I believe in a left-wing media conspiracy.......the so-called "regular people" YouTube debate was a joke, hoax, and disgrace.
I had no problem with the questions asked, but it was a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATE......save the planted questions for the general election.
The majority of the questions came from Obama, Clinton, and Edwards' supporters......none of them will vote in the primaries for any Republican.
Can you imagine the outcry if Fox News hosted a Dem debate and had it infiltrated with Right-wing nuts? Seriously.......the liberal media would jump all over that.
Can we finally put aside the stem cell debate. I've been saying for a long time that embryos are not the only source for stem cells. Heck, I still have stem cells for everything (even muscles they're finding out) except nervous cells.
The Democrats are losing this stupid battle for embryonic stem cell research. Thanks to people like Mitt Romney, who have pushed for ethical and reasonable alternatives, stem cell research is able to progress without the use of embryos.
Can we finally stop equating stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research.......honestly?
This clip is from the May debate:
The only thing that I'm surprised about is that it has taken this long for people to pay attention to Huckabee. He's likeable and a great speaker that lights up a room with candid humor. I think he suffered from the packed field of candidates and has recently benefitted from Brownback's departure.
That said.......I can't stand him--he's less self-righteous than Brownback was, but the only thing he brings to the table is that he is a certified evangelical.
Lately and expecially after the last GOP debate, (which I admit are way too many) I am surprisingly impressed with Mike Huckabee. Though my ultimate choice for the nomination still lies with Romney, I see Huckabee as a very viable candidiate.
Coming from the Clinton political machine state of Arkansas, he seems to be one who could beat Clinton. We are going to have to face the reality that Clinton will get the democratic nod. So the question now becomes, who will be able to beat Hillary for the White House. Huckabee could do it. He comes from a Baptist background having been a Baptist minister. Though some of the Baptist views are different from mine, he isn't running with that as his mind set. He has very clear motives and reasons for his White House bid. He is not a one platform candidate. He is strong on immigration, healthcare, family values, and the detriment of big government. I think as the American people start to see and hear him a little more often, he will break into the top tier. He could have a little more popularity than Romney just becasue of the religion card. Baptist in the White House isn't nearly as scary as a Mormon in the White House, for whatever reason.
Huckabee was the Governor of Arkansas, as was a Clinton. But this Governor has a lot more to show for his stint in that seat than does Clinton. I have been really impressed with his responses in the debates. he had an interview recently with Glenn Beck and was amazing. Glenn actually said," I wanted this interview so that I could write you off as a candidate for the presidency, I cannot do that now." Youtube that interview and you will see what I mean. This thing ain't over till it's over...
The study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, to be released Monday, also portrays the political press as a hidebound institution out of touch with the desires of citizens.
Among the findings:
• Stories focused more on fundraising and polls than on where candidates stood on the issues, despite a public demand for more attention to the policies, views and records of the candidates.
• The public's attention to campaign news is higher now than it was at similar points in the past two elections, but that interest is only shared by less than one in four people.
• Five candidates — Democrats Clinton and Barack Obama and Republicans Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain — received more than half the coverage. Elizabeth Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of Democrat John Edwards, received almost as much media attention as her husband.
• Democrats, overall, got more coverage — and more positive ink and airtime — than Republicans.
• Obama enjoyed the friendliest coverage of the presidential field; McCain endured the most negative. That was due in part to the media's focus on fundraising; Obama raised more than expected and McCain raised less.
A recent story was interesting enough for me to pull myself out of blogger cold-storage and post something.
I like to think I am at least semi-literate. I might kid myself into thinking that I am halfway intelligent. But at least I can pronounce Sarkozy without a phonetic guide. And I didn't even attend an Ivy-league school, nor am I the leader of the free world.
How embarrassing.
By the way. This is post #100.
He doesn't understand that soldiers are real people.
He doesn't understand the difference between friend and foe.
He's clumsy discussing nuclear warfare.
He doesn't understand geography.
Our military is having success in Iraq......what does Obama want to do? Take them out of course.........no, not home necessarily, but to Pakistan, a nation of 170 million muslims who would make Iraq look like a walk in the park. Obama would successfully crush the morale of our armed forces more than the Dems already have.
Pakistan is working with us. Instead of threatening our allies, why can't he promise support? I appreciate Mitt Romney's comments stating that Obama wants to have tea with our enemies and blow up our friends, going from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.
When asked about using nucs....Obama was absolutely clumsy in stating his policy.....it was like he never even thought about it before (see "Obama the Orator" below). How can anybody want this guy as CIC? Honestly?
Does Obama have a clue about the importance of Pakistan? How does he think we get supplies to our armed forces in Afghanistan? Through Iran......a teleporter perhaps......FedEx?
Madame Hillary has never looked so good.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons «in any circumstance.«I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,» Obama said, with a pause, «involving civilians.» Then he quickly added, «Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.
As Charles Mitchell from EFM (Evangelicals for Mitt) said..........."huh?"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/19/romney_sharpens_appeal_to_conservatives/
Romney is definatley not afraid to take on the leading Dems.
Just notice how scattered Obama's comments are compared to Romney's precise and clear answer and stance on this issue.
Must be good to have a clue...
This is what the National Journal had to say about the state of things:
They are putting Thompson behind Mitt for good reason. And Mitt is tied with Rudy for good reason.
