterans of the Afghan/Iraqi wars is 11.5% for the year 2010 compared to 9.4% for the nation as a whole. Even worse, some 25% of so-called "Gulf War II-era" veterans have a service-related disability which further hurts their chances at finding employment after serving their country (2).

So again, I congratulate the Senate for this rare moment of bipartisanship and common sense that will no doubt benefit countless American veterans who have served their nation proudly and deserve only the best from their nation in return...And all a day before Veterans Day no less!

I also want to wish all veterans a happy (and slightly early) Veterans Day, I plan to post a dedicated post to that subject tomorrow. And of course, I wish all Marines out there a Happy Marine Corps Birthday.

Sources:
1. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68095.html
2. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.nr0.htm

Voter Support for Occupy Movement? Part 3: Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-24T17:04:00.004-05:00

Two polls in three days, my kind of research!

For the third installment of my report on potential voter support for the Occupy movement, I first have to thank the good people at the Pew Research Center for this poll just released today online. Specifically, Pew conducted a survey of 1,009 adults in America between October 20th and the 23rd. The poll specifically asked about support for not just the Occupy Wall Street movement but also the Tea Party movement. The poll went a little further to specifically ask how much opposition there was with the public for both movements (instead of just asking how many support them and being left to assume the remaining percentage dislike them).

So what did those surveyed say about these two seemingly opposing movements? (1)

39% of those surveyed support the Occupy Wall Street Movement

32% of those surveyed support the Tea Party Movement

35% of those surveyed oppose the Occupy Wall Street Movement

44% of those surveyed oppose the Tea Party Movement

10% of those surveyed support both movements

14% of those surveyed oppose both movements

Also, 20% of those surveyed weren't sure how they felt about either movements.

But wait, there's more! The good people at Pew also broke down the support for each movement down by political affiliation.

For the OWS movement, their ideological support is as follows:

52% of Democrats support OWS

19% of Republicans support OWS

43% of Independents support OWS

For the Tea Party Movement, the breakdown is:

63% of Republicans support the Tea Party

13% of Democrats support the Tea Party

30% of Independents support the Tea Party

So what does all this mean? Well firstly, the numbers for the Tea Party as a whole did surprise me. Now there has been a lot of talk lately about the Tea Party's support eroding since the 2010 mid-term elections, including a recent New York Times/CBS poll that showed that just 20% of Americans supported the Tea Party movement, with 40% opposing it. (2) Gallup released a poll conducted during August this year that showed 25% of adults polled supported the Tea Party movement, 28% opposing the movement, and 42% who claimed to be neither supporters or opponents of the movement. Further, according to Gallup's tracking of the Tea Party's support, their highest support in their polls was 32% in November 2010. (3) So as you can see, the support for the Tea Party movement is not exactly easy to pin down. Gallup and the NYT's polls show a decline in Tea Party support since last November while this Pew poll found the numbers of supporters to be quite similar to those high numbers from last fall. Gallup's option of being "neither" a supporter or an opponents is much higher than the other two polls and would seem to explain the gap between theirs and NYT's poll. Regardless, I believe the reason the Tea Party's support MAY have fallen since last fall is simply because their level of exposure has certainly gone down since last fall. I suspect their numbers will go up a bit the closer we get to the 2012 election but we'll have to wait and see..

What this does show is that polls are fickle things and depending on who conducts the poll the results can be rather unpredictable and uneven. The same is bound to be true of any polls involving the Occupy Wall Street.

However, the fact that the new Pew poll and the AP-GfK show similar support for the OWS does give their numbers some good strength in the accuracy department since it's rare for two polls conducted by two different organizations to have such similar numbers. The only major difference in the two polls is the breakdown of support for the OWS. In the AP-GfK poll, 60% of Democrats support the OWS compared to 52% in this new poll.

So what do I think of the numbers for the OWS to date? Personally, the amount of support in the polls today is fairly strong considering how young the movement is. In theory anyway, their numbers are high enough that if this was an election year the movement could have a major political impact. The key words there however are "in theory". The OWS is using much different tactics than the Tea Party did to cause change and as such it's hard for me personally to gauge how successful they will be.

Special thanks to the Pew Research Center for the release of this new poll, lets hope there will be more similar polls to come!

References:
1. http://www.people-press.org/2011/10/24/public-divided-over-occupy-wall-street-movement/?src=prc-twitter
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05poll.html?_r=1&ref=us
3. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148940/tea-party-sparks-antipathy-passion.aspx

Disclaimer:

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

Voter Support for the Occupy Movement? Part 2

2011-10-21T14:17:00.004-05:00

Well, at long last, we have a national poll that gives us our first good glimpse at what support this Occupy movement has gained, now five weeks into the movement's existence. The poll is question was carried out by the Associated Press-GfK, in which they asked 1,000 adults between October 13-17.

The results of the poll are that 37% of those polled said they support the Occupy Wall Street movement, which I think is a pretty fair number considering the relatively young age of this movement (just 5 weeks or so old). More importantly, the poll also gave us a ideological breakdown of the supporters of this movement.

Not surprisingly, (to me anyway), 64% of the OWS supporters identified themselves as Democrats, 22% identified themselves as Independents, and 14% identified themselves as Republicans. While the numbers for Democrats and Independents didn't surprise me much, the number of identified Republicans in the poll did.

Some other useful date from this poll includes the following:

1. 68% of respondents agreed that former President Bush deserves "almost all" or "a lot but not all" the blame for the current economic downturn.
2. 15% of respondents agreed that President Obama deserves the blame for the current economic downturn.
3. Nearly 6 in 10 respondents blame Congressional Republicans for the current economic downturn.
4. 60% of respondents Democrats more than Republicans to create jobs

NOTE: the numbers above are a breakdown of those who DO support the OWS, not the total number of respondents.

As suggested by the above note, this poll didn't focus on the OWS alone and covered A LOT of ground, too much for me to discuss in full in this post so I decided to focus just on the OWS relevant numbers.

Now while these numbers are the first good glimpse of what kind of support the OWS has to date, as always this is just ONE poll, and one poll does not make a trend. We will need more polls in the near future to be able to safely gauge what kind of support this movement really has with the average American, but my thanks to the AP and GfK for providing us with some initial numbers.

Here are the two main links for this article. One is discussing the OWS aspect of the poll, the other about the full and entire poll done by the AP-GfK:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_WALL_STREET_PROTESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-21-13-37-33

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/uncategorized/latest-ap-gfk-poll-findings

Disclaimer:

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

Crossing the Line between Political Discourse and Un-Americanism

2011-10-20T14:24:00.005-05:00

Today I read an article on Huffington Post that really shocked me, and that's a rare thing for me when it comes to American politics. The article in question claims that a blogger on the Tea Party Nation's website actually called on American businesses to NOT HIRE A SINGLE WORKER until President Obama ends his "war against business and my country"...Now let that sink in for a second.

This person, who I refuse to mention by name because they don't deserve the space on this post, has actually written a pledge for business owners to sign that in it's final line calls for said business owners to not hire a single person as long as they perceive President Obama's policies to be both anti-business and anti-American...

So this ignorant waste of oxygen thinks American business owners should punish the millions of unemployed Americans by not hiring them all because of the President's policies? I honestly can't wrap my head around this..

You can denounce the President's policies, call him a socialist/fascist, and even call him un-American..But to call on businesses to not hire ANYONE because of the President's policies crosses the line in my mind..And that is the line between political discourse and outright Un-Americanism.

And don't get me wrong, I am all for political discourse. I love a good political debate (except the ones on TV) and can tolerate pretty extreme ideas when it comes to how people feel about the government and the President. I myself don't agree with A LOT of his policies and as long as people keep it civil (as in, no racist comments or any of that birther nonsense), I don't get upset about much of anything people say about the President. And when it comes to the Tea Party, I fully expect them to say rather negative things about the President since he is a liberal and they most definitely are not. But this goes too far. Calling on American businesses to send their money to Obama's potential political opponents is fine (whether in donation form or in forming a SuperPAC), but calling for businesses to punish the average American worker simply because you disagree with his policies is just plain Un-American and the person that posted that on the Tea Party Nation website should be ashamed of themselves.

Originally I was going to condemn the Tea Party Nation group as a whole for this Un-American pledge posted on their site, but I decided against it because it isn't right to hold an entire group accountable for the posting of one member of their website. Even for something as stupid as this. However I do hope that somebody from the TPN does denounce this idiotic boycott...

DISCLAIMER:

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

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1566647&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/tea-party-melissa-brookstone-occupy-wall-street_n_1020710.html#

Occupy Wall Street Live Feed

2011-10-16T00:30:00.002-05:00

For those interested, I have found a good link to a live feed of the Wall Street protests. The man with the camera gives pretty good commentary and you get a "raw" look at the people participating in this protest in NYC tonight. This hasn't been edited by any news agency so it's about as "fair and balanced" as it gets..

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/we-are-the-other-99

Voter Support for the Occupy Movement?

2011-10-09T23:59:00.005-05:00

A few days ago I posted a piece on Ann Coulter's comments about the Occupy (insert city name) movement. To be short, I gave Ms. Coulter credit for making several good points about the error many are making in trying to compare this movement to the early stages of the Tea Party movement and at the same time denounced her comparison of this movement to Fascists movements in the 1920's and 1930's. Now, this post did generate some good debate about how much potential this movement could have and how "unlikely" its rise has been. I was even denounced for seemingly just mentioning Ms. Coulter's name. For that and other reasons, you will notice a bit of a change in my blog format. From now on, I will put a disclaimer at the end of all my pieces to clarify that I do not speak for the Modern Whig Party in any official function whatsoever so there will be no confusion in the future..Now back to our regularly scheduled program!

I am continuing my previous post's theme on the Occupy (insert city/street name) movement, this time focusing on it's merits, actions, and possible support among the American people as a whole.

Firstly, I want to talk about the merits of this movement to date. For those who don't know, the group that first organized the Occupy Wall Street protest stated the main goal of the protest was to stop the influence of major corporations in the federal government (in the form of legal lobbying and outright corruption), and in turn making the federal government less representative of the American people. Now in itself, that is a good and noble goal in my mind. The problem I have is two-fold: 1) You will never stop major corporations from influencing politics, only limit their influence to some degree, and 2) Since their start they seem to have lost control over the message.

My first problem is to me a realistic one. I don't believe I or anyone else will ever see the day when corporations don't have major influence in the federal government simply because they have always had an influence and I see no reason for that ever change. To be truth, to some degree they deserve to have some influence, just as all Americans do. The sticking issue is HOW much influence should they have? I don't think there is much doubt in most Americans' minds that major corporations and "wall street" have too much influence in our government today and in turn are part of the problem in our federal government. So in that sense, this movement had a good start in terms of what kind of goal they are looking for, I think they are just a bit too naive about how much success they could possibly achieve.

The second problem I think is the most critical to the movement. While they had a good starting goal, since then it has been muddled a bit by a mass of other left-of-the political spectrum causes. This ranges from environmental activists, labor union members, and those decrying the "rich" of America or the "1%" as many of the protesters for effectively screwing over the "99%" of Americans. They have also been joined by a plethora of political commentators including Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore. And while many of these may be just causes, having so many with no clear consensus or order to it will only fuel the argument that this movement has no real direction.

Another area of interest I have for this movement is how much support they could potentially get from the American voter.

At first, I admit I figured this movement would likely only get support from liberals in America and since they only constitute 21% of Americans compared to the 41% of Americans whom the Tea Party movement gains much of its support from, that this movement has little chance of gaining as much support as the Tea Party let alone surpassing it.(August 2011, Gallup)

However as first impressions goes, this one may be a little premature. Gallup's poll is a handy indicator but it's a limited one too because it is only asking those surveyed a pretty general ideological question. However thanks to the good people at the Pew Research Center, we have a better look at where this movement could gain some support from.

In a rather in depth ideological survey conducted earlier this year, they asked registered voters surveyed which of the following groups they most closely identified with:

Republicans

1. Staunchly Conservative- 11%

2. Main Street Republicans- 14%

Independents

3. Libertarians- 10%

4. Disaffected- 11%

5. Post-Moderns- 14%

Democrats

6. New Coalition Democrats- 9%

7. Hard-Pressed Democrats- 15%

8. Solid-Liberals- 16%

Now, I know what you're thinking. This poll seems to contradict the one published by Gallup a few months ago but take a closer look. While it would seem that Liberals have a larger base of support in America, one has to remember that Liberal doesn't always equal Democrat, nor does Conservative always equal Republican. There is always a bit of overlap.

And when trying to figure out if this Occupy movement has the potential to gain strong support from the American people, the Pew Research Center did us something of a favor by asking a question that goes right to the origin goal set by this movement. When given the statement of "Business/Corporations make a fair profit", only 39% of all respondents agreed with that statement. Furthermore, the survey also found that 47% of respondents believe "Wall Street" hurts the economy more than it help while only 38% believed it helped the economy more. (PewResearch, 2011)

So, after all it would seem my first impressions about how much support this movement could gain from the average American were a bit off. A significant number of Americans, spanning the political spectrum, have a good deal of distrust of major corporations and "Wall Street". But here's the snag..If the Occupy movement continues to loss their direction and not focus on their original goal of curtailing Wall Street/Corporations influence on American politics, they won't get the chance to tap into that potential support and will instead be written off as just another disorganized "liberal" movement. Only IF they can hone their message and better organize do I believe they can gain the kind of support to change the political game as the Tea Party has.

Finally, I encourage my readers to do their own research on this Occupy movement: it's backers, supporters, origins, demands, and it's actions to date. One thing this movement has going for it is it has created a lot of noise on the news networks and as such there is bound to be misinformation out there about them (both from its supporters and detracters). Doing your own research is vital to forming real opinion about any political movement, something I learned putting together this piece.

DISCLAIMER:

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

http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Political-Ideology-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx

I Can't Believe I am saying this..Ann Coulter may have a point

2011-10-06T01:23:00.003-05:00

Let me be clear, I don't normally agree with anything Ann Coulter says. I personally dislike her but I fully acknowledge she has a right to her opinion and often makes intelligent arguments but also at times makes what I think are completely baseless statements. Regardless, for once I am finding myself agreeing with her to some degree..Let me explain.

In a recent piece for Townhall.com, a conservative website, Ms. Coulter challenged the perception being spread across the net and media that the wave of "Occupy Wall Street" protests (and the many Occupy "insert city name/street name" protests spawned from it) is similar in function (though obviously not idea-wise) to the early Tea Party protests. She also discounts many of the protesters assertions that their protests are just like the Boston Tea Party of over 200 years ago (in that, breaking the law for a good cause is OK and should be celebrated).

Firstly, she makes a good point about the difference in tactics between the "Occupying" protesters and the Tea Party protests of years ago. For one, the Tea Party protests always had permits and there were never any major conflicts with police/law enforcement agencies that ended in arrests (none that I know of actually).

Secondly, when one watches videos of interviews with the Occupying protesters that they do give off a "hippie-like" attitude. Now I personally don't have much problem with that but you didn't really ever get that "vibe" from the early Tea Party protests/rallies. So while she may be right about how "hippie" these protests look, I don't see how relevant that is to how meaningful these protests are.

Thirdly, while the Tea Party has never really had a truly unified leadership and therefore is a bit fractured, they do have a general set of beliefs and complaints: Federal government is too big and is spending too much of our money. The same can not yet be said by the "Occupying" protests. For one, they have been going on at some level for more than two weeks and they still have no general beliefs. The only belief that everybody there seems to agree on is that the rich are screwing everybody over and is too influential in the government.

Another big problem with the "Occupying" protests is they were original started by a Canadian activist group Adbusters. And while Canada isn't exactly a far-away land, the fact that a foreign organisation started this protest movement doesn't sit that well with many, including myself. Not that I don't trust our polite neighbors to the North, just prefer they keep their politics to themselves and let us set up our own protest movements thank you very much!

And the comparison by some interviewed that their protests (and their now rather constant clashes with police) is no different than the actual Boston Tea Party. The problem is, as Ms. Coulter points out, that event was not as celebrated in its day as it is today in America. At the time, the event was seen as going too far by many of Americans, including several Founding Fathers. So in that way I supposed the two events are similar, they were both controversial in their day but whether these "Occupying" protests will be as celebrated decades from now is hardly certain.

Now as you might have expected, I didn't agree with everything in Ms. Coulter's recent article.

For one, the title of her piece, "This is What a Mob looks like" is I think a pretty misleading one. Oddly enough, there is apparently no real conclusive definition of a "mob". Most just state it as a crowd of people, and nothing more. To me, a mob is a group of people who menace others in an attempt to advance some kind of purpose. A mob doesn't necessarily have to violent (at which they are more like a riot). However the biggest reason I don't see these people as being a "mob" is a mob generally has the support of the majority, hence the phrase "mob-rule" in which the majority are pushing their beliefs strongly against those who disagree with them. In fact the term Ochlocracy (Greek phrase of mob rule) is described as being the "rule of the general public" and differs from true democracy (rule of the people) in that ideology is heavily injected in it's actions. Technically, the "Occupying" protests don't see to have a majority of Americans supporting them and instead are something of a minority movement so far.

Ms. Coulter went further when she was on FoxNews during the last few days in which she stated that these protests were much like the marches that proceeded previously revolutions such as the Nazis rise to power, Fascists rise in Italy, and Anti-Czarist forces at the beginning of the Russian Revolution and can only lead to one thing: totalitarianism. She does have a point that when Fascists rose to power in Germany and Italy, they were a minority element in their respective countries. However to compare these protesters to fascists in Europe in the 20's and 30's I think is not only far-fetched, it's downright hateful. Criticize these people all you want, but until they start preaching for racial purity and start carrying arms to intimidate their opponents, no such comparison is warranted and is just shows Coulter's hatred of the left-side of the political spectrum which ironically enough makes her just as bad as any protester denouncing Conservatives for being "evil" and "corrupt". More importantly, permits or not, these people are within their constitutional right to speak out against what they see as "evil" in America, in this case corporations.

And in that sense, these protests and the Tea Party do have something in common. Both movements are speaking out for something they believe in, and are well within their rights to do so. The differences are the Tea Party has a more coherent message and rarely if ever clashed with local law enforcement.

So at the end of the day, Ann Coulter does make some good points about the incoherent message of the "Occupying" protests and about how different this movement is compared to the Tea Party. However she takes this criticism too far when she compares her fellow American citizens to Nazis and Fascists of the 20's and 30's and proves to be as hypocritical as the people she is criticizing.

I will soon post my own response to the Occupying Wall Street movement ..Stay tuned!

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/10/05/this_is_what_a_mob_looks_like

Christiemania!

2011-10-03T22:10:00.003-05:00

To say there's been a lot of talk lately about whether New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will run for President or not would be something of an understatement...It seems to be the only thing on political pundit's minds the last few days.

