So far, so good. Rick Perry just announced his intention to run for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, so the main stream media is falling all over him, praising his “job creation skills” in Texas, his “rigid good looks,” his “Texas slang,” the ease at which he collects massive donations, and his “Bush mannerisms.”
And although these “traits” in themselves may be considered a plus by some, they have no bearings on his actual governing and presidential capabilities. Take for example this story that is, so far, ignored by the media; Rick Perry’s Texas has a projected budget shortfall of over $25 billion over the next two years.
This month the state’s part-time legislature goes back into session, and the state is starting at potentially a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion. That’s enormous. And there’s not much fat to cut. The whole budget is basically education and healthcare spending. Cutting everything else wouldn’t do the trick. And though raising this kind of money would be easy on an economy of $1.2 trillion, the new GOP mega-majority in Congress is firmly against raising any revenue.
So the bi-ennial legislature, which convenes this month, faces some hard cuts. Some in the Texas GDP have advocated dropping Medicaid altogether to save money.
Yep. Cutting education and dropping medicaid to save money… that’s the Republican way!
President Obama has always called for civility in this ugly, sometimes racially motivated environment called the American political system. And on his most recent engagement with the American people in an open-air town hall meeting in Iowa, the Tea Party used the president’s call for civility as an opportunity to show how uncivil they really are, shouting accusations from the audience to Mr. Obama and engaging the President in what is being described as a “sparing match.”
This report from Yahoo.
US President Barack Obama went head-to-head with a prominent conservative Tea Party activist, in a microcosm of a political clash that will play out in the 2012 election.
Ryan Rhodes, a leader of the group in Iowa, took on Obama during an open-air town hall meeting, which marked a moment of new intensity in the president’s campaign for a second term.
Rhodes shouted out that the president’s calls for more civility in politics had little chance of coming to pass after “your vice president is calling people like me, a Tea Party member, a ‘terrorist.'”
His question referred to media reports that Vice President Joe Biden made such a remark in a private meeting with House of Representatives Democrats at the height of a debt showdown earlier this month.
The clash came as Obama was intent on wrapping up the meeting in the shadow of a red country barn draped with an American flag, as the sun set on a rural corner of Iowa.
“I know it’s not going to work, if you stand up, and I asked everybody to raise their hand… I didn’t see you, I wasn’t avoiding you,” the president said, but later circled back to answer Rhodes’s question.
“I absolutely agree that everybody needs to try to tone down the rhetoric,” he said, before going on to detail some of the more explosive charges that conservatives have laid against him.
“In fairness, since I have been called a socialist who wasn’t born in this country, who is destroying America and taking away its freedoms because I passed a health care bill, I am all for lowering the rhetoric.”
Obama and Rhodes later engaged in an animated conversation as he greeted supporters on a rope line after the event, and the activist later told reporters that he believed that Obama was indeed a socialist.
Remember when Scott Walker promised that the only way to get Wisconsin working again was to take collective bargaining away from public employees? Well apparently, even that was a lie, as Wisconsin isn’t working, they’re loosing jobs and Walker’s policies are to blame.
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin’s statewide teachers union is laying off 40 percent of its workers as a result of the law pushed by Gov. Scott Walker and passed by the Legislature curbing collective bargaining rights.
Wisconsin Education Association Councilexecutive director Dan Burkhalter announced the layoffs of 42 workers on Monday, saying it was a result of what he called Walker’s “union-busting” bill.
Burkhalter says budget cuts are also being made as a result of the new law, which opponents said was designed to weaken the power of unions like WEAC.
For whatever reason, this story is big today, with both Liberals and Conservatives joining together and speaking as one voice. I, a self-prescribed liberal, beg to differ with the majority, and I’m taking Fareed Zakaria’s side on this one.
What’s all the fuss about?
On his CNN show, Fareed Zakaria said these words: ” I think liberals need to grow up!” He was referring to the criticism Liberals have hauled on President Obama over the last few weeks, in response to his compromising with Republicans to keep the nation from going into default. Zakaria points out that Liberals seem to think the President’s soaring speeches alone are enough to pass legislation. And also, that because President Obama finds himself compromising with the Republicans, he is to be blamed for the way Washington works.
Both sides of the political spectrum apparently disagree with Fareed. The Conservative Newsbusters said, “Maybe this “recurring liberal fantasy” was fostered by folks like Zakaria that presented Barack Obama to the American people as a messiah. If the public has a Hollywood-like view of this president, it’s because the media put him on a pedestal like nobody before him.”