The rankings are not consistent with the polls........because the truth of the matter is Mitt's a brilliant strategist with charisma. He is someone who will fight big government, big spending, and will fight for family values.......that message is connecting with a lot of people.
While the video lacks a plan, I'm pleased that my candidate is the first to put out an ad addressing the moral decline of our nation..........Mitt is a true family man who has our children's well-being as a concern.
It's been a while, but I thought I'd share this story with you guys. It looks like Romney is shaping up to be a flash in the pan, as expected. A shocking amount of Republicans could care less for all of the front runners and put Mitt at the bottom of the list. You can read the story here.
To make matters worse, an actor who hasn't officially announced that he his running has pulled WAY ahead of the stormin' Mormon. I guess deep pockets and perfect hair can only get you so far.
That one is for you James.
Hey guys! I posted something I would usually save for this blog on my Florida for Mitt blog. I'm a little nervous about it......so please give me some feedback! I must have reached a Mormon-intolerance threshold or something.
I wasn't able to find the video on youtube, but Google had it. It is very long, but to hear what Mitt had to say about his change in position from pro-choice to pro-life begin watching at 17:00 minutes and go to 18:15 minutes. Feel free to watch the whole thing. It's probably among my favorite Mitt Romney videos.
.... that's where he goes.
I don't think it is a sin to change your mind. In fact, I think we should have more politicians who are able to think for themselves rather than supporting tired policy (and rhetoric) that is ineffective, outdated or downright wrong (ahem- Iraq). However, I want a president who is willing to stand for what he/she believes in and won't change their morals if it is politically expedient. I don't want someone who is the proverbial chaff, blown about by every wind of political doctrine.
So let’s face the facts folks. Mitt has labeled himself a conservative and has done so for a while, that I will grant and that doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that he is willing to change his views to get elected. Arnold is considered a conservative even though he is all over the map on issues. Sticking to his guns (no pun intended) has only helped his recent popularity. Mitt, on the other hand was someone I would have supported, had he not buckled to political pressure and come up with some stupid story about cloning, that has nothing to do with the issue by the way, to make himself more appealing to the Falwells of America and the conservative right. Here’s what he said during the first debate of this year. Prepare to be stunned and thrilled by this brilliant explanation of why he was suddenly enlightened to the evils of abortion.......(wait for it.....wait for it)
"About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It's a "brave new world" mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind."
Wow. That just could be the worst excuse for selling your morals to a political party that I have ever heard. He succeeded in using a literary allusion and a buzz-phraze in the same sentence but ended up sounding canned and trite. Nice try at a conversion story, Mitt, but, come on! I’m a little disappointed really. He’s a smart, well-spoken guy, couldn’t he come up with something better than cloning and a Brave New World? What happened to the meaningful stories about your parents pro-choice stance, that story about your aunt? Where did that go and what idiot on your campaign team thought up Brave New World? Whoever it was, fire them quick! Pretty soon you’ll have people labeling children’s books Communist Manifestos (Just kidding, it is a pretty odd book).
Was he pro-choice? There is no argument there, he was pro-choice as late as 2002 when he was running for Governor. He filled out a Planned Parenthood questionnaire with the following responses.
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES (Can you Rudy? James, didn’t you say you wouldn’t vote for Guliani because of this same reason?)
In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
There are many more quotes from his time in Massachusetts in both of his campaigns where he made his pro-choice perspective quite clear.
Now that we have established that he was pro-choice, for good reasons, reasons that I agree with, I want to explain why that bothers me.
Few members of the church are brave enough to agree with Roe v. Wade even though it is in perfect agreement with the gospel. I feel the same way about abortion that Mitt used to. It is a moral question for me, not one that I am going to change to fit the needs of a candidate. Mitt didn’t have the spine to do the same thing. He gave up a moral stance to get votes. He’s just another slick politician with overdone hair.
No matter how you twist it, the man was pro-life, or at least pretending to be. Either way, he was putting on a show to get votes. Which is just what his advisor, Michael Murphy has admitted.
In 2005 he fessed up and said "he's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."
What does Mitt stand for? That depends on what will get him elected. Take gay marriage. While I won’t get into the same details as the abortion flop, Mitt did make himself out to in the corner of gays and lesbians. He might not have been forthcoming about what he would/ wouldn’t do but he did want to become governor of Massachusetts and had to convince the voters that he leaned to the left on social issues.
There might be some good reasons to vote for the guy, but none of them have convinced me so far. He might be Mormon, but when you get past all the talk, he’s just another politician who would bend over backwards to serve his party but won’t stand for what he believes if it will hurt him in the polls.
YES!
This is Stuff From 1994.
The ONLY thing that I have found that could remotely suggest flip-flopping is Mitt's recent stance on abortion.
Gun rights..........nothing has changed, except now he is a member of the NRA
Gay rights...........nothing has changed
Taxes...................He knew it was unrealistic to sign a no-tax pledge running for Governor of Taxachusetts--anyone who would do such is a gimmicky fellow. Besides, actions speak louder than words--did he raise taxes in Massachusetts?
Recent Conservatism............he was NEVER a liberal Republican--look above and tell me in what way he was a liberal?