And to be fair, there has been a lot of talk about Chris Christie possibly running for President for some time now, and up until last week Mr. Christie has told reporters and pundits alike that he isn't going to run...But now that seems to be changing.

Not that I could blame Christie for reconsidering his future. Many, including Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard, have stated that while Christie doesn't necessarily have the same amount of experience as many of the other major GOP contenders, now is the arguably the perfect and possibly only time he will have to run and possibly win. Destiny is a tricky thing though..

For one, Christie has the simple problem that by the time of the Presidential election (assuming he wins the nomination of course), he wouldn't have even served a full term as Governor of New Jersey which to some makes him look a bit too opportunistic and lacking in political experience (not that that has stopped Presidential hopefuls before).

Secondly, Christie has the problem that while he does have a pretty strong "fan base", it is not certain that he can win over the majority of the GOP. While very popular for his tough attitude and no non-sense approach to politics, his specific positions on certain issues aren't usually popular with the more conservative branch of the GOP.

Now personally, I'm a little conflicted about Governor Chris Christie. While I don't completely agree with all his political positions, I do like his attitude towards politics and think he would make a good President. The problem I have is I am not sure he can actually win the nomination. I have a distinct feeling that IF he does decide to run, some of his opponents will attempt to label him as "too moderate" for the GOP just as they've done with others. However at this point of political chaos in the GOP field (with no figure getting much more than 25% in recent polls) that it's possible Christie's entry could shake up the field enough for him to win over enough Republicans to win the nomination.

Coincidentally, a poll was just released tonight by the Washington Post/ABC of both Republican-leaning persons and registered Republicans giving a pretty detailed look at the GOP field as of now. For example, it asked people who they would vote for in Chris Christie decided to run AND who they would vote for if he decided not to run. They did the same with Sarah Palin as they are the only two talked about possible GOP contenders who haven't made a final decision to run.

When registered voters were asked if Sarah Palin and Chris Christie were in the GOP "horse race", who they would vote for, Christie received 10% of the vote, coming in fourth behind Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry (in that order). When Sarah Palin is removed from the equation, Christie grabbed 11% of the vote.

However, as Rick Perry showed when he first entered the race, a new contender can significantly boost his/her numbers at least in the short term (also demonstrated by Rick Perry whose numbers have fallen out in the last week or so). Considering Christie has more of a fan-base than Rick Perry did before he ran (at least in my opinion), I think he could potentially hold on that likely bump in the polls and bump off the most recent "fad" candidate to get a jump in the polls, Herman Cain (who I sincerely hope is a fad/fluke since the man is a near complete idiot). How well he could do from there is anyone guess. Of course, this is only IF Christie decides to run..

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the million dollar question..Should he run or should he not? Only Chris Christie knows, but either way, he needs to decide soon.

Many thanks to Jay Cost for inspiring me to write this piece after my brief hiatus.
Morning Jay: Christie Should Follow Woodrow Wilson—And Run The Weekly Standard

Washington Post/ABC Poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_100211.html

Today in Iowa..

2011-10-03T21:41:00.004-05:00

After taking a bit of a break, I've returned with a bit of political news from the Great state of Iowa.

In recent weeks there has been alot of talk in Iowa about the need for major education reform for the state. Not too long ago, Iowa was not only a leader in the nation in education (in terms of student performance(, but also a leader in the world. However over the years this education edge has been dulled, and so the state's government has moved to do something about it.

In that effort, Republican governor Terry Brandstad has released his education reform "Blueprint". I personally have read the entire document and it seems to be a good overall plan on paper and I thank Mr. Brandstad for proposing this plan to get the debate going.

Education reform is something that has moved to the back-burner for politics today largely thanks to our struggling economy, but it should not be forgotten. Education reform is something the whole nation needs desperately, not just my home state of Iowa. I encourage my readers to read the plan for themselves and regardless of where you leave in the US, spout off to your local congressman/congresswoman about they are doing to reform our dysfunctional education system in America.

Here is the "Blueprint", courtesy the Des Moines Register:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D2180033103.PDF

Israeli Defense Minister: Rick Perry is Wrong

2011-09-20T21:13:00.008-05:00

Earlier today I posted about the GOP Presidential contenders attacks on President Obama for his supposed anti-Israeli policies and how ridiculous such claims are to anyone with half a brain..

I didn't mention any particular GOP contender simply because most of the field use the same general attack on Obama in this regard. However Rick Perry was the latest to chime in to this idiotic exercise today when he claimed Obama's policies towards Israel amounted to appeasement to Palestinian terrorist groups. Rick Perry made this statement in a speech in which he was surrounded by several well known Jewish political thinkers (which to me a shameful attempt at trying to appeal to the Jewish vote in 2012).

Then today on the FoxNews show, "The Five", the majority of the contributors also concluded that President Obama attitude towards Israel has been negative (apparently unaware of the $7 billion in FREE military aid and equipment President Obama has requested for Israel just in the last year).

Needless to say, this blatant lie (or just plain ignorance) drove me a bit up the wall and further enforce the statements I made in my previous post on the subject earlier.

So you will imagine my feeling when I watched the interview of current Israeli Defense Secretary Ehud Barak on Piers Morgan's show tonight. In that interview, the Def. Minister made clear he believed President Obama "is friendly to Israel, especially in security-related issues." He went further to refute the claim Rick Perry made this morning about Obama's supposed appeasement to the Palestinians by stating, "I don't think appeasement is an accurate description of the policy of this administration,".

So from that exchange, one can only conclude one of two things. Either Rick Perry knows something the Defense Minister doesn't about Obama's policies towards Israel, or Rick Perry doesn't have a clue what he is talking about and that he was practicing a rather shameful form of political pandering this morning. I wonder which conclusion holds true...

But here is what drives me nuts about all this..Why is the GOP wasting perfectly good oxygen and our time on such bogus attacks on President Obama when there are plenty of legitimate grievances against him? So please, for the love of God, quit wasting our time on this bogus "Israeli Problem" Obama has and get back to issues that matter to 99% of all Americans..THE ECONOMY!

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/20/ehud-barak-obama-is-friendly-to-israel-especially-in-security-related-issues/?hpt=pm_mid

CRFB's Critique of President Obama's Deficit Plan

2011-09-20T17:42:00.002-05:00

A few days ago I posted the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's initial impression of President Obama's Deficit reduction plan and how they said it was more a "Go Medium" proposal than a "Go Big" proposal as they and many others are hoping for.

Now, here is there is detailed analysis of the President's Proposal, read and be the judge..

http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/analyzing_presidents_submission_to_supercommittee.pdf

Obama's "Israel" Problem?

2011-09-20T13:07:00.006-05:00

In the last few days the GOP's Presidential contenders have decided to revert to a seemingly easy fallback attack on President Obama: his foreign policies concerning Israel have been naive at best and un-American at worst.

So why have this old attack resurfaced? It's likely because of the upcoming attempt by the Palestinian Authority to submit their bid for statehood to the United Nations in a week or so. President Obama has promised to veto any such bid for statehood should it come to a vote in the UN Security Council and has been trying to prevent the vote from even happening (though rather clumsily IMO). And as such, many of the President's supporters have pointed to this as proof of the President's unwavering support of Israel, not that the GOP contenders care. As far as they and others are concerned, the decision to veto a Palestinian bid for statehood unilaterally is a no-brainer. And I would have to agree at least on that part. However the President's decision to veto such an attempt should not necessarily be taken for granted. Regardless of differences the President has had with the Israeli government as of late, his stand against the PA's unilateral attempt at statehood proves that at heart he is a true supporter of Israel or else he could have used the situation to get some kind of concession from the Israelis (say, we will veto only if you agree to halt settlement expansion or something similar), but he didn't.

However the GOP's gripe with Obama's Israel policies are older than this recent vote. They largely stem from Obama's attempt to revive the peace talks last year and his statement this year that any serious negotiation should start with pre-1967 borders of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Now personally, I saw no problem with what the President stated then because that has always been the policy of the US government. All previous attempts at peace between the Palestinians and Israelis used the pre-1967 borders (also referred to as the 1949 Armistice Line), the only thing the President did differently was he actually said such OUTLOUD. And contrary to what most of the GOP contenders will claim, the President never said Israel should fall back to the pre-1967 borders, he merely stated that any future border between an independent Palestine and Israel should back from the pre-1967 borders. This only makes sense since if you look up the "West Bank" anywhere online you will be given a map that is based on the pre-1967 border between Jordan and Israel (Jordan was at the time called 'Transjordan' since it's territory covered both sides of the Jordan river, hence the name "West Bank").

Rightly, the Israelis were a bit nervous when the President stated this starting point out loud for all the world to hear and were quick to condemn that language publicly. And IF the President had called on Israel to pull back to the pre-1967 borders, Israel would have some real concerns. Before the 1967 war, TransJordan was able to shell Israeli towns at will, even reaching as far as Tel Aviv. As such, the Israelis were prefer to prevent such a "closeness" with a possible future enemy. This was the primary reason for the very first Israeli settlements decades ago. They were there to act as a "bufferzone" between the occupied territories and the Israeli populace.

And not shockingly, the GOP as a whole pounced on this opportunity to paint the President as being Anti-Israeli and claimed the President was trying to make the Israelis morally equivalent to the Palestinians.

It's actually similar to how the GOP attacked President Obama in his early years for being "soft" on terrorism because of public statements he made and internal memos that were creating a more politically correct War on Terrorism. However even then, while many in the GOP decried these actions, few could argue with the President's actions against terrorism. The President has been an aggressive supporter of the use of drones to kill terrorists wherever they are, even more so then President Bush in terms of the number of strikes performed. So in that case, the President's actions spoke more true than his words.

And I believe the same is true with the President's policies concerning Israel. Publicly, the President and his administration have had a very strained relationship with Israel with the Israeli government seemingly embarrassing and 'talking down' to President Obama's administration (including the President, Vice President, and apparently form Def. Sec. Robert Gates). This is further evidenced by the reports that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated the Israelis as a whole were 'ungrateful' for the actual support the President gave Israel. And what was this support exactly?

1. Foreign Aid- For the 2011 fiscal year, President Obama requested $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel

2. F-35- In 2010, Israel finally finalized an order for 20 F-35 fighters at a price of $2.75 billion, which would be paid for entirely with the afore-mentioned FMF. In other words, WE are fitting the bill for these advanced aircraft and giving them to Israel for FREE.

3. Iron Dome- This is Israel's defense against rockets/mortars fire from Palestinian terrorist grounds (was well as countering the rocket threat from Hezbollah in Lebanon). For the 2011 fiscal year the President requested $205 million to support the development and deployment of this defense system (which has been plagued with cost overruns and questions about it's abilities).

4. Israeli Defense Products- As part of the F-35 deal, the US also agreed to purchase $4 billion worth of Israeli produced military equipment. So now only are we giving Israel advanced fighters for free, we are also agree to spend $4 billion on buying their military equipment and therefore we are giving a total of over $7 billion to Israel in combined aid and guaranteed reciprocal arms purchases.

5. Missile Defense- In addition to the aid for the Iron Dome system, the Obama administration requested $202 million in aid to other Israeli missile defense programs in the 2010 fiscal year including the Arrow II/III and the David's Sling system and a further $122 million for the 2011 fiscal year

Source: FAS.org

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

So clearly to anyone with eyes and half a brain, President Obama's administration was been very supportive of Israel's continued security concerns since he came into office with no evidence of that support weakening anytime soon.

Then this the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I won't get too much in depth about the legality of the settlements other than to state that since they were first built the US government has always referred to them as illegal and in the last 20 years has used financial pressure to try and get the Israelis to halt or slow their construction.

Now last year there was talk the US was weighing various options to try and pressure Israel into halting construction of the settlements in the West Bank and one of those options was lowering the amount of US Guaranteed Loans to Israel. As expected, the GOP and others in Congress (including many Democrats) decried such ideas as being against the alliance between the US and Israel..Except it has bee done several times before. Now by federal law, no US funds can be used to pay for Israeli settlements since the government considers them illegal. As such, both Presidents Clinton and Bush would reduce the US guaranteed loans to Israel relative to the amount of money it was estimated Israel spent on settlements that particular year. President Bush did so twice during his administration (2003 and 2005) in an attempt to make the Israelis a bit more cooperative in talks with the Palestinians. So while it was OK for President Bush to do this twice during his administration, it is suddenly not OK that President Obama's administration to even MENTION such a tactic. In the end the President has yet to actually pursue such a tactic even after the high tensions between the US and Israel last year and early this year.

So for all this talk about Obama not treating Israel like the close ally that it is, the President's actions concerning Israel have been nothing but extensive and faithful to the close alliance between our two nations. So when you read a story or hear Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or any other GOP Presidential contender claim that the President has put Israel in danger, you can call out their crap and know the facts. While Obama may have public disagreements with Israel, his support for Israel's security has never waivered.

Obama's "Go Medium" proposal?

2011-09-19T20:56:00.003-05:00

Today, President Obama laid out the ground work for his budget-cutting proposal for the new "Super Committee" to consider. And so far, there has been a pretty mixed reaction to his proposal.

As expected by most political wonks, the GOP as a whole has attacked his proposal as "class warfare" because it proposes having those who make more than $1 million per year to pay the same tax percentage as middle class Americans, now being called the "Buffet Rule".

Personally, I haven't made up my mind about what I think of the President's plan just yet (waiting for more specific figures and more expert analysis), but the good people at the Committee For A Responsible Government has released a brief statement on the President's plan:

http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/pres_endorses_go_big_but_more_needed.pdf

Ron Paul: A Texas Thorn in Rick Perry's Side

2011-09-15T20:28:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul: A Texas Thorn in Rick Perry's Side

September 11th, 10 Years Later..

2011-09-11T00:06:00.004-05:00

Today, as we wake up and go about our Sunday business (whether it be at a church, at home or work), we will at some time turn on our televisions, radios or computers and see images of that horrific day ten years ago and many will think about where they were that day. I know personally that there are many who to this day don't like talking about what happened that fateful morning, and to be honest I can understand why. We all experienced that day in different ways, and yet we all experienced some of the same things: shock, sadness, and anger.

Personally, I have never really talked to many people what happened that day, until now, and I would like to share my story with my readers...

I was 13 years old at the time, not too far from my 14th birthday and since I live in Iowa, I had just arrived at my middle school a bit before 8am. At first, I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary in the hall ways of my school. I followed by usual routine of putting my backpack in my locker and getting my books for my first class of the day (Science class). After putting my books in my classroom, I went to wandering the halls as I usually did and that's when I noticed something odd. I saw several teachers in another classroom watching a television news broadcast. When I walked by the room to get another look the teachers blocked the screen, though I saw that apparently something had hit a building in New York City. My first thought at this point was that of my Americans, this must have been some sort of horrible accident. I didn't give it much more thought and continued on my way..

Then, not long afterwards, I noticed that many of the kids in the halls with me were all talking about something and were trying to squeeze into this one classroom with the television I had walked past before. Note, this was just after 8am in Iowa (being in Central Standard Time), classes were supposed to start at 8:25am. I remember seeing the looks of shock on my teachers face as they looked at the television screen, and then I saw that now both of the buildings were on fire. I didn't understand how such a thing could happen so I was just as shocked as my teachers and fellow students. Our teachers didn't tell us much so we were all left wondering what had happened...

Soon, it was time for class and we all slowly headed towards our first morning class of the day. My science teacher had turned her television on now and had it on in the background as she tried to begin her lesson. However, she like the rest of us, was fixed to the television and we all wondering what was happening. Then, only 12 minutes after our morning class began, we saw the first reports on NBC that an explosion was heard at the Pentagon in Washington D.C.

As young as I was at the time, I knew something was terribly wrong and these were no accidents (likely because I have been a military buff since I was a young kid). Regardless, for the next hour I and everyone else in my school was fixed to the NBC news broadcast trying to absorb as much information as possible...And then, the Tower fell.

I remember not being able to fully process what was happening as I watched this giant building collapse. To be honest, the rest of the day was something of a blur. I do remember that we were released early from school, at 1 or 2 o'clock and I walked home. After I got home, I went over to a friends house nearby but before I got there, I thought I saw something.

It was a plane. I remembered that the news said no planes were supposed to be flying today so I wondered whose plane this was. I quickly ran to my house and found a pair of binoculars and looked at the plane. It looked pretty big and white/blue in color. I immediately realised that this was Air Force one and the President was flying overhead. It was an odd feeling, to know the leader of your nation was flying far above me. Some days later, I saw on the news that the President that day was flying towards Omaha when I saw the plane.

For the rest of the day, my family and I simply watched the television, hoping for some kind of explanation for why someone had done this horrible thing...

September 11th, 2001 will be a day that I and millions of other Americans will never forget. We all experienced the events of that day in different ways, but something we all share is the sorrow for the thousands who lost their lives that day in those needless acts of hatred and cowardice. We will never forget the sacrifice that so many police, firemen, and everyday citizens made that day trying to save as many lives as they could. Knowing that there were so many that day who willingly put their lives at risk to save others made me so proud to be an American, and I will NEVER forget that feeling. Never.

"There is no question what the roll of honor in America is. The roll of honor consists of the names of men who have squared their conduct by ideals of duty."

-President Woodrow T. Wilson

Mitt Romney's Jobs Plan

2011-09-07T17:53:00.002-05:00

A few days ago, GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney announced and published his detailed Job Plans (as opposed to general statements made by most politicians). The plan to say the least is pretty extensive so there is no real way for me to summarize it and do it justice. Therefore I call on my readers to read the full plan for themselves and be the judge as to whether Mr. Romney's proposals will really help our economy or not.

http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/BelieveInAmerica%E2%80%93MittRomney%E2%80%93PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth.pdf

After reading it, I also encourage you to read Jared Bernstein's reaction to the Romney's Jobs Plan:
http://www.salon.com/news/mitt_romney/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/09/07/romney_job_plan

The seduction of Howard Dean

2011-09-01T17:32:00.000-05:00

The seduction of Howard Dean

I am so going to hell for this blog post | Daniel W. Drezner

2011-08-29T14:47:00.000-05:00

I am so going to hell for this blog post Daniel W. Drezner

As if we needed further proof Michele Bachmann isn't qualified for ANY political office let alone the highest office in all the land. "Joking" about Hurricane Irene being punishment from God telling us the Washington D.C. is horribly corrupt (as if we needed an act of God to tell us all that) is beyond insensitive and stupid. She should tell this "joke" to the families of the 35 confirmed dead from this storm, the 7 plus million on the east coast without any power, and the countless others whose homes are under water from the flooding that is getting worse in certain areas as I type this.