No, Liberals aren’t upset that he doesn’t make more heartwarming speeches. Liberals are upset that Obama’s tactics to negotiate in the conditions Zakaria describes is to start out giving the other side more than 50% of what they want and move further to the right from there. But that’s a much harder position to defend, so Chait and Zakaria create a strawman to make liberals look unreasonable. Further, there is no indication–as Zakaria asserts–that Americans are concerned with jobs AND deficit spending. Americans care about their jobs and the economy vis a vis whether they’ll have a job in the foreseeable future.
And even Mediaite started their piece about the story by saying, “Hey, Fareed, so’s yer face!”
Well, sometimes the truth hurts. No one is expecting a full endorsement to everything this president does, but what these Liberals don’t understand is that the constant beating up on the president when it’s unwarranted serves one purpose only – it legitimizes the daily criticism from the Conservatives, whether they be true or not. President Obama is not a one-man team, and the Constitution did not grant him the authority to make policies. Those powers are given to Congress, and right now, that Congress is divided with one side determined to go against everything the President is for.
Back in 2006, her husband Mr. Marcus Bachmann asked/told/commanded her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. Bachmann, recalling the incident, told her husband that she didn’t want to. “Tax law? I hate taxes,” Bachmann said to Marcus. “Why should I go into something like that? But the Lord says, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'” So she did as she was told.
In the Republican debate last week Michele Bachmann was asked, if she wins the presidency, would she be submissive to her husband. The audience showed their displeasure in the question by booing the moderator, and a friend of mine joined in, saying that the question was sexist. Bachmann seemed to share the same feeling about the question. She hesitated, then answered, saying that to her, ‘submissive’ meant respect for each other.
I, on the other hand, think the question about her submissiveness to her husband was appropriate, seeing that she intends to run for the most powerful position in the United States of America. People ought to know exactly who will be making the crucial decisions and policies for the country. Who will she be answering too?
And the question didn’t stop at the debate. Michele Bachmann went on CBS’s Face The Nation on Sunday, and was asked to explain her “submissive” statement again, to which she continued her “submissive means respect” answer. She said, “submission, means respect – mutual respect. I respect my husband, he respects me,” she added. “We have been married 33 years, we have a great marriage…and respecting each other, listening to each other is what that means.”
The CBS host asked Michele if submissive meant subservient. Bachmann replied,
“You know, I guess it depends on what word people are used to, but respect is really what it means. Not to us. To us it means respect. We respect each other, we listen to each other, we love each other and that is what it means.”
So I, determined to prove that my interpretation of the word was wrong all along, looked up the word in the dictionary. And to my shock and dismay, was this:
Submissive (səbˈmɪsɪv) adj. “of, tending towards, or indicating submission, humility, or servility, compliant.
Nowhere in that definition was the word “respect.” So still determined to prove that I was mistaken, I looked up the synonyms for submissive, and again, I was shocked to find the following;
Synonyms of Submissive:
abject,
accommodating,
acquiescent,
amenable,
bowing down,
conformable,
complying,
deferential,
docile,
domesticated,
dutiful,
giving in,
humble,
ingratiating,
lowly,
malleable,
meek,
menial,
nonresistant,
nonresisting,
obedient,
obeisant,
obeying,
obsequious,
passive,
pliable,
pliant,
resigned,
servile,
slavish,
subdued,
tame,
tractable,
uncomplaining,
unresisting,
yes,
yielding
I tried, and I simply cannot find the word “respect” as a definition for submission. But this comes as no surprise, we are talking about Michele Bachmann – she is the same one who tried to re-invent American history, and claim that America’s founding fathers “worked tirelessly to end slavery.”
So her claiming that “respect” means submission, is expected. It’s a lie… but it’s expected.
Remember Juan Williams? He’s the same writer/Fox News contributor who used to work for NPR, but made some remarks about Muslims and lost job there. Fox News immediately jumped on NPR for firing Juan, and that began the Republican push to defund NPR – one of the most trusted news sources in the land.
Well, because of some of Jaun’s views, we usually don’t see eye to eye. But something Mr. Williams wrote on Fox’s website caught my attention. Williams wrote an article about the recent Republican presidential debate, a piece he titled, “Debate Shows GOP Is Out Of Step With Realities Of Today’s America.” For me, that topic was all I needed to read a little further.
The first few paragraphs of Mr. Williams piece summed up the Republican party perfectly. It said;
Last night’s debate put on display a Republican Party that still looks like a 1950s Oldsmobile as they prepare to run against one of the hip, new hybrids coming out the multi-national car companies that now run Detroit.