Immigration.........nothing has changed
Josh, I'm officially calling you out. You have called Mitt a flip-flopper. Please justify it. I plan on knocking down whatever you propose. You're much better at debating, but you won't be able to debate against the facts.
In conclusion, MSM is biased and ignorant. They will do whatever necessary to take down a conservative with promise and a record of accomplishments. Have you heard the phrase "a thousand lies makes a truth." We've heard that Mitt is a flip-flopper at least that many times.
Compare Mitt's media treatment to Obama's glorified status for doing essentially nothing. I'm sick of it--the media didn't even jump on Obama's case for saying that about 10,000 people in Kansas had died from tornadoes..........he even used that inaccuracy to attack Bush for not doing anything. If Mitt would have said that, it would have been the topic everywhere--the media is just so darn biased.........thank heavens for the internet where we can sort out the distorted truths.
Small digression:
I'm starting to realize why there are media niches for political thought. The Liberals can spew out whatever they want on T.V. and the viewers can't say anything back to them. The newspapers are a little more fair. The radio is controlled by conservatives--they actually have substance to argue when people call in. Liberals can't survive the radio successfully--few people think immigration amnesty, bigger government, increased welfare spending, and suppression of individual rights are logical (that is why they resort to Bush name-calling........when they're bored with that--they'll call for our troops to be sent home).
I have seen The Rainbow Fish in many family homes lately........I'm sorry, but that's pathetic. It's bad enough that our children are force-fed socialistic views at school, but then they come home and are inadvertantly brainwashed with such nonsense--the pretty pictures are the book's only redeeming qualities.
While minorities come in all shapes, sizes, and colors........let us not forget the one minority that might be just as important--the individual.
Are you among the many who want to deny individual rights for the "greater good".......if so, why?
First comes the money, now comes killer-debate-performances, and next comes the rise in polls!
I want to prevent this form becoming a Mitt Romney site, so the majority of my Romney praise is now at my new blog: Florida For Romney, so take a gander if you're interested.
I sacrificed sleep before my pharmacology final to watch the debate last night and I wasn't disappointed (the more I listen to McCain and Rudy though, the more I'm convinced they can't beat Clinton or Obama). Mitt couldn't have been more prepared. I especially like how he corrected Chris Matthew's ignorance on stem cell research...............ha! LOL! Mitt is wicked smart. Here are some quotes from people who agreed with me:
The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan: "If we view the proceedings in vulgar and reductive Who Won, Who Lost terms, and let's, Mitt Romney won..." (Peggy Noonan, "An Incomplete Field," The Wall Street Journal," 5/4/07) -
Noonan: "The statuesque Mr. Romney had a certain good-natured command, a presidential voice, and a surprising wiliness. He seemed happy to be there, and in the mysterious way that some people seem to dominate, he dominated." (Peggy Noonan, "An Incomplete Field," The Wall Street Journal," 5/4/07) -
Noonan: "He did some light-handed and audience-pleasing Clinton bashing, and was confident on stem-cell research." (Peggy Noonan, "An Incomplete Field," The Wall Street Journal," 5/4/07)
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) stood out with clear and crisp answers - showing flashes of humor and an ease with the important issues. He sounded authoritative when he talked about Iraq (not an easy task for a one-term governor of Massachusetts) and effectively cast himself - a Mormon - as part of the broad faith community in America." (Chris Cillizza, "Debate Wrap Up," The Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/, Posted 5/3/07)
Newsweek's Howard Fineman: "I think Mitt Romney came off looking presidential..." (MSNBC's "Post Debate Analysis," 5/3/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Romney showed himself to be a smart, articulate, optimistic, serious leader. If it was a first impression for anyone watching, as I imagine it might have been for anyone flipping away from The Office for a few minutes, it was a good start." (National Review Website, www.nationalreview.com, Accessed 5/4/07)
Mullings' Rich Galen: "Overall I thought Romney did the best. He had command of his positions and articulated them well." (Mullings Website, www.mullings.com/, Accessed 5/4/07)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "Governor Romney was very good in talking about health care, where he knows a great deal." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 5/3/07)
New York Daily News' Michael Goodwin: "Romney was very good at turning every answer into a statement of lofty, conservative principle. He spoke of family and marriage and faith and turned a question about 'what don't you like about America?' into a poetic ode to our nation. He came across as sharp and jaunty." (Michael Goodwin, "Giuliani Is Not-So-Artful Dodger," New York Daily News, 5/4/07)
The Politico 's Roger Simon: "It would be terribly irresponsible to pick a winner of Thursday night's Republican debate. So I will. I think Mitt Romney won." (Roger Simon, "Call Me Irresponsible: I Say Romney Won," The Politico, 5/3/07) -
Simon: "...Mitt Romney achieved almost everything he wanted to achieve. He looked and sounded presidential. He hit his talking points. And voters who knew nothing about him before the debate except that he was a Mormon, came away knowing a lot more." (Roger Simon, "Call Me Irresponsible: I Say Romney Won," The Politico, 5/3/07) -
Simon: "Romney was a man with a plan. He knew what points he wanted to make and he made them." (Roger Simon, "Call Me Irresponsible: I Say Romney Won," The Politico, 5/3/07) MSNBC's Contessa Brewer: "I thought Mitt Romney came off as looking very presidential." (MSNBC's "Tucker Carlson Live," 5/4/07)