But arguably the worst part about this is the fact her staff immediately came out and played down what she said as being "in jest"...As if that makes a bit of difference! Of course she said it "in jest" when you watch the video..But that isn't the point. I honestly don't know which would have been worse, her honestly believing God was punishing the WHOLE of the east coast for the sins of Washington D.C. or it was just a big joke..The only joke here is Ms. Bachmann thinking she is actually deserving of the office for which she seeks..

Looking to Harding & Coolidge for Economic Wisdom?

2011-08-23T17:34:00.004-05:00

Today I received a mailer from the Public Interest Institute, an Iowa-based non-partisan policy group, that included a rather interesting economics piece.

The piece (whose text I will re-post here shortly), makes the argument that the economic policies of President Warren G. Harding and his successor Calvin Coolidge should be used as a model for trying to the fix the many economic problems that ail the United States today, especially focusing on how the government should manage it's money.

Without giving away too much from the article itself I will say this: Though President Harding is often rated today as one of the Worst presidents, I believe that judgement is unfair and when looking specifically at his economic policies and what he did to government spending I think his actions should serve as a reminder that such things can be accomplished. However I also caution my readers that the economic nightmare we are in today when just looking at how the government spends its money is much more complex today then it was in Harding's day and such simple solutions are not likely enough (I wish it was, I really do) but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

The full article:
http://limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/briefs/pdfs/brf18-23.pdf

Looking for a Jack Ryan President..

2011-08-17T01:59:00.006-05:00

Something of a change for my readers today, for once I will not be discussing the daily load of political BS being shoveled upon we Americans citizens from our elected "representatives"...A nice change huh?

So what will I be talking about today then if not the usual political tit for tat? Well, to be blunt, I want to talk about a book that I believe could open people's eyes on how their government SHOULD work.

And before your eyes start rolling into the back of your heads, please bear with me.

The book in question was written by my all-time favorite author, Tom Clancy. That's right, the sane man who has been thrilling readers for nearly 30 years and making politicians and military men alike ask "how does he know that??" has inspired me. But how does this relate to how our government should work? The title should help clear that up a bit..

"Executive Orders" was written in 1996 (seems like an eternity ago) and takes place in then the near future (1998 or so if I remember properly) and starts off in a shocking fashion.

At the end of the previous novel, "Debt of Honor", an airliner pilot who was distraught over the death of his son during a brief conflict with the United States single-handily decapitates the entire US government by ramming his airliner jet into the US Capital Building during a special session of Congress presided over by the President and with the majority of both houses of Congress present and all 9 members of the US Supreme Court...All except newly sworn in Vice President Jack Ryan (who is the main character in Tom Clancy's novels to those who don't know) who narrowly escapes the explosion.

Suddenly, Mr. Ryan finds himself with an unimaginable burden to bare, the US Presidency, since he is next in the line of succession...for which he is the only remaining member. He also finds himself without a Congress or Supreme Court...He IS the US government, at least for the moment.

Worse still, Mr. Ryan is not politician and only agreed to be Vice President because the previous VP had been caught up in a sex scandal (big shock) and would only be holding the office for a year or so til the next election in which he would relinquish the office to someone who knew the political game and was better suited for the duty. Now suddenly he must figure out first how to work in Washington D.C. while simultaneously reconstruct the US Government.

Now I won't get too much into the plot of the book because I want to focus not on the possibility of such a thing but how he decides to deal with the situation he finds himself in.

Instead of simply choosing to surround himself with political insiders and try to return to busy as usual, he decides instead of playing the political game, he is going to change the rules...and try to fix the problems that ails our government. He acknowledges that our government was designed to be inefficient to some degree but that was no excuse for how Washington was operating and decided to try and change that. Sound familiar? It should because it's what every politician has promised to do for decades now but seemingly always forget once they get to Washington.

Next, President Ryan calls on the American people to do something rather shocking..

"Therefore, to you, and to the fifty governors, I have a request. Please, do not send me politicians. We do not have time to do things that must be done through that process. I need people who do real things in the real world. I need people who do not want to live in Washington. I need people who will not try to work the system. I need people who will come here at great personal sacrifice to do an important job, and then return home to their normal lives."

"I want engineers who know how things are built. I want physicians who know how to make sick people well. I want cops who know what it means when your civil rights are violated by a criminal. I want farmers who grow real good on real farms. I want people who know what it's like to have dirty hands, and pay a mortgage bill, and raise kids, and worry about the future. That's what I want. That's what I need. I think that's what a lot of you want too. "

"Once those people get here, it's your job to keep an eye on them, to make sure they keep their word, to make sure they keep faith with you. This is your government. A lot of people have told you that, but I mean it. Tell your governors what you expect of them when they make their appointments to the Senate, and then you select the right people for the House. These are the people who decide how much of your money the government takes, and then how it is spent. It's your money, not mine. It's your country. We all work for you. "

-Executive Orders p.165

Now here's where this all ties into today in the real world. Clearly this is a fictional character in a book of fiction but boy does Mr. Clancy hit the nail on the head. Leave it to an author of fiction to create a politician most Americans could only dream of..

President Ryan is the kind of President I believe all Americans should hope and dream for. His opinions on the major issues may not fly with a majority of Americans but he is brutally honest and knows the true purpose of our government in this great nation: to work for us, the American citizen.

The sad truth however, as Jack Ryan finds out after he makes this speech in the novel, the "MainstreamMedia" and political establishment immediately resist this idea of having non-politicians run for political office since such people automatically have no experience with how our government works and how "the game" is played...But that's the point! Imagine having elected officials who care more about their country then how they are going to get re-elected and covering their own arse instead of doing what's right for the nation. It's hard for most Americans to even grasp let alone believe in. And yet we strive for such a standard every election cycle and to some degree that was released this last election cycle when the Tea Party ran many who were not career politicians to try and shake up the system and they succeeded in some cases and I think that is a great thing for America. However whether these new elected officials will remain loyal to the people who elected them and avoid getting sucked into playing "the game" in Washington remains to be seen just yet.

Even harder for most Americans (including myself) to imagine is a President who had the political guts to ask such a thing of his fellow citizens...and actual MEAN it!

Now, being a political realist, everything I have ever learned about politics both in school and in life is that such idealist hopes are naive at best and foolish at worst. The simple fact is, no government is perfect and certainly ours has its flaws but I refuse to believe that such a change is impossible to achieve. I shouldn't have to feel foolish for believing that the government should truly work for the people as our founders intended to nor should I give up such a belief simply because conventional wisdom and the establishment tell me it's impossible. I also refuse to believe that our government is beyond help and simply can't be fixed and that I should just except that and move on. As an American citizen I have the RIGHT to demand that my government work for me and for all citizens and as such hold my elected representatives fully and wholly accountable for their actions in Washington, whether good or bad. This is how our government is supposed to work, period end of story.

And no one is going to try and feed me this crap that it's only one party in Washington that has corrupted the system..Both the Democratic and Republican parties are guilty of propagating this myth that "We work for the American people" while simultaneously throwing us under the proverbial bus and saving their own skins. The two parties may be ideologically miles apart, but they are lock-step in continuing this fantasy that they really work for us and everything they are doing in Washington is in our best interests.

And for that, I am a little thankful for the Tea Party movement. I may disagree with their politics at times but I can't deny they have got a lot of Americans interested in how their government is run and encouraged Americans to hold their politicians truly accountable and I hope that trend holds..

Now normally I don't get into such heated talk about how flawed our government is but reading this book has truly inspired me to issue this wake up call for not just Whigs such as myself but to all Americans. While I acknowledge that achieving the kind of accountability that Jack Ryan asks of the American people in Mr. Clancy's novel is not likely in my lifetime, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and I am certain that slowly but surely, we will be able to hold our politicians more accountable and hopefully in turn make our government actually work like it's supposed to..For us.

My thanks to Tom Clancy for writing "Executive Orders". I find it amazing how a book written 15 years ago can still instill such passion, even in a realistic political wonk such as myself. My hats off to your sir.

Source:

"Executive Orders", by Tom Clancy. Copyright 1996 G. P. Putnam's Son Publishing, page 165

The Emergence of Rick Perry

2011-08-16T13:10:00.001-05:00

The arrival of Rick Perry on the Presidential field has certainly made this election cycle a bit more interesting hasn't it?

First he announces he run for the highest office in the land the same day as the Ames Straw Poll in my home state of Iowa which both excites and irritates many GOPers.

Second, he makes his first campaign stop here in Iowa at the same event as rival Michelle Bachmann and not only makes a good impression on the audience, he makes her look like a political prima dona instead of a serious candidate (which I honestly got a kick out of).

And then yesterday he managed to cause some people to scratch their heads (both Democrats and Republicans) and caused some prominent GOPers from President Bush's administration to denounce him outright. What exactly did Mr. Perry say to cause so much trouble in a single day? He more or less stated that if the Federal Reserve Chief printed more money between now and the next election it would be "almost treasonous". Such harsh words being directed as the Fed. Chief is hardly unusual but coming from the new star of the GOP Presidential field it has raised a few eyebrows even from his own party.

Now do I think it is a major stumbling block for Rick Perry's chances at the GOP nomination? Honestly, I doubt it.

However I will give Rick Perry credit for one thing, he certainly knows how to make an entrance..

The Emergence of Rick Perry

Rick Perry's Road...to Ruin?

2011-08-07T23:53:00.003-05:00

As political wonks know, Rick Perry had a rather important weekend though there is some debate about HOW important it was..

For those who don't know, Rick Perry hosted a religious gathering of sorts in Houston, Texas called "The Response". It was advertised as a Day of Prayer for the nation's many ailments, both religious and not and not necessarily a political event since Perry began planning it shortly after being re-elected for a third term as Governor of Texas.

Without looking too deeply into the event, I initially thought it sounded like a nice idea regardless of my own religious feelings simply because Perry's call for prayer not just for the nation but also our elected officials (including asking God to guide President Obama) and such a good sentiment is pretty rare in America today. And I obviously wasn't the only one thinking such thoughts since many were saying this was just the kind of event to not only launch Ricky Perry's Presidential run (come on, we all know he going to do it!) and his wearing of his religion on his sleeve is exactly the kind of leader America needs.

However, after taking a closer look at the event in question, I am having second thoughts about both it's purpose and what impression it gives me of Rick Perry.

First off I should clarify a few things..Personally I don't much like Perry's stand on most social issues simply because I am not a social conservative plain and simple. However I do give him credit for his straight-talk attitude and his spine compared to most politicians today. You may disagree with what Perry says, but he leaves little doubt he believes what he says and won't back down from a challenge very easily, and I like that in a politician.

And his faith and attitudes, I believe, give Rick Perry a clear advantage over most of the declared GOP candidates with social conservatives (a very powerful force in the GOP nomination process historically) and his state's job growth is certainly something to brag about (though he always fails to mention his state has the 2nd largest state debt in the nation after California). The question is, did this weekend's religious event help or hurt Rick Perry's chances for the highest office in the land?

Lets first look at how big this event really was. Now to be honest, it wasn't a very big event considering how much it has been talked about and the man running the show with only 8,000 or so in attendance (though hey, that's more than twice the size of the town I live in!). The only thing is no major political figures actually showed up, the exception being Governor Sam Brownback (Vice President anyone?). Now that's not because Rick Perry didn't invite them, because apparently he invited about everybody under the sun but for whatever reason(s) they chose not to attend..and I may know why: One should always judge an event by who is sponsoring it.

The group that primarily sponsored this event (other than Rick Perry of course), was the American Family Association. Now don't let the simple name fool you, the AFA is a Christian Conservative group, and a dandy of one at that. It's not often I find an organization who I completely 100% disagree with on pretty much every issue you could ever imagine. I won't bore my readers with listing the entire list of things the AFA think is wrong with America so I just give you a short list:

1. Islam in America- "Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government." - Bryan Fischer, Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy
2. Religious Freedom- The AFA also believes Islam is not entitled to 1st Amendment Protection.
3. Homosexuality- Don't even know where to start on this one, but long story short: If your a company and you even LOOK at a Gay/Lesbian organization they will boycott you. Heck they even boycotted McDonalds for Christ's sake! (and yes I meant that pun intentionally)
4. Norway Massacre- While I am sure Mr. Fischer denounced the mass murder Anders Breivik's acts of violence a few weeks ago, he did admit that he believes much of what Mr. Breivik said about the problems of Europe are right, "Much of his analysis of cultural trends in Europe and the danger created by Islamic immigration and infiltration is accurate," and "Breivik’s angst was caused by the presence of so many Muslims in Norway and Europe, which he correctly observes is leading to ’cultural annihilation.’"

Not that any of this bothers most of the GOP candidates, most of whom have been on the AFA's radio shows recently.

I could go one all day about this group of bigots and filth but I digress..

So long story short, the AFA is a Christian Right group and they aren't looking to make any friends in the world, let alone America.

So the fact this group paid for Rick Perry's "The Response" pretty much sours not only the importance of this event, it also sours my opinion of Rick Perry a bit that he not only associates with such "people" but also is happy to have them pay for his day of prayer..But it gets better.

Another group sponsoring the event is the International House of Prayer (I am suddenly hungry for pancakes..), another dandy of a group whose founder Mike Bickle has stated in the past that Oprah Winfrey's tolerance and popularity is a foreshadowing of the apocalypse...I can't even make this crap up people..Read it for yourselves:

"The Harlot Babylon is preparing the nations to receive the Antichrist. The Harlot Babylon will be a religion of affirmation, toleration, no absolutes, a counterfeit justice movement. They will feed the poor, have humanitarian projects, inspire acts of compassion for all the wrong reasons. They won’t know it, beloved they will be sincere, many of them, but their sincerity will not in any way lessen the impact of their deception. The fact that they are sincere does not make their deception less damaging. I believe that one of the main pastors, as a forerunner to the Harlot movement, it’s not the Harlot movement yet, is Oprah. She is winsome, she is kind, she is reasonable, she is utterly deceived, utterly deceived. A classy woman, a cool woman, a charming woman, but has a spirit of deception and she is one of the clear pastors, forerunners to the Harlot movement." - Mike Bickle

Listen, I never much liked Oprah either but the Harlot of Babylon? Come on, next you are going to tell me Obama is the Anti-Christ! Oh wait, they did already say that? Well there goes the neighborhood.

To be fair, I made up that last part about them saying Obama was the Anti-Christ (not that I would be shocked if they did), but clearly these people are not what you would call, eh, normal church folk.

So, after all this intolerance and idiocy, where does that leave "The Response"? Personally, I think the sponsoring of this event by such bigots and outright morons is likely going to scare off a good number of political independents (and also ensure no matter how much they complain, Liberals will vote IN MASS for Obama)and hurts Perry's chances in the General Election. Sadly, I doubt the inclusion of these groups will scare enough GOP voters to keep the nomination from Rick Perry should he decide to run. The other problem with such an event is most Americans are FAR more concerned with our crippled economy than social issues and the presence of such groups could distract voters for Rick Perry's economic message.

Now to be fair, it is possible Rick Perry doesn't share all the beliefs of these two organizations and may have just sucked it up because they offered to pay for the event..But I am not so certain and until he states such, I am suddenly quite uncomfortable with Mr. Perry as "President Perry"..much more than I was before this weekend.

Deal or No Deal?

2011-08-01T14:33:00.004-05:00

Well after months of political bickering, posturing, and outright stupidity, a Debt Ceiling compromise was announced last night by President Obama that had the approval of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Speaker John Boehner. As of last night, all seemed good with the deal and that while there were complaints from both extremes of the political spectrum, the deal looked like a sure thing.

Here is a brief summary courtesy POLITICO's Jonathan Allen:

RAISES THE DEBT CEILING

President Barack Obama has a fairly easy path to getting the debt ceiling raised between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion. Initially, the debt limit is increased by $400 billion, when the president certifies that it is within $100 billion of being exceeded. An additional $500 billion cap room is created if Congress does not pass, with veto-proof majorities, a resolution disapproving of the increase sought by the president. The total up-front increase is $900 billion, assuming that there’s not enough support in Congress to stop it. Another $1.2 trillion hike occurs when the president seeks it — but that figure would rise to $1.5 trillion if a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution has been sent to the states for ratification or a level between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion if a new deficit-reduction committee’s plan is enacted and its legislation exceeds $1.2 trillion savings. The $1.2 trillion increase could be halted if Congress approves a joint resolution of disapproval, which is unlikely.

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS

The deal puts in place the annual discretionary spending caps found in the bill the Republican-controlled House passed last week worth about $917 billion in cuts over 10 years. But those caps, from $1.043 trillion in fiscal 2012 to $1.234 trillion in fiscal 2021, are now split between “security” and “non-security” spending, enforceable by across-the-board cuts. The bill defines the “security category” as ‘discretionary appropriations associated with agency budgets for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the intelligence community management account, and all budget accounts under international affairs.

THE SUPERCOMMITTEE

The top leaders in each party in each chamber would appoint three members to a 12-person joint select committee that would be charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion or more in deficit reduction. The committee would report by Nov. 23, and the bill provides for expedited floor procedures for voting in each chamber by December 23. If the committee fails to report a bill by Nov. 23 — or either house fails to act within a month after that — the committee loses its special privileges.

THE HAMMER

If Congress doesn’t act on the supercommittee recommendations — or if the new law doesn’t meet the deficit-reduction goals — new cuts based on the difference between $1.2 trillion and whatever is enacted (perhaps nothing) would go into effect. The reductions would be divided equally between security and non-security programs.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60380.html

Firstly, the "Super Committee" as it's now being called is something that should be watched VERY CAREFULLY. Shockingly, both Conservatives and Liberals are raising alarms about the creation of this Super Committee which while theoretically cuts through the red tape of Congress, it also could theoretically create a quasi-third chamber of Congress and the precedent set by its creation now could be used to justify the use of such a body in the future and logically the abuse of this committee's laid out powers to circumvent Congress.

Now not surprisingly, both Conservatives and Liberals are not altogether pleased with this deal as a whole. Liberals are upset because the possibility of cuts to welfare and domestic programs and are feel as though the President put his own re-election ahead of his principles by not demanding revenues increases in return for the cuts being proposed. Conservatives are somewhat divided by the deal because the "Twit" branch of the GOP still thinks the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised at all and more "grounded" conservatives who are glad there are no tax increases but are skeptical of the President's sudden reversal.

Now as I mentioned earlier, as of last night and early this morning, it seemed like the deal was going to get passed without much trouble (relatively). That all has changed during the day. Now there are a growing number of Republicans in both house who are not supporting the bill and even one who is hinting at filibustering the deal. Likewise, Nancy Pelosi (leader of the Democrats in the House) is making it clear that a majority of Democrats in the House will not support the bill. Combine this with the growing number of dissident GOP'ers suddenly Mr. Boehner's ability to pass the bill through the House of Representatives is now far from certain.