Despite his troubles, President Obama looks sleek, fast and so very hip as compared the Republicans on view in Iowa. The President remains the mixed-race, son-of-an immigrant, in touch with the under 30 crowd that makes up about half of 2011 America.
It was not just the absence of dynamic people of color and women at the GOP debate that rankle young Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, working women, and immigrants. The answers coming from the candidates felt like the voice of your grandfather’s GOP.
And on the question of taxes, where all the Republican presidential candidates in the debate said they will not raise taxes no matter what the circumstances, even if it is a 10 to 1 ratio for spending cuts vs. tax hikes, Williams said this;
One of the most astounding parts of the debate for me was when the moderators polled the candidates and asked if they would oppose a deficit reduction package that included government spending cuts to tax increases by a ratio of 10:1. Every single candidate on the stage raised their hand in opposition. No tax increases under any circumstances.
This puts the candidates out of step with the realities of America today, and American public opinion. As a CBS/New York Times poll from last week showed, a majority of Americans – in both political parties – want to see tax increases on the wealthiest Americans in addition to spending cuts. By taking the no-new-taxes-pledge the candidates are even in disagreement with a majority of the Republicans – the very people who will choose the nominee.
Nuff said. You really don’t have to read anymore, that says it all and this reflects the points Mr. Williams laid out throughout the rest of the article. It also summarizes perfectly this Republican party and their intent to “bring America back…” Back to a year they’re more comfortable with, the 1950’s.
If you want to read the rest of Juan Williams’ article, you can find it here.
The Ames Straw poll is not really important as far as the big picture of running for President is concerened, but Conservatives put a lot of emphasis on the event. Republican presidential candidates spent millions trying to influence a majority of Iowans who attended the carnival-like event.
This year, Tim Pawlenty effectively said that if he didn’t get a decent position in the poll, he will have to reconsider his candidacy for president. Well, the straw poll went public a short while ago, and Pawlenty came in 3rd with 2,293 votes. Second was Ron Paul with 4671 votes and Michele Bachmann came in 1st with 4,823 votes.
Even Rick Perry, who announced his candidacy for the Presidency earlier today, received some votes in the straw poll. Perry, although his name was not on the ballot, came in 6th with 718 votes. Mitt Romney, whose name was on the ballot, was beaten by Perry. Romney came in 7th, with 567 votes.
Rick Santorum came in 4th behind Tim Pawlenty, and rounding out the top 5 was Herman Cain.
Conservatives look to the winner of the straw poll as a good indication of who they should donate to, so candidates placing in the first 2 or 3 spots are usually in a good position to get more contributions. All eyes now look towards Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, and the expectation is that one or both these campaigns would be coming to an end.
Although Mitt Romney came in 7th, his campaign is expected to continue. Romney is leading in the general polls among Republicans.
An afterthought: expect Newt Gingrich to fall by the wayside soon.
It was not that long ago, but when you look at what he said then and compare it with what he’s saying now in Washington, Mitch McConnell’s statement sounds like it came from a different dimension.
The year was 1990, and Mitch McConnell – the present Senate Republican Minority Leader – was in his campaign mode when he made a political ad referring to taxes, saying, ” Unlike some folks around here, I think everyone should pay their fair share, including the rich.” But McConnell didn’t stop there. He went on and took a position on Medicare that, when taken in conjunction with his taxing-the-rich statement, it prompted the Associated Press to say that he sounded like a “populist Democrat.” He called for the protection of Medicaid recipients.
I’m sure you’ve been watching this mess in Washington.
I’d like you to know how I feel about it.
I haven’t voted for one of these lousy budget packages for years and I won’t vote for this one.
It would raise taxes on the wrong people.
Unlike some folks around here I think everyone should pay their fair share. Including the rich.
We need to protect our seniors from Medicare cuts too.
I don’t care if the President or Congressional leaders twist my arm. I won’t support any deal that isn’t a fair deal for the working families of Kentucky.
Those were the days when Democrats and Republicans were afraid to make their true motives known, and although they may have felt differently, putting the people first was always the politically correct thing to do.
Today however, McConnell and his band of Congressional Republicans have made a pledge to Grover Norquist to never raise taxes on the rich, and they are in the midst of instituting some of the biggest spending cuts in our nation’s history. And yes, McConnell now wants to cut Medicare into non-existence.
Unlike the last two Republican love fests, last night’s debate actually felt like a real competition. The Republican contestants tried separating themselves from each other and questioned the decision making or lack thereof of their rivals.