The Politico's Michael Cornfield And Alan Kelly: "Best playmaker: Mitt Romney. A fluid pace in a frenetic setting. Executive-in-charge. Avoided 'his' religion but talked about faith." (Michael Cornfield and Alan Kelly, "GOP Playmaker's Wrap-up – Our Best And Worst Awards," The Politico, 5/3/07)
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "I'll tell you what, it looked like Mitt Romney really had a strong introduction to the Republican Party tonight." (MSNBC's "Post Debate Analysis," 5/3/07) -
Scarborough: "I'll tell you what, I got a lot of e-mails throughout this debate from Republicans, conservative Republicans across the country, they were telling me they thought Mitt Romney was the clear winner and I got to tell you Keith, that's the view from a lot of people inside of here right now." (MSNBC's "Post Debate Analysis," 5/3/07) -
Scarborough: "And this really looked like his format. ... Some people like Ronald Reagan pop at these type of debate settings. It looked like Mitt Romney pops in these type of settings." (MSNBC's "Post-Debate Analysis," 5/3/07)
Scarborough: "You're going to find out over the next couple of days that Mitt Romney is the guy that exceeded expectations, and John McCain was a guy that didn't quite meet expectations. A lot of the Republican base may start moving to Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani just was a little more flat that people expected, didn't show the type of leadership that people expected him tonight. Of course this is just a debate but certain people pop in the debate, certain people don't. Tonight it was Mitt Romney who seemed to break out of the pack." (MSNBC's "Post-Debate Analysis," 3/3/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Romney had some strong answers, good humor. I'd be surprised if he didn't help himself tonight. Maybe the audience will see what attracted his fans. Clearly, this was a format he seemed at home in." (Jim Geraghty, "Jim's Summary and Wrap-Up," The Hillary Spot On National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com , Posted 5/3/07)
National Journal's Marc Ambinder: "Mitt Romney is great with first impressions... He certainly seemed presidential. He flubbed no question. His knowledge was evident." (Marc Ambinder, "The Debate: Post-Spin Analysis," National Journal's On Call, http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/the_debate_post.html , Posted 5/4/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "Mitt Romney's aides and advisers were buoyant after the forum. And for some good reason. The former Massachusetts governor, ever handsome and articulate, was poised and smooth for most of the evening. For the thousands (millions?) watching at home who were getting their first taste of Mitt, they had to come away impressed." (Jonathan Martin, "My Take," The Politico, 5/3/07) -
Martin: "When even his opponents acknowledge that he performed well, you know Romney had a pretty good night." (Jonathan Martin, "My Take," The Politico, 5/3/07)
New York Sun's Ryan Sager: "If anyone stood out from the other candidates, in terms of looking polished and poised, it was clearly Mr. Romney. He got off some of the best lines of the night... But any casual observer of the debate (were there any non-junkies watching?) would probably have to view him as head-and-shoulders above the others." (Ryan Sager, "Who Won? Who Lost?" New York Sun Politics Blog, www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/who-won-who-lost.html , 5/3/07)
Dan Riehl: "Romney may be the guy who pulled it out tonight." (Dan Riehl, "McCain Can't Catch A Break," Riehl World View, www.riehlworldview.com/ , Posted 5/3/07)
John Hinderaker: "If you didn't already know how good Romney is, you would be really impressed by his performance tonight." (John Hinderaker, "Liveblogging The GOP Debate," Power Line Forum, www.plnewsforum.com , Posted 5/3/07)
Columnist Kathleen Parker: "And the winner is: Mitt the Good, the Perfect, the Gosh-Darned Smartest of Them All. He was substantive, concise, and humorous, if somewhat over-educated for those who haven't yet read the Cliff Notes on altered nuclear stem cells. His answer on stem-cell research showed that he has delved deeply into the issue..." (National Review Website, www.nationalreview.com , Accessed 5/4/07)
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Who won? – Mitt Romney won this debate. He looked relaxed, answered clearly, showed real warmth and a sense of humor, and actually answered the questions asked of him – even the stupid ones, to which I'll return shortly." (Ed Morrissey, "Debate Analysis: Romney Wins," Captain's Quarters Blog, www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009874.php, Posted 5/3/07)
Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Mitt Romney – Romney was clearly the class of the field. I know, I'm biased, blah, blah, blah. But if you saw the debate, believe your own eyes. Romney has a command of the facts and an effective delivery that must be the envy of the field. As America gets to know him in forums like this (not that I'm hoping there will be other forums precisely like this hideous one – perish that thought), the country will come to understand why Romney has generated such excitement among insiders and people who know him." (Dean Barnett, "A Quickie Debate Recap," Hugh Hewitt, hughhewitt.townhall.com , Posted 5/3/07)
CBN's David Brody: "The debate is over and I thought Mitt Romney really came across well. He was comfortable, funny and somewhat free wheeling." (CBN Website, www.cbn.com/CBNnews/151174.aspx, Accessed 5/4/07)
National Review's Mark Hemmingway: "It's obvious now that in the first major Republican presidential debate Mitt Romney put in a very strong performance." (Mark Hemingway, "Mitt Romney Can Do Whatever The Heck He Wants," National Review, 5/4/07)
P.S. Non-mormons aren't going to hell........I don't care what South Park says.
He's no Josh, that's for sure.........but as a Romney supporter, I find McFlugalson's cartoons refreshing.