So for the moment, the chances of this bill making it through both houses by the deadline tomorrow is far from certain and Americans should stay tuned and send their elected officials a clear message of where they stand and make it clear that we will hold them responsible for their actions in the next 24 hours...

Reid and Boehner Proposals

2011-07-27T11:56:00.004-05:00

Here is a great link I found today comparing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House John Boehner's respective Debt-Ceiling proposals:

http://w ww.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-two-plans/2011/07/26/gIQAuNflbI_graphic.html

To Default or Not to Default...That better not be the question!

2011-07-26T21:19:00.003-05:00

Sadly folks, the debt-ceiling debate is still unresolved since I posted last and personally I am disgusted by what is going on in Washington D.C. over the past week..to the point I couldn't find the inspiration to post.

Thankfully the good people at PolitiFact don't take as much time off from posting as I do and are trying their best to sort through the bull and get to the real truth of the debt-ceiling debate.

And today they posted an article that I think is very helpful to those who want to understand the seemingly counter intuitive argument that the government will not go into default after August 2nd. In my previous post, I pointed out that Michelle Bachmann was a supporter of this belief, claiming that the government has enough revenue coming in to cover the most important payments...But there is the real flaw in the argument. There isn't nearly enough money coming in per month to cover ALL of the payments.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the government will bring in roughly $172 Billion for the month of August. At the same time, the government has $306 billion in "bills" to pay, meaning that without an increase to the debt ceiling (which allows the government to borrow money above the current $14+ trillion level) the government would be unable to pay some $134 billion for that month.

So in theory, the government could prioritize what bills get paid and what bills don't such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Pentagon Vendors, Unemployment benefits, and Interest on the Debt. Choosing to pay those bills would require the entire month of August's revenue and as such ALL other government programs will have no funds for the month of August and beyond. This includes: federal employee pay, IRS refunds, the entire Department of Justice (including the FBI), Active military duty pay, Veterans Affairs programs, Pell grants and many others.

And there lies the problem, people like Michelle Bachmann assume that the financial markets and credit lenders (who have already threatened to downgrade US credit) will be OK with the US only paying SOME of its bills as and that as long as some bills get paid the US will not technically go into "default".

Now hopefully, if the Debt Ceiling debate pushing past the August 2nd deadline, a compromise will follow sometime soon after, hopefully limiting the damage done to the United States' credit in the financial world but the damage will still be done. Now how extensive this damage will be no one truly knows but the risk of it alone should make every American stand and take notice and should a compromise not be reached in time and the financial markets tanks and creditors downgrade US credit, let us remember the idiots and twits who claimed that everything would be just fine if the debt ceiling isn't raised..Because I sure as hell will.

Finally, I would like to give all those Americans who have been calling and emailing their members of Congress this week, to the point that the switchboards are overrun with phone calls and the government's servers are crashing because of the sheer volume, a pat on the back. This flood of political participation started almost immediately after the President and Speaker's respective speeches last night and shows American are really watching this debate and want to see where their elected representatives stand on the issue and therefore are holding them accountable. Keep it up people!

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/jul/26/tom-price/georgia-republican-tom-price-says-paying-debtholde/

Updates to the Blog!

2011-07-20T19:14:00.002-05:00

Today I have added some much-needed new political links including the new Modern Whig Party website!

I also encourage those interested to visit and possibly Join one of Modern Whig Facebook groups, including the group that I personally run. I caution that my Facebook group isn't the official MWP page but is open to those of any or no political affiliation.

My Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/34271001727?id=10150262563376728&notif_t=group_activity#!/groups/34271001727?ap=1

Ron+Paul+Ad+Invokes+Reagan%2C+Imprecisely

2011-07-19T00:03:00.000-05:00

Ron + Paul + Ad + Invokes Reagan +% 2 c + Imprecisely

FactCheck caught Presidential hopeful Ron Paul stretching the truth a bit in a new ad airing here in my home state of Iowa and New Hampshire...

And to think Ron Paul claims to be a different kind of politician...Keeping dreaming people.

It's Official: Herman Cain Doesn't Deserve to Run

2011-07-17T12:19:00.006-05:00

Further proof today that Herman Cain not only isn't savvy enough for the highest office in the land, he doesn't even deserve the opportunity to run for it.

Today on FoxNews Sunday, Herman Cain was discussing Islam in America and made a serious of ignorant statements that in itself make him look like an idiot and a twit, but went even further than that.

First, Herman Cain tried to claim that because Islam in general does not separate Church as State as the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution does and as such it can be treated differently. He went as far as to say when asked by Chris Wallace whether communities had the right to tell Muslims they can't build a Mosque in their community, he claimed they had such a right.

Now first off, how a religion views the issue of Church and State is irrelevant, they are still protected under the 1st Amendment which states the Federal Government (and thanks to the 14th Amendment the respective states as well) CAN NOT infringe on the people's right to exercise their religion freely and as such have no such authority to deny Muslims their RIGHT to build a house of worship.

If that was true, communities (cities and towns) would have the ability to deny Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Sikhs, and Buddhist (just to name a few) the right to build a house of worship. Clearly to anyone who has a brain and has read the US Constitution what Herman Cain stated is blatantly false and if the man can't even understand the 1st Amendment, what makes him think he has any right to run for President?

Secondly, this incident combined with his previous statements on Muslims (in which he stated if he had the opportunity, he would never have a Muslim in his cabinet, then denied it days later and then stated again on national television before back-tracking again saying he would be "uncomfortable" having a Muslim in his cabinet), shows a clear pattern of outright ignorance of Islam and outright bigotry towards them.

Sadly, there are Americans out there who do support such a position and for those people I truly feel sorry. One should pity those who are so willing to deny one group their constitutional rights so easily without even batting an eye but in the same breath charge the government is taking away their rights. I however do not pity them, I am infuriated by them and wonder who drives such ignorance and hypocrisy..

So to Herman Cain I have only this to say, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"..

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0711/Cain_Americans_should_have_right_to_ban_mosques.html

100th Post! My Thoughts on the Debt Ceiling..

2011-07-11T22:06:00.006-05:00

What better time to discuss the debt ceiling debate then my 100th blog post?

As my readers my have noticed, I've taken a bit of break from blogging as of late, mainly because of personal stuff but I am back with a vengence, attempting to tackle the debt ceiling debate which has been going on now for several weeks and just when we thought they were getting some traction..

So for those who haven't been following the debate as closely as political wonks like myself, here is the short version:

Until this weekend, there was serious talk that President Obama and GOP House Speaker Boehner were discussing what has been called the "Big Deal" debt ceiling compromise which was to include a total of $4 Trillion in future cuts from the federal debt over the next ten years. It was to include possible entitlement reform and also an increase in income tax for some Americans. However, come this weekend, the GOP caucus made it very clear to Speaker Boehner that any tax increases would not pass the House of Representatives and as such the Speaker walked out of the meeting with the President.

Days later, Speaker Boehner made it clear that any tax increases would be part of any compromise and now is even denying they were ever on the table in the first place and this has now put the entire talks back into limbo.

Today, the President during a press conference agreed that entitlement reform would likely have to be done to help cut the federal debt but also emphasized that such cuts without tax increases would not fix our ailing economy.

A short time later, Speaker Boehner also held a press conference in which he agreed with the President that raising the debt ceiling is a must and not doing so put our fragile and barely existent recovery at risk. However he emphasized his major difference with the President: that raising taxes in a time of economic trouble is not a good idea. Speaker Boehner also made reference to suggestions of late that tax loopholes be taken out of the US tax code and by doing this and lowing corporate taxes, the tax base could be broadened and along with the proposed cuts could put the US government in better financial shape and in turn give the economy the best chance possible.

And just when you think they are only two sides to a political debate, Michelle Bachmann suggests a "third way" and what a great option it is..

Michelle Bachmann was recently released a political ad in which she promises to not vote for ANY debt ceiling bill no matter what...Even if it has Speaker Boehner's stamp of approval. Because of this rather surprising and somewhat dimwitted opinion, even Conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly had to call out the Congresswoman on her opinion of the issue. Bachmann claims that the government has enough revenue coming in to cover the immediate interest payments on the government's outstanding debt. However as FoxNews' Brit Hume pointed out on O'Reilly's show tonight, while the government does have revenue coming in, it likely won't be enough to keep from causing a major distruption worldwide and even affect government programs (he used farm subsidies here in Iowa). Bill-O's final opinion was that the debt ceiling needs to be raised because of not doing so it too great.

Personally, of the two politicians and the twit, I am finding Speaker Boehner's position the best compromise to raise the debt ceiling. While the cuts aren't as great as the "Big Deal" discussed this weekend, they are large enough that it certainly couldn't hurt the economy any worse then what the government is doing now (aka, NOTHING) and in the near future (perhaps after the 2012 election) more cuts could be made.

And while I do give the President credit for he rather abrupt U-turn when it comes to entitlement reform being part of any compromise (which is now incurring the wrath of Democrats in both houses of Congress), his change of opinion IMO suggests he is doing this more for his political survival then an actual change in belief.

And I also know the idea of raising the debt ceiling from its current $14+ trillion limit at all does make alot of people's head spin, the idea of defaulting on US debt for the first time in history should scare every American. Imagine overnight the stock market and US Dollar both racing to see who can hit the floor first..Not a nice thought is it?

But as you might have guessed, we are no closer to a compromise today then we were a week ago..Compromise may be what makes politics go 'round (at least that's what they talk me at college), it drives this American up a frickin wall!

So stayed tuned folks, after this weekend these talks could go into any number of directions and as politics usually do..It's going to get messy.

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

2011-06-30T21:51:00.003-05:00

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!

2011-06-28T19:44:00.002-05:00

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?

2011-06-23T22:33:00.005-05:00

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?

2011-06-20T21:36:00.002-05:00

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!

2011-06-18T02:13:00.003-05:00

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

2011-06-13T18:14:00.001-05:00

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..

2011-06-09T21:56:00.003-05:00

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!

2011-06-09T14:46:00.003-05:00

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

2011-06-06T19:45:00.002-05:00

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..

2011-06-03T22:33:00.003-05:00

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

2011-06-02T17:40:00.002-05:00

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/

Symbolic Debt Limit Vote Fails..

2011-05-31T23:55:00.006-05:00

The debate over whether to raise the US debt and how it should be raised have been the main focus of discussion in Washington D.C. as of late and today that debate went to a new level..sort of.

Today a vote was held in the U.S. House of Representatives to raise the Debt Limit from its current level of $14.294 trillion to $16.7 trillion with no corresponding cuts. The vote, a GOP introduced bill mind you, got only 97 "yay" votes all of which were Democrats. The vote was clearly symbolic in nature, designed to put Democrats on the stop about the issue and to try and strengthen the GOP's resolve on the issue.

The debate lately has revolved not necessarily IF the debt ceiling should be raised, but HOW it should be raised. The GOP has not set out a firm figure of how much cuts they want in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling but it is a great enough number that various reports state the GOP and Democrats are "trillions apart".

Add to that the argument made by many Democrats and the President that raising the debt ceiling is more important than how it is done and such massive cuts being asked by the GOP are holding the nation's credit hostage. However most Democrats do seem to agree that cuts will need to be made, the issue is they don't see them as being that important.

But they are dead wrong. They attempts to shift the blame to the GOP and that they are holding the US economy hostage are rather predictable and pathetic. Now most economists I have read over the last few months do agree raising the debt ceiling is necessarily and not doing so could cause a financial panic. However raising the debt ceiling with no corresponding cuts could be equally damaging in the long run.

This lack of urgency about cuts from the Democrats is not very surprising to political wonks and everyday people alike. Many Democrats belong to the camp that believes that the way to fix an ailing economy is to pump more money into it, often citing FDR's efforts during the Great Depression. However as recent history has shown, throwing money at the problem is only making the problem worse, not so much because of the amount of money used by HOW the money is used. Many of the programs Democrats support have good intentions but how they are carried out leaves the everyday man scratching his head.

So considering the looming debt that rises everyday here in the U.S., it only makes sense that if the US government plans to increase the very limit of US debt (a rather humorous idea in the first place), then it should be willing to "trim its waistline" to at the very least slow the accumulation of debt.

Now how much should be made in cuts and where such cuts should be made is something I can't answer but if the Democrats, and the President, are truly interested in dealing with the US debt problem they will need to be pretty flexible with the GOP instead of wasting their time and OUR money accusing the GOP of holding the economy hostage..I know calls for bipartisanship are often met with cynical looks and eye rolls but that doesn't change that fact that some kind of compromise is necessary..God forbid our elected representatives behave as adults!

Republican candidates should embrace their inner Teddy Roosevelt | Shadow Government

2011-05-30T22:38:00.000-05:00

Republican candidates should embrace their inner Teddy Roosevelt Shadow Government

Poll: Mitt Romney has broadest support among Republicans

2011-05-26T22:05:00.003-05:00

By DAN HIRSCHHORN 5/26/11 6:20 PM EDT Updated: 5/26/11 6:27 PM EDT

Mitt Romney is the candidate who'll be able to build a Republican coalition, but no one does better than Sarah Palin on connecting with GOP voters on social issues, according to a new Gallup poll.

Romney wins support from a wide swath of Republicans, pulling 16-18 percent regardless of whether their most important issues are government spending, the economy, national security or moral values. Palin has even stronger support among Republicans who put a premium on moral values — 23 percent of them back the former Alaska governor — but that's about the only segment of the electorate that picks her.

The poll also found former Godfather's Pizza executive Herman Cain outperforming Tim Pawlenty among all constituencies.

Government spending and power remains the most important issue for Republicans, with 36 percent identifying it as their key concern. Business and the economy follow at 31 percent, and only 15 percent of Republicans pick social issues as their most important, according to the poll.

The national survey of 971 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, conducted May 20-24, has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55805.html

My Thoughts..

This is not terribly surprising to me personally. While Romney's past political actions do seem to keep coming back to haunt him, he is the arguably the only Republican candidate currently who appeals to a majority of Republican voters. And also not shockingly, Sarah Palin is the favorite of Social Conservatives in the GOP but doesn't score well with the party as a whole. However what should not be assumed from this poll is that Romney is what many conservatives today call RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), though mark my words if Sarah Palin does run she will call him one. The man is political creature, in that when he was governor of Massachusetts he approved of what are considered liberal policies, and when he ran for President he moved a bit more to the right to appeal to the broader base of the GOP. Now whether there is something wrong with that or not is a matter of opinion. Personally such tactics are what I expect from modern American politicians and make some good sense (see Senator Scott Brown for a good comparison). It shows to me that Romney is fairly flexible which I think is a good thing for a Presidental candidate.

Now for those who haven't heard, Sarah Palin is making two big moves that are making it look very much like she is going to run for President. First, it became known that she collaberated with a conservative moviemaker to produce a film to tell the "real" story about Sarah Palin that will premier here in Iowa later this year. Secondly, she is now planning a trip across the nation, the first such move since her book was published. In my opinion, these moves (especially the movie) are designed to try and "reintroduce" Sarah Palin to America and to put her rather troubling quitting of the governorship in Alaska in the past.

As such, I am going to make a rather bold prediction..I believe the time of the Iowa Caucus early next year, these two will be the primary candidates for the GOP. Also, I guarantee the Republican primaries will get very messy and probably quite bloody. You thought the Democratic primaries were bloody, just wait til 2012..Mark my words.

MSNBC suspends Schultz

2011-05-25T18:33:00.002-05:00

Via POLITICO

MSNBC suspends Schultz for calling Ingraham a 'slut'

MSNBC has suspended Ed Schultz for one week without pay for calling Laura Ingraham a ‘right-wing slut’ on his radio program Tuesday.

“Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” MSNBC said in a statement Wednesday evening.

Schultz will address the remarks on his television show Wednesday night, and begin his leave immediately afterward, MSNBC said.

"MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpaid leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program," MSNBC said.

The Daily Caller first noted the epithet in the midst of Schultz's critique of Ingraham’s criticisms of the president’s trip to Ireland.

“And what do the Republicans thinking about?” Schultz said. “They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.”

Ingraham reponded via her Facebook page on Wednesday.

“Re. the crude comments made about me by Ed Schultz on his radio program: First, I was surprised to learn that Ed Schultz actually hosted a radio show. Is it only available online?” she wrote. “ Second, I have to get back to recording the audio edition of my new book "Of Thee I Zing." Now I'm tempted to insert one additional zing--about men who preach civility but practice misogyny.”

Feminists, not normally ones to line up behind conservative talk radio hosts, were outraged at the comment. The Women’s Media Center, the nonprofit founded by Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, sent out an alert urging MSNBC to suspend Schultz.

“While conservative bloggers and watchdog organizations are highlighting Schultz’s remark, the Women’s Media Center also calls on MSNBC to suspend Schultz for his comments, since they not only attack Ingraham, but all women,” the group wrote in an alert Wednesday, according the Daily Caller. “Ms. Ingraham is no friend to the Women’s Media Center, but a sexist and misogynist attack based on her gender and not her political views or comments is harmful to women in media, politics, and beyond.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0511/MSNBC_suspends_Schultz_for_calling_Ingraham_a_slut.html#

Personally, I don't like Ed Schultz simply because I don't find his show on MSNBC very enlightening and the man is just too angry about everything. Not to mention he is a hardcore Liberal and I am, needless to say, am not. This kind of language from Schultz is not really surprising but it is completely and wholly unnecessary. I may not like Ms. Ingraham's opinions on certain things and she does annoy me at times, there is no justification for such language. I myself occasionally call people "twits" but this not because I disagree with them so much as I think they have no clue what they are talking about. I know Ms. Ingraham generally knows what she is talking about, I just don't agree with it. As such, Schultz very much deserves this punishment and should be rather ashamed of himself for stooping to such a level. The question is, do you really think he is sorry? I think not.

Five Medicare Lessons from NY-26 Election: POLITICO

2011-05-25T16:37:00.002-05:00

By DAVID NATHER 5/25/11 4:44 PM EDT

Who would’ve thunk it? One party calls for changing the Medicare program to save money, the other party crushes them at the polls.

Democrat Kathy Hochul’s big win in the New York special election Tuesday proved that voters are not, in fact, rewarding Republicans for political bravery in backing Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. But then, they didn’t reward Democrats in 2010 for passing a health care reform law with about $500 billion in Medicare savings, either.

And yet, neither side can just leave Medicare alone forever, if they want to make an actual dent in the deficit. So here are five lessons they can learn from the New York election for the next round:

Don’t propose things that change the game for everyone. Ryan’s plan would switch everyone into a new Medicare “premium support” program — subsidizing private insurance, rather than covering seniors directly — starting in 2022. Republicans insisted that anyone age 55 or older wouldn’t be affected, but everyone else would have to go into those plans.

And Democrats have been arguing that even current seniors would lose out under the plan, because new Medicare benefits under the health care reform law — such as beefed-up prescription drug coverage and annual wellness visits — would be repealed.