Ron Paul and Rick Santorum briefly engaged in their little match when foreign policies and America’s role in other nations were involved. Between these two, Iran’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons was a hot topic, with Paul suggesting that a nuclear Iran poses no threat to America, therefore, they should be left alone to do what they believe is in their best interest. Santorum took opposition to this, and the heated battle was on.
Then Newt Gingrich took offense at Chris Wallace asking him questions about his campaign and statements he had made in the past. Apparently, Gingrich believes his decision to run for President means questions about his political history, public statements or past actions that he should accountable for, should be off limits.
Chris Wallace: “How do you respond to people who say that your campaign has been a mess so far?”
Newt Gingrich: “I took seriously Bret’s injunction to put aside the talking points,” he said, referring to a request Wallace’s co-host Bret Baier had made at the start of the debate. Newt continued, “And I wish you would put aside the gotcha questions…I’d love to see the rest of tonight’s debate asking us about what we would do to lead America…instead of playing Mickey Mouse games.”
Chris Wallace: “If you think questions about your record are Mickey Mouse, I’m sorry. I think those are questions that a lot of people want to hear answers to and you’re responsible for your record, sir.”
Newt Gingrich: “I think that there’s too much attention paid by the press corps to the campaign minutiae and not enough paid by the press corps to the basic ideas that distinguish us from Barack Obama.”
The audience cheered.
But the most interesting part of the debate in my view, happened between Tim Pawlenty and Michelle Bachmann. Being in next to last place in his presidential campaign, Mr. Pawlenty felt the need to make up some ground. He also didn’t want to miss another opportunity to separate himself from the bunch, as he did in the last debate when he was asked to explain a statement he previously made, in which he called Mitt Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts, Obamny Care – combining both Obama and Romney’s name together to say their healthcare policies are the same.
So when he was asked to explain a statement he made about Michele Bachmann and her lack of accomplishments in Congress, Mr. Pawlenty took the opportunity and went on attack mode. Unfortunately for him, Bachmann was already sitting in the bushes with her sniper gear on, staring down the scope of her rifle. In her view, the unsuspecting Pawlenty.
This is a perfect case of “Do what I say, not as I do!”, and it furthers exemplifies the hypocrisy of today’s Republican party and the utter joke they have become.
Case in point? Florida’s Republican Governor, Rick Scott: Scott and the rest of the Republicans, both in Congress and in state government, are on a rampage, trying to deny healthcare to regular everyday middle class Americans. Their dirty little secret is, they are happily enrolled in the very same government health care program they want you to give up.
Gov. Rick Scott, a critic of the federal health care overhaul, is paying less than $400 a year for health insurance for himself and his wife.
While Scott is accepting no salary for his job as governor, the multimillionaire and former hospital chain executive chose to enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan offered by the state of Florida.
Scott is among nearly 32,000 people in state government who pay relatively low health insurance premiums. It’s a perk that is available to high-ranking state officials, including those in top management at all state agencies. Nearly all 160 state legislators are also enrolled in the program that costs just $8.34 a month for individual coverage and $30 a month for family coverage.
Brian Burgess, a spokesman for Scott, confirmed the governor and his wife are enrolled in the state health insurance plan, but refused to discuss why Scott signed up. He called the governor’s health care coverage a private matter.
Apparently, government insurance is good for them, but not for you!
Mitt Romney, the leader for the 2012 Republican nomination for president has bought into the Conservative ruling of the Supreme Court that corporations are people. Speaking at an event in Iowa, someone asked Mr. Romney why should Social Security be a part of the deficit reduction plan, since it does not contribute to the debt.
Romney’s answer was that “Corporations are people too my friend.” What does one thing have to do with the other? I don’t know, but Romney seems to think there’s a reason to remind the crowed about the court’s decision.
Two polls, conducted on the same day showed the same thing – Americans, by a margin of 2 to 1, prefer raising taxes to address the deficit instead of spending cuts alone. The Gallop poll, conducted on 8/10/2011, shows 66% supports raising taxes, while 33% prefers spending cuts, and the CNN poll conducted on the same day mirrors the Gallop results, with 63% for more taxes, and 36% for more spending cuts.
Another poll conducted a day before on 8/9/2011 by another polling agency called McClatchy/Marist, showed the same results. In that poll, 68% of Americans think raising taxes is the way to go, as opposed to the 29% who want more spending cuts.
If you think there’s a pattern here, there is. Over 23 different polls dating back to December 12th, 2010 found the same thing – Americans prefer raising taxes to combat the deficit problem over cutting spending to programs that help people.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