Today I received my 5th letter from Romney. The previous ones were generic letters he probably sent out to thousands, but still made me feel important in an odd "I'm contributing" kind of way. This last letter was actually a handwritten message on the back of a family photo. I've only contributed nickels and dimes to his campaign, but what a red-letter day. I imagine he's sent the pictures to people who haven't maxed-out on contributions.........I have to be honest, he'll probably get more money from me (I told my wife I wouldn't spend any more though......so I'll have to sacrifice junkfood for a month or something). Is there another presidential candidate out there who would take the time to do that?
I've been quiet for a while, and I know you missed me. I'll try to balance out this blog a little more over the weekend.
Like the rest of the country, Monday's events were hard hitting for me. I didn't know a soul at the campus but it still feels so personal. To make things worse, it was my brothers birthday, another reminder of how tragic life can be. I can't even allow myself to comprehend loss on that scale, it is just difficult to wrap my mind around.
I wish we had answers, and pundits are already trying to find them and, in the process, turning a tragedy into a political opportunity. They see a tragedy and use it for an opportunity to spout the party line on gun control. Sad.
Even more sad is what I read on CNN today. 180 people senselessly massacred across Iraq in a series of attacks. It's interesting because I know tomorrow morning there will be few, if any, newspapers that put that news on their front pages. I can't pretend to understand why, but I think it has something to do with our personal detachment (us as a country- not personally) from the worsening situation over there. If 32 people is a tragedy, what is 180 people, and further, why don't we notice it anymore? I am afraid that attacks like this are no longer unexpected but it is no less a tragedy. Everyday children in Iraq are made into orphans, it's just sickening, and it breaks my heart that it is getting worse.
This isn't the most uplifting of posts, sorry. It's just stuff that's been on my mind. James, you should post something uplifting to compensate for my depressing stuff.
Just watched this..................Josh, you probably hate Fox news--hope I'm not torturing you. I was really entertained.
Other issue:
What kind of crazy world do we live in when 32 lives are lost mindlessly? Gone........just like that. (During the bloodliest month in Iraq, December, 112 soldiers died). I think about whackos all of the time.......especially when I go hometeaching in bad neighborhoods. I think about my family too, of course. I've been putting serious thoughts in purchasing a firearm. I sometimes wonder what kind of affect the army has had on me.......I'm capable of killing an assailant without the slightest remorse.......words cannot express the anger that wells up inside when I think of someone removing me from my family. That's probably where a lot of my issues with the Middle East stems. There are radical jihadists who persistently seek to destroy our nation and kill our families.....I hope we get them first. I've probably been too open with this paragraph.......just tell me I'm psycho......I'll probably agree with you.
"All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins," Cordero said. "In a lot of ways it's about caution in assigning all these inflated expectations on one individual, and expecting them to change something that many hands have shaped."
Does this offend anyone? It doesn't offend me.....I've been annoyed with Obama's unsubstantiated star status, but I do feel sorry for him and the expectations placed on him by his followers (especially since we skeptics haven't seen anything he's done give his proclamations credence).
Newt Gingrich and Garrison Keillor
I have serious problems with Republicans who deny the impact we have on our environment. But I have just as many issues with Democrats who want to stifle growth.
We need to be innovative, embrace new technologies and science, and give entrepeneurs incentives.
Saving the environment can have many economic advantages.........especially if WE lead the innovative movement for alternate fuels, transportation, and energy consumption. Imagine the jobs and money created from using our own fuel resources (ethanol, methane, or electricity sans fuel), making our own (and for the world) environment-friendly vehicles (hybrids, fuel-cells, or ethanol engines), and etc. There is so much growth and money to be made.........
I am anxiously awaiting the day we stop buying oil from people who hate us, the government isn't controlled by powerful oil corporations, and we Americans buy into the system--by that, I mean we need to be more pro-active (buying a compact hybrid instead of buying a Hummer could be a nice start).
It's not so much that he's pro-choice......but he expects me to pay for aborted babies. I don't care if the woman is poor..........if she's too poor to have an abortion, I bet she has medicaid and can give up her unwanted mistake for adoption. Besides, the way things are now--any woman can have a free pregnancy--she just has to refuse to pay the medical bill and Uncle Sam will eventually pick it up.
I understand that abortion is a constitutional right, but to have me pay for them infuriates me. http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/
I guess the Queen of Bush Slander is just doing her patriotic duty presenting her own foreign policy out there in friendly Syria.
Thanks Nancy for fulfilling your promise to reach out across the aisle to help better unify our nation.
What is she doing?????????
Dear liberals,
feel free to bash our president, the U.S., the soldiers, your republican parents.....but have the courtesy to do it within our borders. After all, this is a time of war......we don't need to be wearing our weaknesses out on our sleeves. Man, wouldn't it be great if unity wasn't a weakness anymore?
Thank you, James McCann
As much fun it is to rail on politics, I realized that it is going to be a long haul until the election next year. Both Romney and Clinton have raised absurd amounts of money which doesn't portend well.
Folks, it's gonna get ugly. Real ugly.
Can we call him Moneybags Mitt now?
For those who respect true musical talent.......enjoy!
You know what they say about polls... nonetheless, I thought this was interesting.