Under other versions of the Medicare premium support plan — like the bipartisan deficit proposal by former Sen. Pete Domenici and former Office of Management and Budget director Alice Rivlin — seniors can go into Medicare premium support if they want, but they can also stay in traditional Medicare if they want. Making it a choice, rather than a requirement, might make Medicare premium support a bit less scary to seniors. And there are other bipartisan ideas that leave Medicare the way it is but get money out of milder changes, like making seniors pay higher cost-sharing.

Stick to bipartisan deficit plans for political cover. The deficit commission headed by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is the most well-known example, but there are others, like the Domenici-Rivlin plan. Any idea pulled from one of those plans — like higher cost-sharing for seniors — gives either Republicans or Democrats an instant political shield that can at least limit the damage. By choosing a mandatory Medicare premium support program, Ryan didn’t have that kind of cover.

Think about how it can be distorted. Political operatives from both sides are supposed to do this, but if they have, it hasn’t stopped their bosses from charging ahead. Fairly or unfairly, Democrats have been able to call the House Medicare proposal a “plan to end Medicare” because it would fundamentally change the structure of the program.

And fairly or unfairly, Republicans were able to attack Democrats last year for “cutting Medicare” because the health reform law gets about $500 billion in savings out of slowing payment increases to providers and Medicare Advantage plans. (Ryan’s plan keeps those savings, by the way.) Lesson: If your political opponent can make your plan sound that scary, think twice about it.

Pay attention to the polls. It’s not that House Republicans weren’t warned; GOP pollsters gave them plenty of warnings about the political dangers of the Ryan plan before they voted on it. Likewise, by the time Democrats took the final vote on health care reform in March 2010, they had had months of polls showing how unpopular the plan had become since the August 2009 town halls. They just decided the opposition would fade once the public learned more about the law — a prediction that, for the most part, hasn’t come true.

If you fire, the other side will probably fire back. Republicans won big with seniors in 2010 by attacking Democrats over the reform law’s Medicare cuts. How predictable was it that, this year, Democrats would attack Republicans if they put out a plan with Medicare cuts? About as predictable as politics can get.

And likewise, now that the Democrats have gotten so much mileage out of beating up on the Ryan plan — a process that will continue with the upcoming Senate vote on it — expect a sharper Republican attack against any Medicare savings plan the Democrats put out on their own. That includes Obama’s deficit reduction plan, which strengthens the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the reform law’s panel of experts who are supposed to propose more Medicare savings. Speaking on "Morning Joe" Wednesday, Ryan called it a “rationing board.” Other Republicans may be tempted to step up their attacks on “unelected bureaucrats” making medical decisions.

And that’s how the cycle will go, until one party or the other proposes a cease-fire on Medicare — which isn’t likely now until, say, 2013.

“Yes, we will be giving our political adversaries things to use against us in the next election, and shame on them if they do that,” Ryan said in April shortly before he unveiled the budget plan. But there’s plenty of shame to go around — and the biggest lesson of the N.Y. 26 race may be that shame doesn’t work as a political strategy.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55701.html

My Thoughts..

The election in NY-26 last night was, contrary to GOP statements, something of a major event. To start, the district in question has traditionally been a solid Republican area and considered a "safe bet". Then suddenly, the Democratic challenger, Kathy Hochul (a political nobody apparently) and the third party candidate, Jack Davis changed the tone of the race dramatically.

The third party candidate, Jack Davis, is arguably a winner in the election even though he didn't actually win. His victory was over the Republican party for which he was a member for most of his life until he apparently had a falling out with the party over him wishing to question former VP Dick Cheney about free trade issues. He then tried several times to challenge the GOP for the NY-26 seat running as an independent and even as a Democrat occasionally. However this year he chose to run as a Tea Party candidate against the incumbent Jane Corwin. He's main political view during the election was neither party is taking the threat from China seriously and the US free trade practices need radical change. For his efforts, he succeeded in getting some 9% of the vote, most of which would probably have gone to the GOP candidate.

But the star of the show is definitely Democrat Kathy Hochul, though calling her a "star" is something of a stretch. Ms. Hochul was something of a political nobody before the election, with her experience including being a practicing attorney and legislative aide. Combine that with the fact she is not the typical Democrat in that she stated she supported major cuts to the federal government to deal with the deficit, being largely pro-life (though not to the same degree as her fellow candidates), and opposing new and existing free trade agreements. However she does support "ObamaCare" and does not support Congressman Paul Ryan's proposal of changing Medicare which she made her primary issue.

And that was the elephant in the room of this election. There was a good deal of mud-throwing over Mr. Ryan's proposal for reforming Medicare, with the Democratic candidate using the plan (which is generally disliked according to most national polls) to beat over the GOP's head. So much so that Charles Krauthammer stated on Fox's O'Reilly Factor the other night that it was likely the election would be decided because of the "MediScare" threat.

But as many commentators have pointed out, Special Elections are not the best gauge for making political predictions. While it does make it clear the Ryan Plan does worry some and Democrats are likely to take advantage of that worry and try to make it a major issue next year. Strikingly, former President Bill Clinton today commented that while he was happy the Democrats won the seat, he did not want Democrats to copy this strategy for next year's election because of the problem of trying to scare people about the issue (hence Krauthammer's reference to MediScare).

So yes, this special election showed that the Ryan Plan is becoming something of a problem for the GOP and if they want the plan to become reality they will need to launch a major counter attack to convince voters their plan is better than the alternative. However, focusing on this single issue will not bring Democrats back to power and could possibly backfire in the long term as voters become more irritated with talk of Medicare instead of talking about fixing the economy.

Personally, I have not made up my mind on the Paul Ryan Budget proposal. To deny it is a radical plan is pretty hard but radical change will be necessary to fix the looming budget crisis. I like Bill Clinton, don't necessarily love the plan but so far I have see no real alternatives from the Democrats and many aspects of Ryan's plan are appealing to me. Regardless, the plan deserves to be studied and debated openly and publicly and not demonized for short term political gains.

Mitch Daniels won't run in 2012- POLITICO

2011-05-22T08:55:00.003-05:00

By MAGGIE HABERMAN & JENNIFER EPSTEIN 5/22/11 1:31 AM EDT Updated: 5/22/11 7:21 AM EDT

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told supporters in an email early Sunday that he will not run for president in 2012, a decision he said ultimately came down to his family's reticence about a campaign.

The announcement by the former Office of Management and Budget director and favorite of much of the Republican establishment will again roil the unsettled GOP field—and likely intensify efforts to convince another major candidate to join the race, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

"The following is from Governor Mitch Daniels…." the email began.

“I hope this reaches you before the public news does," Daniels wrote. "If so, please respect my confidence for the short time until I can make it known to all."

"The counsel and encouragement I received from important citizens like you caused me to think very deeply about becoming a national candidate. In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry."

Daniels, who had deep fundraising ties from his time in the Bush administration and his own years in Washington, went on: "If you feel that this was a non-courageous or unpatriotic decision, I understand and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. I only hope that you will accept my sincerity in the judgment I reached," he wrote.

"Many thanks for your help and input during this period of reflection. Please stay in touch if you see ways in which an obscure Midwestern governor might make a constructive contribution to the rebuilding of our economy and our Republic.”

The email, which went to a list of supporters but not the Indiana GOP's broader email list, was unusual —pols who bow out of campaigns rarely choose to announce it just after midnight on a Saturday.

But it was a reminder that Daniels has always tended to march to the beat of his own political drum, keep his own counsel and do things his own way.

Daniels's wife, Cheri, was widely known to be concerned about the impact a campaign would have on their lives, which have followed an unusual path. Cheri Daniels left her husband and their four young daughters in 1993, married a former sweetheart in California, then returned and remarried Daniels - a set of circumstances that the pair would be unable to avoid talking about in the crucible of a campaign.

In a statement to the Indianapolis Star about his decision, he highlighted the role his family played in his decision. "On matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more," he said.

He also defended his wife to the paper, saying, "The notion that Cheri ever did or would ‘abandon’ her girls or parental duty is the reverse of the truth and absurd to anyone who knows her, as I do, to be the best mother any daughter ever had."

The decision by Daniels, which he stretched on for a month past the close of the Indiana legislative session, ends a season of dithering about his 2012 intentions. His Hamlet-of-the-Heartland contortions about whether to run, combined with public statements showing something less than a fire in the belly, had started to make even his supporters uncomfortable.

The late-night move ensures Daniels's decision will be the focus of the Sunday morning talk shows - as opposed to speculation about whether he would pull the trigger on a campaign.

It also comes as Daniels is set to make a return trip to Washington, D.C. on Wednesday to headline a fundraiser for the committee where he once served as a top staffer, the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Daniels's departure from the race presents a challenge to Republican elites, many of whom are less than enthralled with the current choices in a field that includes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and, likely, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who's making his first New Hampshire sojourn and is being met with high hopes by some Republican leaders, is the latest likely entrant to the slow-forming race.

"Mitch Daniels will be missed in this presidential debate, but his message about the most immediate threat facing our nation -- this massive debt -- will not go unheard," said Huntsman in a statement to POLITICO early Sunday.

Indeed, Daniels's main call to arms was about fixing the nation's budget woes - he made a splash at the conservative confab CPAC in February when he described the United States' growing debt burden as the new "red menace."

In bowing out, Daniels joined Mike Huckabee and reality tv star and developer Donald Trump, both of whom announced they would not run in the past week. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a close Daniels friend who'd told the Indiana governor he should consider the race, also dropped out in recent weeks.

Daniels's decision would seem on the surface to benefit Pawlenty in Iowa, where he's looking to come in with solid numbers in the caucuses, and Huntsman in New Hampshire, where the former Utah governor is expected to play hard if he runs. But it also is ultimately positive for Romney, who is increasingly able to cast himself as a stronger frontrunner; his aides recently reported raising $10 million in a single fundraising "call day" from Nevada.

Still, a group of Iowa donors is set to travel to New Jersey on May 31 to meet with Gov. Chris Christie in the hopes of getting him to join the race.

Despite the build-up surrounding Daniels, he carried some baggage in a prospective campaign.

Daniels suggested last year that Republicans choose to focus on combating the country s fiscal problems before turning to issues like abortion and gay marriage. The next president, he said, would need to call for a “truce on the so-called social issues.”

The notion of a truce irked social conservatives, but attracted the attention of more moderate Republicans hoping for a candidate who could put on a good showing against President Barack Obama in 2012.

Nonetheless, in time, Daniels inched away from his proposal, by signing a bill into law earlier this month which imposed some of the nation s strictest restrictions on abortions and making Indiana the first state to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

Yet for many, Daniels figured as an ideal potential candidate: Despite his tenure as the George W. Bush's budget director, a post which Democrats would have used against him, he had budget-cutting chops of his own during two terms as Indiana's chief executive.

Daniels had made clear all along that there were really only five votes that mattered for him - his wife, and their four grown daughters.

Cheri Daniels’s reticence was well-documented. The governor told POLITICO in February that it was “safe to say” that she didn’t welcome the prospect of him running. In late March, she told the Indianapolis Star that if her husband ends up staying out of the race, the impact of a campaign on the family would “definitely be a reason.”

She shunned the spotlight for much of her husband's tenure. Her star turn at a state GOP dinner two weeks ago was, sources told POLITICO, something of a testing-the-waters appearance to see how she fared. She was well-received, but the appearance prompted a fresh round of news accounts and reporters' questions about their marital history.

Talking to reporters after the state GOP dinner, Cheri Daniels said that she wasn’t the only one in the family uncertain about agreeing to go under the microscope of a presidential campaign. "It’s not just me," she said. "I have four daughters and I have three sons-in-law and everybody has a voice.”

Speaking at the same event, her husband wasn’t much clearer about his plans. ”This whole business of running for national office I’m not saying I won’t do it,” he said. ”My friends know it’s never been any intention of mine. I’d like to go to some quiet place where nobody could find me. Like Al Gore’s cable network.”

Daniels, 62, is in his second term as Indiana governor. First elected in 2004 after spending two and a half years in the Bush administration as OMB director, Daniels built a reputation as a politician whose interests, first and foremost, are fiscal.

As governor, he worked to cut spending and balance the state’s budget, though at OMB he oversaw the shift from annual budget surpluses to a deficit of $400 billion as the Bush administration cut taxes and ramped up spending for the Iraq war.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55424.html

Newt Gingrich Campaign Fights for Its Life: POLITICO

2011-05-18T18:51:00.004-05:00

By ALEXANDER BURNS 5/18/11 4:26 AM EDT

Even his supporters predicted Newt Gingrich’s mouth might knock him out of the presidential race.

But no one thought it would happen before his first real campaign trip to Iowa.

Now, Gingrich is urgently struggling to convince the political class that his 2012 hopes aren’t dead, amid an unending barrage of Republican attacks over his comments on the House GOP’s proposed Medicare overhaul.

Gingrich finally seemed to realize the seriousness of his political plight Tuesday, when he held three conference calls, made a personal apology to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and admitted in a Fox News appearance: “I made a mistake.”

“The fact is that I have supported what Ryan’s trying to do on the budget,” Gingrich told Greta Van Susteren. “The budget vote is one that I am happy to say I would have voted for.”

It’s not clear whether that course correction has come too late. Before Gingrich’s evening mea culpa, there were growing signs that his gaffe – undermining his own party by calling Ryan’s much-touted Medicare plan too “radical” to become law on NBC’s “Meet the Press” – had already dealt him a near-fatal blow.

For two days, his team seemed flat-footed in response to a spiraling political crisis. The chorus of voices criticizing the former House speaker has only grown louder, drawing in Republicans as prominent as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

“Many have said now he’s finished,” Cantor said in a radio interview, stopping short of endorsing that analysis but calling Gingrich’s comments “a tremendous misspeak.”

Perhaps most tellingly, not a single prominent Republican has rallied to Gingrich’s defense – a testament to the regard in which Gingrich is held by much of the Beltway GOP establishment.

For a host of party leaders, Gingrich seems to have proven with astonishing speed that he deserves his reputation as an undisciplined, self-destructive, shoot-from-the-lip politician. His flair for provocative rhetoric, combined with his desire to make loftier political points, might make him too combustible for the presidential campaign trail.

“The problem for Newt is, this is exactly what everybody who has ever worked for or around him said was his basic problem,” said Rich Galen, the veteran Republican strategist and former Gingrich aide. “Sooner or later, I suspect, unfortunately, the campaign will collapse from the top because people are going to say, ‘I love him and he’s really smart, but he can’t be president.’”

The campaign, Galen added, is “close to being functionally over.”

Gingrich supporters object that it’s far too early to count him out. The former Georgia congressman has come back from the brink of political death before, and there’s still time for him to recover in the slow-starting presidential race.

The candidate himself sounded a defiant note on Fox Tuesday night, largely blaming the media for his woes and vowing not to participate in any more “gotcha games.” Gingrich also refused to answer a question about a POLITICO report that he and his wife, Callista, amassed up to $500,000 in debt at Tiffany’s.

“If it doesn’t relate to solving our problems, from now on my answer’s going to be, ‘I’m not commenting on it,’” Gingrich said. “I’m not playing Trivial Pursuit.”

Gingrich has faced questions about his stance on the Ryan budget during his trip this week to Iowa, where advisers expressed optimism that he’s persuading voters his remarks were taken out of context.

“Newt’s done a great job explaining, ‘Hey, Paul Ryan is a friend of mine. The budget he put together was’ – I think he used the word ‘courageous’ – ‘in getting out there and starting the conversation,’” said Craig Schoenfeld, an attorney and former George W. Bush organizer in the Gingrich camp. “Once folks have actually had a chance to question him, and then interact and hear more than you’re ever going to get in a 30-second sound bite, they say, ‘Ok, that makes sense.’”

Back in Washington, party leaders aren’t quite so convinced.

While Gingrich expressed regret for some of the language he used on “Meet the Press,” neither he nor his advisers backed away from his basic message about Ryan’s budget: it’s a political loser that’s dead on arrival in the Senate.

“In terms of the underlying advice, I think Newt Gingrich would love to help Paul Ryan get it done and I think Newt Gingrich is the only person who’s uniquely qualified, with a track record to get it done,” spokesman Rick Tyler said. “What we want to do is design a campaign that gets the country in a conversation, understanding what’s at stake and how to fix it.”

That attitude is bound to frustrate congressional Republicans, who are in no mood to take legislative advice from a man who launched a thousand Democratic attacks by casually dropping terms like “radical” and “right-wing social engineering.”

Gingrich vowed to call out any Democratic campaign commercial that “quotes what I said on Sunday,” but much of the damage is already done.

Republicans are already fretting about the prospect that backlash over Ryan’s budget could help cost them a special House election next week in New York. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee seized on Gingrich’s remarks in a flurry of press releases Tuesday saying that “even Newt Gingrich” believed Ryan’s plan was out of the mainstream.

To Republicans looking to protect their House majority and run as the party of fiscal responsibility in 2012, it’s an almost unpardonable offense to give that kind of ad copy to the opposition party.

“It’s the characterization of social engineering and radicalism” that’s so objectionable, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and a former economic adviser to John McCain. “He didn’t say, as the president did, ‘I respect this as a serious proposal. I would have preferred X, Y and Z.’”

Holtz-Eakin, who is neutral in the 2012 race, added that the blowback against Gingrich is “also personal.”

“It’s Newt, with his reputation as a policy loose cannon, a guy that’s got 11 good ideas for every 6,000 that he’s thought of,” he explained. “All of that came back.”

That, Republicans say, is the part of this week’s imbroglio that will be hardest for Gingrich to undo.

“It’s clear to me that he did not want to be identified with all of the solutions of the Ryan plan. The words he chose certainly shot a message across the bow,” said former New York Rep. Tom Reynolds. “Conservatives in Congress, as well as conservatives across the country, will take a close look at why Newt said what he did. And I’m sure Paul Ryan isn’t the only person disappointed in the choice of words Newt used.”

The news cycle will move on and the policy debate will shift to other topics. And if Republicans start to suffer more obviously with voters thanks to the focus on Ryan, Gingrich could actually look prescient.

But even under those circumstances, Republicans say, it will be difficult to shake the fear that Gingrich will never really be a team player – or to overlook what Galen called Gingrich’s “disdain or intellectual superiority about how you’re going to run for something.”

“I just don’t think he cares,” Galen said of Gingrich. “I think Newt is going to say what he wants to say.”

Mike Allen contributed to this report.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55187.html

Long story short..Mr. Gingrich quite literally shot himself in the foot REPEATEDLY this weekend as far as the GOP is concerned. First he rather broadly referred to Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan "Social engineering", though he claims this was taken out of context, which is rubbish if you watched the full interview. Secondly, he advocated a reform of the health care system that is hated by the GOP and even some Democrats (not to mention many independents such as myself): the Individual Mandate. Ever since he has been walking back these comments as either "mistakes" or "miss-understandings". Contrary to his aides' claims, these explanations have not gone over well and many on both Fox News and MSNBC are predicting Newt's chances are now slim to none and should just bow out now...

Personally I don't mind Mr. Gingrich but as of late his statements have come off like he was grasping for attention..Well Newt you have definitely succeeded on that front! Be careful what you wish for Mr. Gingrich..

Rick Santorum: John McCain Doesn't Understand..

2011-05-17T15:17:00.003-05:00

By JUANA SUMMERS 5/17/11 2:24 PM EDT Updated: 5/17/11 4:07 PM EDT

Rick Santorum said Tuesday that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works."

Speaking on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Santorum, the presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania senator, says McCain is misguided in his stance against the enhanced interrogation techniques sanctioned during the Bush administration but discontinued by Obama's White House, which has labeled them torture.

“Everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation,” Santorum said, referring to the courier that led Americans to Osama bin Laden. “And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative.”

With the torture debate reignited by bin Laden's death, McCain has argued that enhanced interrogation did not lead the United States to the terror leader, and that his death should not be used to justify past use of techniques like water boarding. Last week, McCain took to the Washington Post’s op-ed page, saying that techniques like water boarding have no place in American interrogation policies.

In a statement to POLITICO after publication of this article, Santorum emphasized said his comments shouldn't be taken as an insult to McCain's service.

“I disagree with Senator McCain’s view that the enhanced interrogation techniques used on a select few high-value terrorist detainees were unsuccessful nor do I believe they amounted to torture," he said. "For anyone to infer my disagreement with Senator McCain’s policy position lessens my respect for his service to our country and all he had to endure is outrageous and unfortunate.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55140.html

My take on this..While Rick Santorum states he respects John McCain's military service and sacrifice, he certainly has a funny way of showing it. As far as I am concerned there is no one is the US government more qualified to say what is torture and what isn't than John McCain considering what he went through during the Vietnam War. In that war and many others before it (including World War II), water boarding has been used by the enemy against American POWs and as such the US government considered it torture..until recent years when it suddenly became "enhanced interrogation". So this argument as to whether water boarding is torture or not is really no argument at all and simply a casualty of the political battlefield.

The only issue at hand is "does the ends justify the means", as in if these "enhanced interrogation" tactics do sometimes provide valid intelligence (as some suggest it did with the locating and killing of Osama bin Laden) does that justify the tactics? For that question I have no answer..but it is a good one.

Mitt Romney: No Apologies

2011-05-12T14:30:00.000-05:00

Article courtesy of POLITICO:

By KASIE HUNT 5/12/11 3:09 PM EDT

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Mitt Romney offered no apologies and instead delivered a full-throated defense of his Massachusetts health care plan Thursday in a much-anticipated health care policy presentation at the University of Michigan.

“I recognize that a lot pundits around the nation are saying that I should just stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake, that this was a boneheaded idea, and I should just admit it: it was a mistake, and walk away. I presume that a lot of folks think that if I did that it would be good for me politically, ” Romney said as he flipped through slides of a PowerPoint presentation he prepared himself. “There’s only one problem with that: it wouldn’t be honest.”

Drawing distinctions between the plan he signed as governor of Massachusetts — which now stands as a serious obstacle to his prospective 2012 presidential candidacy — and President Obama’s sweeping national overhaul, Romney argued that the “administration fundamentally does not believe in the American experiment.”

“They fundamentally distrust free enterprise,” Romney said.

In discussing the Massachusetts system in the beginning of his presentation, he relied on arguments he’s made before to defend the individual mandate included in his state’s plan— it keeps people from taking advantage of taxpayers by receiving free care at emergency rooms.

Romney insisted there are deep philosophical differences between how he would govern and how the Obama administration has conducted business the past two years.

“I in fact did what I thought was right for the people of my state,” Romney said as an audience of students, medical professionals and reporters looked on. “And I’m going to strive to do now, what I think would be right for the people of the United States.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54863.html#ixzz1MARt1ZHW

Regardless of what you think of Mr. Romney, I give him kudos for not backing down from his previous actions as many in the GOP wish him to do. It's unlikely the "RomneyCare" issue is dead but his defiant stance will wins him support from those looking for someone unwilling to chance their stances just because it is politically easier..Especially considering Romney's previous changes in positions. It's good to know he is confident and firm on something.

NLRB vs Boeing

2011-05-11T23:53:00.000-05:00

First, I would like to point out I am not expert on National Labor laws and this piece is purely my review of the issue and my opinion based on both statements made by the backers of Boeing and the National Labor Relation Board's actual full complaint.

First some background on the issue at hand. Boeing, one of the largest aerospace companies in the world, has traditionally built its airliners in the state of Washington. However recently they began to construct a secondary production line for their fastest selling aircraft the Boeing 787 in Charleston, South Carolina.

Another part of this issue is so-called "Right to Work" states. These states (including my home state of Iowa) allows workers to not be members of a Union should they choose not to, putting it rather simply. South Carolina is such a state while Washington is a union labor state.

What started this is that the workers unions that operate at Boeing's production facilities in Oregon accused Boeing to building the secondary production line in a non-union state in retaliation for previous strikes by union workers in recent years (two strikes in the last five years).

Boeing on the other hand has stated their opening of another production plant had more to do with keeping up with production orders (over 800 Boeing 787s on order currently) and had not only added the thousands of new jobs that the Charleston plant still under construction (nearly completed) but was also adding jobs in Washington as well.

However, statements made by Boeing officials have raised suspicion about their true intentions to set up a new production line in S. Carolina. Here is a quote from a senior Boeing official taken from the Seattle Times newspaper:

"The overriding factor (in transferring the line) was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years."

Now at issue is a section of the National Labor Relations Act, Section 8(a) that states:
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization"

Now, the Supreme Court and the NLRB have in the past ruled that employers can make public statements that raising the possibility of unionization, and the possibility of future strikes might harm relations with customers. However the two bodies have ruled that employers can not predict any such harm in customers without any factual basis.

As such, the Boeing official's statements that the move to S.Carolina was not necessarily business related as it was that setting up a production line there would be less harmful to their bottom line since the threat of future strikes does not exist there as it does in Oregon.

Now whether this statement is a violation of the particular section of the National Labor Relations Act I am not certain. While I did take my fair share of "Legal Eagle" classes in college, this one is a bit out of my league to make a legal opinion.

However I will comment on what politicians have made of this debate so far. The GOP has largely sided with Boeing and stating that the NLRB is trying to shut down the plant in S.Carolina and deprive the good people of that state of thousands of jobs. They also accuse the President of supporting the NLRB's actions to appease his union base. For the record the President has made no comments on the issue other than through the Press Secretary who stated the issues was that of an independent agency outside of the President's control.

Now firstly, I have found no evidence the NLRB wishes Boeing to not open their plant in S.Carolina and have currently made no decision on the subject. They have for the moment taken the complaint of the union workers and have referred the issue to the full board for a decision or mediation. Should the NLRB find against Boeing, they could then take it up with the US Supreme Court.

When it comes to how much control the President has in this situation, he is right that he has no direct control of the NLRB. His only power over them is he gets to pick their members which then have to be approved by the Senate (which the GOP are threatening to block should they come up). However he does have some unofficial influence as all President's do over such agencies and indeed his inaction could be seen by American labor unions as a victory.

Regardless of the politics surrounding this issue, the opening of a new plant for the Boeing 787 is a good thing for the nation and as such I hope the two parties can come to some sort of accord and not create a long and protracted legal battle that will put thousands of much needed manufacturing jobs in limbo over some confusing legal wording. Let's hope for the best.

For reference here is the actual NLRB Complaint factsheet detailing the complaint, the sections under review and previous legal rulings on the subject.

http://www.nlrb.gov/node/443

Glenn Beck is a Bastard

2011-05-11T20:36:00.000-05:00

I have made it no secret in previous blogs that I am not fan of Glenn Beck, not just because of the crap he says but because I know he couldn't survive a week without talking on TV or Radio so he can hear his own voice..However I do respect the man for his own opinions (which he is of course entitled to) and give him kudos for gaining as much success as he has in a short amount of time..but today he has once again shown us that he is still a bastard.

On his radio show today, Beck spent some 8 minutes pretending to vomit over seeing a PSA for Skin Cancer awareness that included Meghan McCain (daughter of Senator John McCain). The reason, he claims is that she is apparently naked in the video. However Mr. Beck is wrong. Several days ago Ms. McCain tweeted that she had just done the PSA and told her followers that no doubt people in D.C. would make a stink of it because he wore a tube top that bared her shoulders...her shoulders for God sake! Oh the humanity! What has this nation come to??

Here is said tweet from Yesterday:
Meghan McCain
Pundits in DC can calm themselves. I filmed a skin cancer PSA in a strapless juicy tube dress. All you can see is my collar bone.
10 May

http://twitter.com/#!/McCainBlogette/status/68071207936868352

Obviously I am being sarcastic but Mr. Beck mockery of her alone is not all that newsworthy since he has on many occasions been ridiculed by Conservatives on the internet for being all beauty and no brains. However what makes what Mr. Beck did today so much more angering and disgusting is that fact that he is making fun of a Skin Cancer PSA that Ms. McCain was participating in..a Skin Cancer PSA for Christ's sake!

I have in the past mocked some liberals for saying Glenn Beck is evil and is corrupting American simply because no one man can do such a thing, no matter how hard some may try. However when he mocks someone because of some perceived flaw in her appearance (which is crap) while said person is in a PSA for Skin cancer awareness...I am simply disgusted. Either the man is simply an ass..or worse still he is doing this because he hasn't been in the news much lately. God only knows..but I do know this..The Man is a Bastard.

Iowan's Opinion: Ron Paul, get serious!

2011-05-10T17:22:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul left behind more than a few peeling campaign stickers in Iowa when his 2008 presidential campaign closed. He left a small but loyal cadre of supporters, who are prodding the candidate to increase his presence in the state this time around.

Paul’s scheduled opening Tuesday of an exploratory campaign office in Iowa marks a far earlier start in the caucus state than the Texas congressman made in the 2008 campaign cycle. In his last presidential run, Paul didn’t open an Iowa headquarters until August 2007 – just a few days before the state Republican Party’s straw poll. He attributes the earlier move toward the formal trappings of a campaign to one thing: his supporters.

“I think it’s because of the pressure I’m getting from some enthusiastic supporters who want to get moving,” Paul said in a telephone interview on Monday. “I haven’t even had the final, official announcement and they said, well, the exploratory committee has to have an office too, you know.”

A.J. Spiker of Ames, a supporter of Paul’s and a member of the Iowa Republican State Central Committee, said it’s “definitely happening” that supporters are pushing Paul to move earlier. “Ron Paul is bringing in money much earlier than he did in 2008,” Spiker said. “In 2008, the money didn’t start to flow until it was real late in the campaign.”

Paul came in fifth in the Iowa GOP straw poll and also placed fifth in the January 2008 caucuses. But he didn’t really ramp up a campaign presence in Iowa until early fall, which was far too late. I thought at the time that he could have improved his standing in Iowa had he spent more time here and built a stronger organization aimed at turning out supporters on caucus night.

Paul doesn’t disagree with that assessment. “Maybe those supporters out there share that and that’s why they’re pressuring me into doing more,” he said. Paul has a lot more going for him than he did in 2008.

In a CNN poll last week, he came the closest of any GOP candidate in a hypothetical matchup against President Barack Obama, trailing by 7 percentage points. His call to limit the federal government to a strict reading of the Constitution is widely credited with launching the tea party movement. His message on the deficit and debt has widespread support among mainstream Republicans. And his non-interventionist foreign policy attracts some progressives who are unhappy with Obama’s ramping up of troop levels in Afghanistan.

Here in Iowa, the Campaign for Liberty has maintained a presence for Paul supporters since 2008. Spiker is one of three members who also serve on the state central committee.

Some mainstream Republican leaders credit the almost cult-like adoration of his supporters but say his libertarian social views will prevent him from expanding his base here. Legalizing drugs, for example, is not a popular view among Iowa conservatives. They may be right – unless Paul succeeds in building the sort of campaign that can bring new people into the caucus process.

Paul’s appeal to young voters, disaffected Democrats and caucus virgins could help him claim a coveted spot in the top three caucus finishers. But turning out those usually marginal supporters requires serious organizational muscle. His supporters are right to push Paul for an earlier and more robust campaign commitment.

But the fact that they are having to prod Paul is worrisome. He describes himself as a “reluctant” candidate who’s generally taken a laissez-faire view of campaign organization. His supporters can give him a good start, but he’ll need to bring the fire in the belly and hands-on leadership necessary to finish the job.

Kathie Obradovich is a political columnist for the Des Moines Register. The Des Moines Register and POLITICO are sharing content for the 2012 presidential campaign cycle.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54668.html

Today in Iowa..

2011-05-09T17:24:00.005-05:00

From time to time I do like to tell my readers of political issues in my home state of Iowa and today something caught my eye that I think should be shared to those both in Iowa and beyond.

This article, written by a contributor of the Public Interest Institute, is discussing whether the three major state colleges here in Iowa are restricting the Free Speech rights of their student bodies.

Before we get to that, a little background information is in order. The Public Interest Institute is an organization in Iowa that regularly publishes articles discussing not only political issues here in Iowa but also issues from across the nation. They are not particularly partisan group in my opinion, since they largely focus on issues of Limited Government both on the Federal level and at the State level. I don't always agree with the opinions their contributors but I do find their organisation to be a good one, especially for political wonks such as myself!

“Congress shall make no Law…”
By Deborah D. Thornton
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Having the right to Freedom of Speech, as codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is fundamental to being American. Yet on our college campuses, places where scholars would argue that freedom of speech should be most fully exercised, freedom of speech is often most limited.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a non-profit, non-partisan organization, defends and sustains “individual rights at America’s colleges and universities.” The “core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.”1 Their analysis of speech codes and free speech limitations at 390 colleges and universities nationwide shows that 67 percent have policies which “seriously infringe” on students’ free speech rights.2
FIRE has awarded all three of the Regent schools, the University of Iowa (U of I), Iowa State University (ISU), and the University of Northern Iowa (UNI), “Red-Light” characterizations for their policies limiting free speech on campus.3

A college earns a red-light ranking by having at least one policy that “both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech” by “unambiguously” infringing on “protected expression.”4 Examples of areas where the Regent schools have earned “red” rankings include their harassment and Internet usage policies. Both ISU and the U of I have earned “yellow” rankings for their establishment and use of “Free Speech Zones.” The problem with official Free-Speech Zones is that by definition free speech is prohibited in all places on campus that are outside of the free speech zone.

However, the students at ISU in Ames are working aggressively to overturn this policy and to advocate for their free-speech rights on campus by circulating a petition calling for the elimination of the free-speech zones.5 The students cite the four-part Supreme Court standard for restraint of free speech, including the requirements that the government “narrowly tailor” any limitations, prove the necessity of prior restraint, and that restrictions be both content and viewpoint neutral. The petition argues that this is not the case on the ISU campus because most limitations specifically apply to religious or political speech and that by establishing free-speech zones the administration is in effect broadly limiting speech.

On Thursday, April 7, students at ISU held the eighth annual “First Amendment Day” rally. It featured Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, Joe Mahr, from the Chicago Tribune, speaking on “Watchdog Journalism in the 21st Century.” They planted a “Liberty Tree” in a ceremony attended by Provost Elizabeth Hoffman. There were also old-fashioned soapbox debates, where students spoke on public policy topics of interest to them, declaiming their opinions and debating with all comers.6
Adam Kissel, Vice President of Programs for FIRE, who spoke at First Amendment Day, said the response to free speech which one does not like or does not agree with is not the limiting of that speech, but “more speech, better speech.” Kissel advocated for increased public discourse on controversial topics and for all Americans, not just students, to read, research, and learn about topics that interest them. He further argued that in effect, more Americans need to grow backbones and defend themselves – not trust the government and speech codes against such things as “hate speech” and “harassment” speech. Interestingly, this was just the week before the free speech problems at the University of Iowa.

As examples of poorly crafted policies he noted that the ISU harassment policy prohibits repeated “unwelcome flirting” and inappropriate “put-downs” without clearly defining what might constitute these behaviors. The U of I prohibits “staring” as part of their sexual harassment policy, as well as “unwanted” statements about one’s clothing or personal life. In the area of internet policy, the prohibition of unwanted “junk” or advertising emails by ISU is considered a “yellow” light issue, while at UNI there are specific prohibitions against unwelcome communications such as chain letters, earning them a “red-light” designation. While many people find chain letters annoying – the free-speech response is not for the school or government to prohibit them, but for the receiver to tell the person to stop, put the sender’s e-mail address in their spam folder, and to not open them.

One issue on university campuses is that the student is generally under the control of the university on a 24/7 basis. The student eats, sleeps, studies, and works in a situation where these policies have the potential to impact their life at all times, both on campus and off.

According to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) the First Amendment ensures that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Deborah D. Thornton is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute, Mount Pleasant, Iowa.

Permission to reprint or copy in whole or part is granted, provided a version of this credit line is used:
"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/brf18-14.pdf

Obama's Birth Certificate..Published!

2011-04-27T16:15:00.003-05:00

Possibly the biggest political news today has been President Obama finally releasing his actual Birth Certificate (as opposed to the Certificate of Live Birth he has previously showed).

Now I personally was actually holding a bet that Obama would do so before the 2012 Presidential campaign trully started largely because of recent increased interest in the supposed controversy. Now I used the term "supposed" because I never saw this as a real controversy in the first place and I find birthers to be just as worthless in terms of the oxygen they waste as so-called "truthers" who believe the US either knew about or committed the atrocities of September 11th.

But enough about those political bottomfeeders, back to issue at hand.

Not shockingly, Donald Trump has claimed full credit for getting the President to release his actual Birth Certificate and to be fair he does likely get some credit. However I also think that now that this issue is gone Trump's political livelihood will largely cease to exist and now nobody will care much about what he says since nothing he talks about publically will ever get as much attention as the birth certificate issue.

And as you might expect there are those who are saying the President should have done this along time ago and those who said he shouldn't have released it at all since it only feed the birthers instead of starving them. And there is already hints of that since many birthers have already claimed the birth certificate released today is a fake..

Personally I think the President should have just released this back in the 2008 campaign instead of the Certificate of Live Birth he released though as Hawaiian officials have stated over and over that they are legally interchangable. Now whether they are legally interchangable on a nationally level is something strictly up to the State Department who is incharge of such things.