Here's a recent poll that shows Mitt might not be doing as hot as you might like to think. In fact, it shows that Republicans would favor an actor who hasn't even announced his intention to run over good old Mitty.
Ouch!
This video shares part of my feelings.....my long response to Josh's recent thoughts might have to wait a few days (spring break is next week!!!!!!).
Before I get started, this is a picture of me descending Leatherman Peak. The 2nd tallest mountain in Idaho. We did it this past weekend. Lots of snow, ice, and sore muscles. Staff, I wish you were there. Come do Rainer with us May of 08. Anyways, my first real mountaineering ice climb. The peak was 12,543 feet. Heinous.
And now...
While I enjoy a good scandal, (though it does no good for our country's image) I am pretty tired of Plame's situation being construed as a Dick Cheney fiasco. There is a lot of assumption going into thinking that Cheney was the master-mind behind the Plame ousting. Not that I don't think he couldn't come up with it, but I'm not sure what he would gain by leaking it. Rove might stand more to gain, but he is in enough trouble already. If Rove is as "tight" with Bush as is touted, again, what would he have to gain also? I think it is way too late to think that anything could be gained politically by this. I can guarantee that she will use her looks and situation to get at least a dozen interviews, a few speechs, and two books. No doubt it will turn into a money and popularity contest with her. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it seems too coincidental that this happens almost every time. Clinton ring a bell.
Now, on to more important things, our future Pres. Romney.
Still, Romney is making a significant impact on the American people. As Josh so dutifully pointed out, Romney took the majority vote from the recent PAC convention.(Glad to see you coming around.) He beat out Guliani, McCain and the others. He also is gaining significant ground in Michigan and believe it or not, Ohio.
Shocking, I know. But why should it be so shocking? In a recent interview that Mitt Romney had on Fox News, he was confronted by the interviewer as to his position change on abortion, Mitt did not back down. He said that he did change his position about 4 years ago and is now pro-life. No other candidate can say with clear diction why they changed a position. He made no excuses as to why he changed his view. America is about learning and educating one's self for the improvement of others. Mitt has done that. If I learn valid things that would change my opinion, I might consider making a modification to my view points. As would any of you I would imagine, where there is credible proof. His view points will directly influence the outcome of the next election for the better. No other candidate, neither Dem nor Reb, will be able to stand toe to toe with him and be secure in their position.
Sorry it took me a while to get this one posted. Work is out of control right now. And Courtney jsut got Sara's scissors and cut half of her hair off. Nice.
On my ride into work I pass this little barber shop in a seedy area of town. I have never seen a soul in there but I couldn’t help but notice the sign that hangs in their front window.
If we can’t make you look good, you’re ugly!
While I doubt this brings in too many customers it has stuck in my mind.
I can’t help but think that the same is true for the situation in Iraq. No matter how much we try to pretty it up, it is just plain ugly. No amount of hand-wringing or optimism will change the fact that we are in a situation that we should never have gotten into in the first place.
I think it is telling that we don’t even know what it would mean to ‘win’ this conflict. Deposing Saddam, we thought that was winning. Helping the govt. to be established, thought that was winning too. The sad fact is, there is no way to ‘win’. The reasons we went there have changed so much that I don’t think we really know why we are there anymore. The world isn’t safer, Iraq is arguably a breeding ground for terrorism. Saddam is gone, which is great, but the world is full of tyrants and I fear that another type of tyranny will take his torch and run with it.
In America, our lives are comfortable enough that we can sit around and pontificate about the virtues of democracy. But in other countries, as many of us know from our missions, having enough to eat is a more pressing matter. Historically, the only democracy that people from the Middle East have known was imperialism which was synonymous with exploitation. So we are now trying to reform their country in our own image, afraid that if we left them to do things on their own, they would choose to have a government that we could not support.
Is the Middle East thirsting for democracy? Arguably, no. Is it always what is best for them? That’s a tough one. In Russia I met scores of people who cursed the democratic changes that took place in the 90’s because now they have nothing to eat.
Democracy is not something you can give to people. They have to want it, make it for themselves. If not, if you try to force it on people they either reject it or use it in ways we don’t like. Case in point: Hamas.
I wish I had some brilliant point to all of this. The sad truth is I have no clue what I think we should do from here. I don’t think there is a good answer, the only options are ugly from here on out.
I don’t want any more of our soldiers to die fighting a battle we can’t win. A battle they never should have been put in. But, I don’t want Iraq to regress any further than it has. I fear, though, in spite of all our best efforts, we cannot prevent it.
I remember one professor I had at the University of Utah who talked about what he thought would happen in Iraq if we went to war there. He drew a big map of Iraq and split it in three pieces. He talked about how the borders of Iraq were drawn by an British civil servant who had no understanding of the different peoples who lived there, he was just concerned with divvying up the land for the British installed leaders in the region. Here we are, now, still trying to get three different groups to be one homogeneous group. You would think we learned some lessons from British colonialism, but ten again, maybe not. I agree with my professor, it just isn’t going to happen.
I don’t want to be partisan but I am frustrated with those who got us into this mess without thinking it through. There was no justification, and trying to sow democracy was just an afterthought.
I’m just a s patriotic as the next guy, I like to think that I am a little more, perhaps. I want victory, success and prosperity. But isn’t it time we admit we really screwed up. As mistakes go, this one is a biggy, monumental. even. Again I have no solutions, I don’t pretend to think anyone in politics has any great ideas, and I surely don’t have any better ones. I’m just sad and frustrated that fellow Americans are dying for the country we love, and doing it for reasons that were either false or contrived.
Looks like they both have taken turns in the opposite direction.
Rocky now says:
As this administration continues to pursue policies completely contrary to the laws, treaty obligations, and fundamental values of our nation, we need to take a stand and loudly proclaim our values as patriotic Americans. The principles upon which our nation was founded require a withdrawal from Iraq and full accountability for President Bush and this disastrous administration.
Oh yea, and he is calling for Bush to be impeached.
So my friends run this blog called “Your turn at the Soapbox.” Which is cool. I like the fact that my friends have such varied political views and that they are willing to talk about them. The want me to post on that blog too. And I guess I will. I am a little pissed that they decided to call me a long-haired, emo-sissy. Not that their calling me names bothers me per se. I’ve known this bunch of guys since high-school. I am however bugged that this is what political discussion has come to mean. If I disagree with you, you simply call me names and try to make me look bad so that you look right. There is no cooperation, no attempt to persuade, no chance to work together on finding a common solution. I think it hurts more that my friends call me a liberal. I have never posted on the blog, and frankly my political views are not well formed and all over the map. They do not fit neatly into one ideology. Despite this fact my friends think that they have me all figured out and they are ready to pull out the labels and names and say things like “...spew out all that liberal sissified poetry you call art...” I am not sure that even makes sense. It’s just an attempt at fancy name calling. The thing that is even sadder is I know that my friends are only half serious. But the people who discuss politics for a living and want to be taken seriously are even worse. Ann Coulter’s calling John Edwards a “faggot” is a perfect example. If I called one of my co-workers that word, I could be fired; and yet somehow it’s o.k. to use it in public discourse. I hate talking politics with anyone because the response I get from people is always the same if they agree with me, they call the people who don’t names. If they don’t agree with me they call me names. It’s always discouraging. In fact I think there are two major problems with Americans my age. The first is what I have been describing. If I disagree with you, you are (insert political, racial, sexual, intelligence insult or other slur or slander here). The other is if I am messed up it’s someone or something else’s fault, and I am not responsible. We need to own up to these things. Our grandparents would be ashamed of the way we act. Oh and my hair was never really that long.
Something James said earlier made me think.
We have so many more important and pressing matters to attend to than to constantly attack Bush during the most crucial time in our nation's history........I'm telling you right now, I would even support the vile Clinton's if they were still in control.
I have heard this idea before, here and elsewhere, that we should support our President in anything that he does. The justification for this idea is, as I understand it, that we are Americans and shouldn't doubt our leaders. While this is obviously necessary for those in the armed services, this is a ridiculous thought for the rest of us.
In this "most crucial time in our nation's history" (which I'm not too sure about. I think the Civil War was a might bit more crucial) we should be doubting everything our President says and does, especially when much of it flies in the face of our history and constitution.
I've tried to trace where this thought has come from and I have discovered it's source. Yup, that's right, the source of all brilliant contemporary political thought: Britney Spears. Here's what she said:
Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.
That was shortly after she stated, brilliantly, "Would I (ever kiss a woman) again? No! I would not do it. Maybe with Madonna, but..."
Instead of prescribing to blind obedience, let's hear what Thomas Jefferson said:
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
When we convince ourselves that we should not question the acts of our leaders we allow ourselves to be mislead. The patriotic thing to do is question, disagree, propose alternatives and doubt our leaders.
Sometimes I say things and regret that I have said them. I guess that the buffer that usually exists between brain and mouth is malformed in my physiology. I suppose that is the danger of talking politics, especially the way that I do it. I specialize in parody and sarcasm. And, too often, parody can be mistaken for hatred or vitriol. Simply reading someone else's thoughts (like on a blog) it is hard to sense where the sarcasm is and where the true belligerence is. It's easier when I draw cartoons because no one takes me seriously, but people still choose to get angry.
In a round about way, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone by what have said here. The original intent of this site was for us to have a place where we can share our thoughts, however disparate and undefinable they may be. Hopefully understanding one another better, and perhaps becoming more open-minded to each others positions. In the process, I think we are able to maintain the relationships I so value but sometimes unabashed fraternity comes through.
Just as when we have the rare opportunity to actually see one another, we joke and tease, bringing up dirty laundry and calling each other names. While an exercise in immaturity, I consider it a harmless manifestation of our brotherhood. When I call my friends names, I do so in full parody mode (ie when James blew me away in Halo, I called him a jerk, didn’t mean it, but I said it anyway). I think you all know that I am probably the biggest long-haired emo-sissy on the planet, I am unabashed Death Cab for Cutie and Weezer fan, and love reading Ralph Nader and Michael Perenti (collective gasp). And have you seen my hair lately?
I do consider what we do to be different that Coulter in that she means it when she says ‘faggot.’ When I call you guys names I say it with no more hatred than familial teasing. I don’t know how that got lost, but I am sorry that it did.
But, there is one person in my family that my wife has forbidden me to speak about politics with because said person cannot leave personal feelings out of the conversation. I cannot have a political conversation with this person without them taking everything I say as a personal insult. They become belligerent and hold it against me for months. It’s a loss, because I think we could find a lot more in common if we just talked more. I hope that won’t happen with us.