Regardless, I am glad the President finally realised it. I am also willing to personally thank Donald Trump for his statements of support when the birth certificate was released because he could have simply said it was faked and could have rode the issue all the way but instead give the President credit for his actions.

And finally, for your viewing pleasure I give you Barack Hussein Obama Jr's actual Birth Certificate:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Survey Says!

2011-04-16T18:10:00.007-05:00

Today I have read through a rather interesting survey published by the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on the political opinions of likely American voters on a wide variety of topics in the news as of late. This includes the likely voters opinions of political groups, politicians, and current legislative proposals (Including Congressman Ryan's budget plan for the next decade). It also includes a Presidential poll including many possible candidates for the 2012 election. I encourage you readers to read through the whole report and make your own conclusions (since no poll is perfect nor trully unbiased). Happy reading!

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2011/04/paul-ryan-to-seniors-drop-dead/

Scroll to the bottom and click on the Frequency Questionare.

Michele Bachmann...Is a Twit

2011-04-12T00:04:00.008-05:00

Those who follow politics and the unfortunate residents of my home state of Iowa know, Michele Bachmann is clearly exploring the option of running for president in 2012. I say my fellow Iowans are unfortunate for two prime reasons..

Firstly, Michele Bachmann was born in Iowa, a fact she has been telling anyone who will listen for the past month or so. This may indeed give her something of an advantage when the Iowa Caucus comes around next year..

Secondly, because Iowa is the first in the nation to hold a vote (though not the first in the nation primary of course) politics are a bit in your face whether you want it or not so president hopefuls are seemingly always here and it annoys a great many Iowans (including myself from time to time even though I am a political wonk). Now for any number of reasons, I will freely admit I strongly dislike Ms. Bachmann both for her political views and her closeness to possibly the most disgraceful and worthless Iowa politician of all time, Steve King (thankfully not my congressman). A recent example of her complete lack of political wit (or any wit at all for that matter) was in a recent event she hosted her in Iowa.

Just yesterday Ms. Bachmann was in Iowa City and giving the usual "Obama is a communist, and the she would never have supported a conflict in Libya, and his Health care plan will kill us all" speech. Towards the end of her speech she uttered something that struck me and shows yet again that from a foreign policy viewpoint she is unequivocally incompetent.. She stated that while former Egyptian President Mubarak "wasn't perfect", he was a good friend to the United States in the region and that the President should have supported him and because Obama didn't Mubarak fell and the country is prime for an Islamist takeover (via POLITICO).

Mubarak "wasn't perfect" could be the understatement of the year. He was a dictator plain and simple. He was never elected by the Egyptian people, under his rule all independent political movements were outlawed, his own people lived in fear of his dreaded Interior ministry and he was rumored to be grooming his own son to take over for him..Sounds a bit more than "wasn't perfect" to me..or any other human being with half a brain. More importantly she claims this absurb belief held by many on the political Right that President Obama has now properly used his power when it comes to such events in the Middle East during his presidency. My question to Ms. Bachmann is quite simple..What should President Obama had done instead? Should he have sent in the Marines and put down the protests ourselves? Now if the US had fully supported Mubarak against the protests and simply called on him to push some reforms (as we are doing with the Bahrain's royal family who are using foreign troops to hold back protests), it is quite possible that Mubarak would still be in power but for how much longer? The fact the protests happened and spread like they did could not have been stopped by anyone, certainly not President Obama. US support would have only delayed the inevitable.

Not to mention most 'experts' on the region generally agree the President handled the situation in Egypt as well as one could hope for considering the circumstances with Mubarak stepping down and a military back provisionally government taking over and with a successful nationwide referendum under this belt that set the stage for parliamentary and presidential elections later this year (though many claim that is too soon).

So either Ms. Bachmann thinks President Obama should have supported a hated dictator against his own people whether that be in the form of public support or more overt actions..Or She is just a massive idiot. Sad thing is, I am not sure which would be worse...Voters beware. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52976.html

Shut Down Seems Imminent..

2011-04-06T22:39:00.008-05:00

For those watching the news the last few days will know that the likelihood of a government shutdown, the first in 15 years, is very high. As I type this the budget talks are ongoing but a breakthrough is looking more and more unlikely all the time..So what is the real risk of a government shutdown?

Here is a short and brief list of the major effects of a government shutdown:

The majority of government workers will be sent home without pay (with many unlikely to receive back-pay when the government re-opens).

If you have recently filed your federal tax return its possible your tax refund will be delayed in its delivery.

The nations many National parks and other government run facilities (like the Smithsonian) will also be closed to the public as the employees that work at these places will be sent home.

If you have recently applied for Social Security, your payments could be delayed, though current recipients will likely still receive payments.

Finally, the most troubling and angering to me, military personnel will not be paid for the time they serve during the government shutdown regardless as to whether they are here at home or in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So because the nations two political forces, Democrats and Republicans, can't agree on a budget to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (just 6 months mind you), our fighting men and women will have to go without pay...Do that make any sense to anyone?

And as expected, both the GOP and the Democrats are blaming each other for the seemingly imminent shutdown and there is plenty of blame to do around.

First, the Democrats failed to pay a Federal budget for 2011, instead deciding to leave that fun political chore to the new GOP-controlled House of Representatives (which such bills have to be started).

Secondly, the GOP asked for some $100 billion in cuts which has been referred to by Democrats are unacceptable and would be detrimental to the fragile US economy.

Thirdly, President Obama has been almost completely uninvolved in the whole process other than hosting the budget talks this week and scolding both sides for not getting the budget done.

However yesterday, the President surprised when commentators when you appeared unannounced to the routine White House Press Briefing to discuss the budget talks. Now for the record I think his statements were mostly right on. One point he made that rang very true was that regardless of the blame game we see in Washington D.C. right now, the American people will likely blame both sides for any ill effects of the shutdown so pointing figures is pointless. He also made a good point that the GOP bill passed by the House that would give them a few more weeks for negotiation is no way to run a government and the time for short term solutions is over.

But the President seems to forget his role in this budget crisis. Regardless of whether he wishes to actively participate in the talks or not, his actions (or in this case inaction) will be judged by the American people and for the moment it doesn't look like he will fair well if a shutdown does happen. The President hosting the talks is hardly a real sign of leadership and just looks like a show for the press. The President has just as much to loss from a shutdown as the GOP and he had better figure that our sooner rather than later or he will quickly find himself having to justify his inaction next year and I don't see how he will be able to excuse it away...

Has Obama Flip-Flopped with Libyan "Intervention"?

2011-04-04T14:22:00.003-05:00

This question was recently asked by those at the fact-check website Politifact.com and I think their analysis is spot on..Read it and draw your own conclusions! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/barack-obama/barack-obamas-libya-intervention-flip-flop-what-he/

Crazy but True..

2011-03-15T02:01:00.001-05:00

Busted: Scott Walker fell for Prankster posing as David Koch

2011-02-23T13:14:00.000-06:00

Busted: Scott Walker fell for Prankster posing as David Koch

Regardless of how you might feel about the huge labor fight going on in Wisconsin, it is always interesting to better understand some of the players in this fight.

Now apparently, someone called Wisc. Governor Scott Walker claiming to be David Koch (he and his brother are billionares who are often talked about on MSNBC primetimes shows for being the real force behind the Tea Party and for generally just being evil) and chatted with the governor for a good while about the situation in Wisconsin. Thing is..the guy wasn't David Koch.

Now I am always skeptical of such things, because its possible this isn't really Governor Walker but after watching some speeches of his I'd say it sure sounds like him and considering the details he talks about I'd say it is him. If so, this prank phone call could be big news. Because while most of things he talks about he has already talked about publically there are some things he talks about that are a bit more questionable.

The thing that really strikes me is how long he talks to this imposter (Walker doing the vast majority of the talking) and regardless of whether you like the man or not one thing becomes very clear from listening to these recordings...He really likes to hear himself talk.

I encourage you to listen to both recordings, then do some reading up on Governor Walker and the Koch brothers and draw your own conclusions.

Tragedy in Tucson...

2011-01-10T14:07:00.002-06:00

To go without saying, my prayers and thoughts have been and remained with all the victims of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona days ago. I admit that I am not often surprised or shocked by most incidents in the world including violent acts but this act of terror and senseless murder against a sitting Congresswoman and everyday people has been shocked and angered me. I am angered not simply by this evil act but by the reactions of some people, both high profile and everyday persons. They range from finger-pointing to outright disinterest and lack of care in the terrible act that occurred that day.

The shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, is truly a sorry excuse for a human being and should be forever remembered as cowardly and evil little man whose only achievement in life is the killing of innocent Americans who were observing one of their most basic rights as citizens as to meet and speak with their elected member of Congress. No matter what his reasoning or motive there is no excuse or justification for this most heinous act of violence...

Possibly more troubling than the actions of the shooter are the reactions I have gotten from talking about this with others. The vast majority were as you would expect, sadden and disturbed by this act. However, a small number I have spoken to or listen to in the last few days have troubled and angered me greatly.

From watching MSNBC or other Liberal media sources, you would notice that many people, both commentators, politicians, and ordinary people are already putting the blame of this attack on the "Right wing" fringe of American politics and even the Tea Party movement itself. And while it is plausible to connect fiery partisan rhetoric from conservative politicians or commentators to such actions, it is a very short-sighted and erroneous connection. I will leave the issue of responsibility and harsh partisan rhetoric for another day because from what I have seen there is little evidence to suggest this is the 'cause' of the shooting. From what has been released so far this disturbed man's political beliefs are all over the spectrum. According to people that knew him and things he has published online, He is: Anti-religion, Anti-abortion, pro-gold standard, and overall anti-government. He listed some of his favorite books that include "Mein Kampf" (Rightist), "Communist Manifesto" (Leftist), "We the Living" (Anti-communist), and others. From what I can tell this young man's political beliefs are hardly typical of a Liberal or Conservative and were all over the map which is not surprising knowing how disturbed this man is. So the idea of this attack being motivated or caused solely by either major political belief seems hardly true.

But the most troubling conversation I have had in recent days was of a different kind entirely. Instead of blaming "the Right" for helping to create such a troubled man as others have done, this person blamed the victims. This person had not seen the news and I gave him the information I had about who was shot and how many and what little information was known of the shooter at the time. What was this mans reaction? "Was she a Republican or Democrat?"....I honestly can't described how disgusted and angry I felt after hearing such a stupid, irrelevant, and heartless question. It should make no difference if Mrs. Giffords was a Republican or Democrat, violence against any politician is terrible and has no place in our society. I then mentioned the deaths of the Federal judge and young girl to this person. His response was that it was a shame a young girl was killed but the death of the Federal judge didn't bother him at all. From how he saw it, the actions of Democrats and Liberals (which he must have assumed the Federal judge was) fully justified such an act and it was just a shame 'innocent' people got killed or hurt. This conversation truly bothered me because I have had many conversations with this man before and I would never had guessed he would respond in such a way. I knew he was no fan of the President or Democrats in general but to think such an ordinary regular man could have such disdain for those he does not agree with politically and have such disregard for the loss of innocent life...It's truly shocking and disgusting. Such a person in my mind is no much better than the perpetrator of this heinous crime.

Let us, as Americans, remember that day as one of great tragedy and one of reflection. Regardless of our political differences or beliefs, there is no justification for the killing of innocent people and the attempted murder of an elected representative of the people, as such an act in not only completely and wholly un-American, but inhuman as well.

Obama's Comeback?

2010-12-22T22:25:00.002-06:00

This last two and a half weeks have been, to say the least, very exciting from political wonks like myself.

First, seemingly out of nowhere, President Obama announced he and the GOP leadership had worked out a compromise over how to solve the expiring Bush Tax Cuts issue. This compromise included extending the Tax levels established by President Bush for two years, lowering the payroll tax for virtually all Americans, and extend unemployment benefits. This compromise came as a shock to Conservatives and Liberals alike in both how sudden it came about and what was included in the deal. How each side saw the deal however is much different.

Liberals, not shockingly, were shocked and down right angry that this deal had been struck without their participation. They believed (and still do) that this "compromise" was more like capitulation. In other words, they believe this deal gave too much to Republicans than was necessary. Liberals were of the belief that if they couldn't get middle class tax cuts passed and have the upper class tax cuts expire, they should just let all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Why? Because they believed that if they let all the tax cuts expire, they could blame the Republicans for not "doing the right thing" and the American people would blame the GOP for their suddenly higher taxes....Does that really make sense to any sane person?

Democrats, who the vast majority of Americans associate with higher taxes, believed that somehow their letting the tax cuts all expire and trying to blame it on the GOP would actually get them points with the American people...With beliefs like these it's no real wonder why the Democratic Party has had such a rough time the last 2 years.

Conservatives on the hand were fairly cautious of this compromise because this bill was not "paid for", meaning there were no corresponding cuts elsewhere to pay for at least some of this compromise. Nevertheless, they largely supported this move by the President they have loved to hate for the last two years and likely enjoyed seeing how angry Liberals were at the President for the next two weeks.

And boy were they mad..Geez. I will freely admit that when it comes to which major cable news channel I watch (FOX or MSNBC), I normally watch MSNBC, but these last few weeks have really bothered me. Now, it would be fairly understandable for the political commentators on MSNBC to be furious over this compromise since none of them hide their Liberal views, but the more non-political regular news broadcast during the daytime was so politically charged. All they could talk about was how much Obama had sold out the left wing of his party for the last two years and how he is always 'scolding' them about how ungrateful they are. They even suggested that there could be a Democratic primary challenge to Obama in 2012! It was so much anger and whining, I actually turned the TV over to FoxNews to get my regular news broadcast (though I still avoid the commentary shows)...

More or less, if you only watched MSNBC for the last two weeks, you would think the President had just committed some high crime in the Liberal world and had become a member of the GOP (a point hit hard by Keith Olbermann). Of course, this whole compromise was terribly overblown. While Liberals preached out evil this bill was and how they would never let it get out of the House of Representatives (which Liberals have much more power than in the Senate), when the time came for the vote, most caved and voted for the compromise. There was a fair amount of defection from both parties when it came to the House vote, but the Senate's vote of 81 to 19 was so decisive it made the vote in the House almost a formality. Why did the Liberal part of the Democratic party much such a fuss and then fold like a house of cards? I think Charles Krauthammer summed it up best in his recent article of Obama's impressive post-Midterm comeback:

"Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred - and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal. "

The second big political master stroke of President Obama as of late is the passage of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the United States Armed Forces. Many had written off this repeal effort weeks ago because of the drag out political fight that was going on over the Bush tax cuts expiring and the so-to-be battle of the New START treaty. Some speculated that there would be some kind of trade off between the DADT repeal and some kind of deal with the Republicans on the tax cut issue. Regardless, most commentators considered the effort a bust.

But that all changed several days ago. All the sudden, there were reports the Democrats were rallying support among their party members in the Senate for a vote on DADT repeal and were actively lobbying some Republicans for the vote as well. These efforts were effective enough that the night before the final vote, it was all by certian the DADT repeal would pass. And when the final vote came down, there 57 Democrats and 8 Republicans voting to repeal DADT.

Two arguably Bipartisan votes in less than two weeks on such public policy issues should not be taken lightly. These votes are even more impressive considering they were accomplished during a so-called "lame duck" session of Congress. But these would not be the only bipartisan bills to pass into Law before the 111th Congress went home for the last time.

The last major piece of legislative success to be achieved by President Obama was the passage of the New START treaty. In my last post, I pointed out that while Democrats were claiming this treaty to be more important than othe domestic issues, I disagreed and believed that the treaty should wait until the Tax cut issue was resolved, even if that meant it would next year before it was voted on. However to my own shock, the tax compromise removed that roadblock and weakened the GOP's argument that the New START treaty could wait til next year. This was further pushed by the fact the President Obama announced he would stay in Washington until it was passed (even though his family had already left for the holidays). With all this pressure, it was not really much of a shock how the final vote came down. The final tally was 71 to 26, with 13 Republicans crossing the party line and voting with the Democrats.

With all these successes and shockingly bipartisan votes, where does this leave President Obama? As Mr. Krauthammer suggests in his recent article, President Obama has trully become the "New Comeback Kid". He was had managed to achieve something even the 'great' Bill Clinton could not achieve: Rebound with a major political compromise personally negoated between himself and the opposing GOP and pass several major pieces of legislation is a "lame-duck" session of Congress..All just a little under two months after his party's massive losses in the mid-term elections. Quite impressive indeed..

My kudos Mr. President

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604846.html

I Hate to admit it...But.

2010-11-30T14:11:00.004-06:00

While it is probably clear to most readers that I am not a big fan of the GOP generally, lately some of the actions of the Democrats in Congress have annoyed me much more.

For example, the debate over whether the New START treaty should be voted on before the next Congress comes into session next year has been all over the news in the last few weeks. Now as a rule, I have no problem with such treaties simply because nuclear arms reduction is always a good thing in my book, especially considering how large the stockpile of the United States and Russia still are now 20 years after the Cold War has ended. My problem with this treaty has been timing.

This treaty was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010. Since that ceremonial signing, little has progressed with the treaty here in the United States and this uncertainty of whether it will passed has caused the Russians to become cautious of the treaty as well. So why has it taken so long for the treaty to come to a vote? Many actually predicted the treaty would be passed with little delay since it was backed from the start by Senator Lugar who is seen as one of the most influencial Republicans (and Senators in general) on matters such as these. But support from Republicans has been much less than forthcoming.

The main issues brought up by Republicans is that the treaty is more oriented in reduction and maintaince than modernization. The Obama administration denies this but the Republicans, led by Senator Kyl, have not been convinced and want more time to debate this treaty. In the same thought, others have made the point that debating the new START treaty is not as high of priority as other matters, mainly the continuation or the Bush Tax Cuts.

Another problem some see with the New START treaty has been made by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. He contends that while as a whole the treaty does not restrict U.S. efforts to build a real ballistic missile defense system, the pre-amble does suggest that such efforts may be restricted and contends that during the talks before the signing of this treaty there may have been some verbal deal between the American representatives and their Russian counterparts that if Russian agrees to the reductions the US will reduce its efforts to build a complete "missile shield" in return. The Obama administration denies this but Krauthammer and others contend that this should be investigated properly to make sure there were no miscommunication between the American and Russian representatives....And I agree.

While I do agree such a treaty is very important and Democrats points that there have been no inspectors in Russian to observe nuclear arsenal for over a year are quite valid, these are things that can be handled next year. Why? Because for the moment, I believe the American economy is a more important matter for the 'Lame duck' session to worry about. The New START treaty will still be there in two months and I believe thorough debate is a must on such treaties and once all is clear what the treaty will and will not do, then a vote on it can be had.

The issue of whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended or not, is in my mind more important for the 'lame duck' session to worry about right now. These tax cuts expire in a little over a month and still neither part has a concesus on what should be done. More or less, the GOP is unified in their belief that at the very least, all the tax cuts should be extended at least til next year and preferably the GOP would like to see them permanently extended. The Democrats on the other hand are all over the place with ideas of compromises but no one has a majority of support it seems. Some, like the President, believe that at the very least tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 should extended, possibly permanently while tax cuts for upper class Americans should return to their pre-Bush levels. Some have recently suggested the bar be raised to $1 million dollars instead to try and appeal to Republicans. The reasonings behind these ranging opinions from both parties is too lengthy to cover in this blog entry but there are at some solid reasoning for both sides arguments.

Ultimately, considering how little time there is left to figure this out, I think it is prudent for Democrats to quite bickering among themselves and find some compromise with the Republicans. Personally, I am not a big fan of continuing the tax cuts permanently simply because of how much they are projected to add to the deficit over the next decade (enough to make the Stimulus and TARP look like child's play). However considering the shape the economy is in right now, it is more prudent to not raise taxes on anyone at least until the economy escapes this recession. But I do believe I know why Democrats are seemingly stalling on this issue. They likely fear that if they agree to extend all the tax cuts for a few years that when the time comes to decide what to do with them again the Congress could be held completely by Republicans and they may choose to extend them permanently, and this is a valid fear but for right now they are just going to have to take that risk for the good of the economy.

Deficit Reduction Plans..There are many!

2010-11-15T22:34:00.003-06:00

Recently, the Co-Chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform published a proposed plan for reducing our deficit through a rather long list of pretty specific changes ranging from a gradual gas tax to reducing the Defense budget. Within just hours of being published, Democrats and Republicans alike showed their disdain for the proposal though Democrats have been FAR more critical of it (Soon to be EX speaker Pelosi called it "unacceptable").

Regardless of how valid or likely the proposal is, it turns out there are already several proposed such plans to reduce our deficit and bring spending under control which can make looking at just one a bit confusing and tricky. In order to clarify all such plans, the good people at PolitiFact.com have compiled a list of the many proposal. I encourage everyone to read these proposal so that they at least know what is on the table and who is behind them.

Many thanks to PolitiFact!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/12/factsheet-reducing-national-debt/

Veteran's Day

2010-11-11T01:04:00.002-06:00

On today, the day set aside to honor those who put their lives on the line for all Americans, I look to the man who proclaimed this holiday 91 years ago...President Woodrow Wilson:

‎"To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with lots of pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and... justice in the councils of the nations."

Originally a national holiday honoring those who fought in World War I, it was expanded decades later by Congress to include all veterans not just those from WWI, a change sparked not by a politican but by a shoe maker from Kansas by the name of Alfred King. And as history would have it, this change was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower.

Finally, I leave you with these words..

"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them"- John F. Kennedy

Happy Veterans Day

Leave it to Charles to Sum it up best..

2010-11-05T17:49:00.004-05:00

The results of Tuesday's election results are still not entirely final but one thing is clear: Democrats got their 'asses' handed to them. To best sum up the results of the election results and real meaning behind them, I give the floor to Mr. Krauthammer...Take it away Charles!

"For all the turmoil, the spectacle, the churning - for all the old bulls slain and fuzzy-cheeked freshmen born - the great Republican wave of 2010 is simply a return to the norm. The tide had gone out; the tide came back. A center-right country restores the normal congressional map: a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density.

Or to put it numerically, the Republican wave of 2010 did little more than undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006-2008 in which the Democrats gained 54 House seats combined (precisely the size of the anti-Democratic wave of 1994). In 2010 the Democrats gave it all back, plus about an extra 10 seats or so for good - chastening - measure.
The conventional wisdom is that these sweeps represent something novel, exotic and very modern - the new media, faster news cycles, Internet frenzy and a public with a short attention span and even less patience with government. Or alternatively, that these violent swings reflect reduced party loyalty and more independent voters.
Nonsense. In 1946, for example, when party loyalty was much stronger and even television was largely unknown, the Republicans gained 56 seats and then lost 75 in the very next election. Waves come. Waves go. The republic endures.
Our two most recent swing cycles were triggered by unusually jarring historical events. The 2006 Republican "thumpin'" (to quote George W. Bush) was largely a reflection of the disillusionment and near-despair of a wearying war that appeared to be lost. And 2008 occurred just weeks after the worst financial collapse in eight decades.

Similarly, the massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development - a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism.

A massive government restructuring of the health-care system. An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment. And a cap-and-trade regime reviled outside the bicoastal liberal enclaves that luxuriate in environmental righteousness - so reviled that the Democratic senatorial candidate in West Virginia literally put a bullet through the bill in his own TV ad. He won. Handily.

Opposition to the policies was compounded by the breathtaking arrogance with which they were imposed. Ignored was the unmistakable message from the 2009-10 off-year elections culminating in Scott Brown's anti-Obamacare victory in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts. Moreover, Obamacare and the stimulus were passed on near-total party-line votes - legal, of course, but deeply offensive to the people's sense of democratic legitimacy. Never before had anything of this size and scope been passed on a purely partisan basis. (Social Security commanded 81 House Republicans; the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 136; Medicare, 70.)

Tuesday was the electorate's first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama's agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it - and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.

This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don't repeat Obama's drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.

Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people's proxy in saying no to Obama's overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn't an election so much as a restraining order.
The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House. The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant.

The president, however, remains clueless. In his next-day news conference, he had the right demeanor - subdued, his closest approximation of humility - but was uncomprehending about what just happened. The "folks" are apparently just "frustrated" that "progress" is just too slow. Asked three times whether popular rejection of his policy agenda might have had something to do with the shellacking he took, he looked as if he'd been asked whether the sun had risen in the West. Why, no, he said. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110406581.html

Joe Scarborough Talks Some Sense...

2010-10-27T12:56:00.003-05:00

Recently, Joe Scarborough, a former House Republican and host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe", published an opinion piece on POLITICO discussing his view about how important or earth-shaking this years mid-terms elections will actually be. In short, he makes the point that both parties are equally guilty of having terrible records when it comes to fiscal responsibility and that the end-of-the-world like rhetoric we hear from both Democrats and Republicans is all just that...Rhetoric. Whether there will be any real change this November remains to be seen and though I am not as skeptical or cynical as Mr. Scarborough, I am not holding my breath that the Republicans will be any better than the Democrats in terms of Fiscal Responsibility should they come to power.

As an interesting sidenote, this opinion piece by Scarborough has cause a good bit of reactions from readers of POLITICO. There have been alot of comments on the piece ranging from Liberals claiming Joe is just another dumb conservative and doesn't belong on MSNBC, to Conservatives accusing him of sucking up to Liberals and not being a real conservative. Such a wide range of comments suggests to me...that Mr. Scarborough must have said something right to irritate both ends of the political spectrum so kudos to you Mr. Scarborough for being bipartisan in your ability to piss off both Liberals and Conservatives!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44134.html

19 Days til....

2010-10-14T19:55:00.006-05:00

In just 19 days, millions of Americans will go the polls in what is sure to be a memorable mid-term election. How memorable of an election all depends on who you ask of course. Many Republicans would try to convince you (and themselves) that this year's elections will be something close "tsunami" if 1994. Some Democrats (including the Vice President) actually try to convince people that the Democrats have a real chance at maintaining their majorities in Congress. What is the truth? Well, even though we still have 19 days til the election, thanks to polling data all over the nation and the good people at the New York Times FiveThirtyEight blog we can make a pretty good educated guess.

As of their latest projections, this is the outcome FiveThirtyEight is predicting according to the latest available polling data (October 8-12):

House of Representatives

Republicans- 226.5 seats

Democrats-208.5 seats

Independents-0.0 seats

Senate

Republicans- 47.9 seats

Democrats- 52.0 seats

Independents- 0.1 seats

Now, assuming the math behind these projections is correct, the results we will see this Novemember will hardly be a "tsunami" but it will radicially change the dynamics of Washington D.C. The Republicans would have a fairly strong majority in the House of Representatives though not as great as the Democrats now and likewise the Democrats will still have a pretty strong presence compared to the current Republican minority. However, the real difference will be in how each party conducts themselves while the majority.

Democrats in their short rule of the House have passed several major pieces of legislation but have also had problems with party unity and keeping promise made before they came into the majority in 2006 (especially in the area of ethics). Republicans on the other hand don't traditionally have alot of internal problems and often more united in the political positions. Even with the election of so-called Tea Party candidates, this isnt likely going to change as long as President Obama is in office.

The Senate is another story entirely. If these projections hold true, the Democrats will retain their majority but just barely. This will present a rather interesting situation in the Senate. The threat of Filibuster by Republicans will only be more real and could result in a deadlocked Senate. Its even possible Republicans could draw in several more conservative Democrats on important votes and therefore not even need to filibuster. No matter what though, its likely the Senate will not be a very active body after the election (which is a sad statement to begin with).

In fact many Republicans, including prominent members like Senator Jim DeMint have called for a deadlock should they not get their way. The idea of a standstill in the Senate and the whole of Congress will remind many of a similar event after the 1994 mid-terms over the budget. The idea of a similar event is not likely to win any votes considering how ineffective and lazy most Americans already think Congress is..Just imagine how they will feel when one of the major parties has the equivalent of a hissy fit and causes the entire government to grind to a hault. Now whether such a standstill is going to happen we can only guess, but it's just one of many possibilities of what the Congress will look like after the mid-terms.

Sadly though, I think anyone who thinks these elections are going to be some radical change or some great improvement are going to be disappointed. I myself am a rather cynical political wonk who sees both parties are being dysfunctional and self-centered in their own ways and don't hold much hope either party is ready or willing to create any real political change in America. In my mind, should Republicans come to power in the House, it is going to just be politics as usual and they will be more focused on the elections in 2012 than getting something accomplished or showing any real national leadership. This is just politics as usual in America and I haven't seen any reason to believe any different..But of course I could be wrong and perhaps the Republicans will really take charge and focus on the deficit as they have promised and not focus too much on partisan politics but I'm not going to hold my breath...

Regardless, I really want to give kudos to the people behind the FiveThirtyEight blog at the New York Times for their impressive set of information, polling data, and great articles on this years elections. We need more sites like these out there to better educate the American voter..Many thanks!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

The Write-In Contenders..Rebels against the Tea Partiers?

2010-09-27T17:51:00.002-05:00

This political season has so far shown that the Tea Party movement does have some sway at least with Republican and even many independent voters with the nominations of several so-called, "political outsiders". The most recent addition to this club has been Christine O'Donnell who defeated Republican moderate Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate Primary. Mr. Castle had the backing of not only the party establishment but also political veterans like Karl Rove. O'Donnell's victory cause many in the establishment to publically vent their frustration with the Tea Party movement that had propelled O'Donnell to win the nomination. Mr. Rove stated it best in that with O'Donnell as the Republican Candidate it made it unlikely that she would be able to defeat her Democratic candidate largely thanks to her conservative beliefs that aren't nearly as effective in the Democratic-leaning state of Delaware. This belief has been reinforced by the latest polls that show Ms. O'Donnell far behind her Democratic opponent.

As such, some have suggested that Mr. Castle could mount a Write-In campaign as Ms. Murkowski has in Alaska after being defeated by a more conservative tea-party backed candidate. However, many venerable political analyists don't see that as very likely. Write-In campaigns are tricky to pull off in the best conditions but they are seen as the only option for non-Tea Party Republicans who believe they can still win in general elections.

This year has really shown the threat the Tea Party poses to the Republican Party as a whole. While the Tea Party movement has helped motivate many new voters towards the Republican party, it has also shown that it can derail some of their efforts to win traditional Democratic states (like Delaware). This tension between the Tea Partiers and the Republican establishment could pose an even greater danger to the GOP should they gain control of Congress because it could infighting not just this year but in the next election cycle, in which the Democrats could take advantage of the chaos. For the moment though, the Democratic voters are not nearly as motivated and for the moment have been unable to trully captialize on the tension between the GOP and the Tea Party.

This November is shaping to still be very exciting, with most experts agreeing that Democrats will lose control of the House of Representative but thanks to recent events it looks that the Senate will likely remain in Democratic hands which will make the aftermath of the Mid-Terms all that more confusing and exciting (for political wonks anyway).

Which brings me to a new link I have added to the my blog. The New York Times has this year set up a Political page/blog called the FiveThirtyEight which includes a vast array of information on races all over America including poll numbers, local statistics, voting records etc. The site also makes their own educated guesses for the likelihood of the outcomes of these races and the likelihood of who will control Congress after the Mid-terms. I highly recommend it to those who want to see the big picture this year politically.

Enjoy!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I know it sounds crazy...But

2010-09-15T13:57:00.002-05:00

Much has been made in the last few years over all the President's "Czars". Many a political ignoramus claimed these Czars were proof of President Obama's socialist tendencies (totally ignoring the fact that most of the existing Czars already existing before President Obama took office). Others questioned that whether these Czars were really going to eliminate the government waste at all, which is a very good question. The problem is, we don't know for certain so perhaps the President should do something that many have said comes so naturally to him, hire another Czar. I know its sounds crazy, but hear Liz Peek of the Fiscal Times out..

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/The-Economy/2010/09/15/Obama-Needs-an-Efficiency-Czar.aspx

September 11th..We will not forget

2010-09-11T11:27:00.003-05:00

On the 9th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, I can't find the words to properly honor those who died that terrible day..So I look to the man who, for better or worse, held Americans together that day, President George W. Bush:

“Time is passing. Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no forgetting September the 11th. We will remember every rescuer who died in honor. We will remember every family that lives in grief. We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children. “- President George W. Bush, November 11, 2001

2010 the new 1982? Maybe..

2010-09-07T19:27:00.005-05:00

There has been some talk as of late about how the current political and economical situations of this year is comparable to those of 1982 during President Reagan. On the surface, the comparison is definitely interesting and seems quite convincing but is it really a good comparision? The people at PolitiFact has done so checking for themselves, and found the comparison to be "Mostly True" on their 'truth-o-meter'. I am inclined to agree based on these facts:

1. New President- Both Obama and Reagan succeeded unpopular Presidents (Bush and Carter), and we quite popular in the first year or so of their presidencies because of this. However, Reagan like Obama, saw their popularity among the American people drop half-way through their first terms.

2. Economy- Both Presidents came in at the beginning of recessions and experience high umemployment rates going into the fall midterms, which had reprecussions on their popularity and their party's success in the fall.

3. Midterms- Both Presidents experienced losses of their party's standing in Congress, though in Reagan's case the Republicans were in the minority and still lost seats in the fall whereas Obama's Democratic Party is in control of both houses of Congress and is likely to lose control of at least one house.

That is where the comparison ends, because while not set in stone, its likely the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives this fall and possibly even the Senate (though that is far from certain). Reagan came into office with Democrats controlling the House so he was already an "opposition" President, whereas Obama should have been in a more controlling position. While President Obama has had some legislative success, Republicans (especially in the Senate) have been fairly effective is causing Democrats problems.

Another part of the comparison is that even though Reagan's popularity was diminished in 1982 and his party lost seats, he was still able to win re-election (rather easily) in 1984 and Obama supporters believe that such success could be duplicated by President Obama in 2012. Whether this is true or not I don't know but I do agree the comparison is definitely relevant.

Here is the original Fact-Check by PolitiFact, read it and judge for yourself..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/07/mary-jordan/how-similar-were-recessions-under-ronald-reagan-ba/

Another Sign of American Voter Ignorance..

2010-08-12T19:35:00.003-05:00

I hate to sound rude about this, but there seems to just be an endless amount of evidence that the average American voter is just plain stupid. As I have said many times, you don't have to have an interest in politics to stay informed. Staying informed is something that should be required of all voters because ignorance causing more problems than any corrupt politican will ever accomplish...

Here is what I am talking about. The good people at the Pew Research Center have discovered that more Americans incorrectly believe President Obama signed the TARP legislation into law and not his predecessor President Bush. Read it and weep...

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1057

Palin..Your Pants are on Fire!

2010-08-06T11:32:00.003-05:00

The recent debate over the possible expiration of the Bush Tax cuts has brought out of misinformation from politicans all over the spectrum. And now Sarah has added her 2 cents on the topic and as usual, she has no idea what she is talking about lol..Courtesy PolitiFact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-said-democrats-planning-largest-tax/

So let me get this straight...

2010-07-27T01:12:00.002-05:00

So, many in the Republican Party are going out and saying letting the Bush Tax Cuts (enacted in 2001/2003) expire in December of this year will undermine any progress made in economic recovery in America. They say this because those who would be affected the most by the expired tax cuts, upper-high income Americans, are one of the big keys to improving the economy..While sounding like a valid point, allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to continue (and possibly be made permanent) strongly contradicts a major GOP battlecry this election year: The Deficit.

First off, indeed many Small Businesses in American do classify themselves as individuals when it comes to tax time and they will experience a tax increase if the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire. Also true is that many economists agree that Small Businesses are a major factor in any possible economic recovery. So logically, allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire would possibly hurt or slow down such a recovery...

Second, Democrats have blamed these Tax Cuts for far too much as of late. Yes they are a large component of the current Federal Deficit but they are hardly the only major factor. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, TARP, the Stimulus all have affected and greatly increased to the Federal Deficit and to bash the Bush Tax Cuts are being the most destructive of these is short-sighted and hypocritical.

However, there is something the Republicans don't really want to talk about when one discusses the Bush Tax Cuts..the Deficit.

Most economists estimate the Bush Tax Cuts have cost the Federal Government well over $1 Trillion in lost revenue (not taking into account side-effects on other sections of the economy) already. Even more frightening, the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts in May of this year estimated that if the Bush Tax Cuts were made permanent for all taxpayers, they would add $3.2 trillion in the next decade...3.2 Trillion Dollars..Thats more than twice the current Federal Deficit. That alone should make any supposed Fiscally conservative person shutter..but it gets better! In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that if the Bush Tax Cuts were allowed to expired, they would reduce the annual Federal deficit by $200-300 billion..ANNUALLY.

Historically, Republicans will tell you tax cuts can fix practically any economic woes...And they are sometimes a fairly good tactic, but many economists will also tell you tax cuts rarely if ever pay for themselves (something Republicans demand any spending bill should do). And while it's possible allowing these tax cuts to expire may affect the speed of a prospective economic recovery, I personally believe the obvious possible reduction of the Federal Deficit outweighs this and Republicans need to decide whether they are really worried about the deficit and allow the Tax cuts to expire or at least modify them, or just using it for political gain. I strongly suspect the later, especially when one studies their track record with the economy in the last few decades. They claim they have changed and are ready to make cuts and reduce the deficit by almost all means necessary..but is 4 years really enough time for the GOP to change its fiscal stripes? We shall see...

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=59098
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7878/03-21-PresidentsBudget.pdf