I think that we in this country must be able to openly disagree and too often we aren’t willing to do so. As I have said here before I think most people don't fall into the two categories 'liberal' or 'conservative, and I surely don't. It seems that so many people are stuck behind their point of view and unwilling to talk. In a politically disparate time, people stand behind their party stances and lob canned attacks at each other. But at least here, we are talking, and having a good time at it. I get to hear things from James that are FAR from my thinking. I have to try to understand it, and think of what it means to me. Maybe he will make me vote for Mitt in ‘08 (don’t count on it, I just haven’t made my mind up yet!) and I don’t know of anyone else with whom I could have such open political conversation, blatant disagreement even, and still love you guys to death.
If there is name calling, which, there has only been one instance of, it is not a political attack. It’s teasing, and I'm sorry if it was hurtful.
This picture belongs in the editorial section or political cartoon segment.......but the front page on a "responsible" newspaper????? It's funny.....here I am minutes from where he gave this speech, and the local papers haven't even covered this. Interestingly, he has lots of hispanic support down here--the Miami-Dade County Commissioner among them. It is a funny picture though.....especially after (a few weeks ago) Romney gave his thoughts on Castro........particularly his "I can't wait until he's dead" thoughts.
I stand corrected, by fighting the terrorist abroad--we have not kept war from our shores.
I think he makes a better Republican than a woman......at least we know where the Trump's loyalty lies.
At least he has a sense of humor about being a closet liberal.
Don't worry, this post has nothing that will offend you guys.
I had a website a while back where I posted my art and sketches. I had to pay out the ear for it so I killed it earlier this year. Since I've had so much fun doing this blog I decided to migrate my old stuff to a new blog (free- yay!) and start posting new stuff.
I'll add a link up top so check it out and let me know what you think!
And if there are any sites you think we ought to link to, just let me know and I will add them.
I have heard this time and time again. He's folksy.
That's great that his gaffs make him seem human but they also make him look like an idiot. I don't like my president to look like an idiot. I like my country, I don't think the country is stupid but, he makes us look that way.
As for him convincing Americans of his points of view with his sincerity, that's just baloney. He doesn't sound sincere to me. He sounds like he is reading a speech that Karl wrote for him and he just doesn't understand why Karl has to use so many fancy words. It's obvious he uses cliches that are fed to him and he hasn't a clue what they actually mean.
"Fool me once... (what was it that Karl said, and what the heck did it mean?"
It's not just that he is inarticulate, we all are at times. It's the fact that he admits he is ignorant about history, doesn't read any news, doesn't know what the tide is, thinks we've been allies with Japan for 150 years, and so on.
As for being elected twice, I won't go into the first election when he was appointed by the Supreme Court, and in the last election only 60% of Americans who can vote actually did. 31% chose him, meaning between 20-25% of the population actually voted for Bush. Now, the real problem is voter apathy, people don't care enough to get out and vote but even still! Not political capital, just one in four. I would venture that one if four people can be fooled.
The best argument presented by Bush was that he didn't want the rights taken from his aides to talk candidly with him in the oval office.....his appointees should be able to converse with him freely and without thought of being prosecuted for candid discussion.
Our President has never been a great orator. Not even on Nov. 14th, 2001, when he gave me the chills. I love listening to our President......true, he often says things incorrectly with his "hickish" accent, and he often stumbles over his words sometimes saying silly things. But still the same, I love listening to him.
In his speech, you hear a man that relates to the normal everyday American......he has a connection with many Americans that he is "one of them." You watch his debates with Gore and Kerry.....all the critics said that Bush lost.....but many viewers at home still connected with Bush better......Bush was tangible (for lack of a better word).
Despite his struggles as a speaker......his common sense still rings true if you are paying attention to the content of his message and not his level of literacy.
In his mannerisms and speech, he convinces many listeners that he is sincere and honest.......often many great orators of our time come across as "too smooth" and untrustworthy.
I know exactly why some people cringe when he talks--our Head of State should be able to present ideas in a way that stimulates thought, has respectability, and gives discernible meaning. This should be part of the President's job description.
But never forget that "Rome is the mob" or "America is the common people" and to a great extent Bush has been able to present his ideas successfully. People often forget that he was elected not once, but twice........that's hard for an idiot to accomplish. I don't know of any President has had so many difficult decisions to make.....so I choose to support him--poor speeches and all.
Here’s a thought for you. How long will conservatives have a real grip on this country? Not long judging by the field of Republican presidential candidates. The front-runner is pro- choice and pro-gay-marriage for heavens sake! Let’s take a closer look at their personal lives and see how much they value their families. From Greg Seargant of the Horse’s Mouth:
How many divorces have their been among the men -- and women -- in the Democratic field? Let's run through them real quick, just for the fun of it. None of the following liberal Dem candidates has gotten divorced:
(1) Hillary: You know the story. No need to repeat it
(2) Obama: Married to Michelle, whom he met when she was just out of law school, for 15 years.
(3) Edwards: Married to Elizabeth since 1977; they've had four children, one of whom was killed in a car crash. As Andrew Sullivan recently observed: "Most couples never survive the death of a child. The Edwards family did — and went on to have two more."
(4) Richardson: Married to his high-school sweetheart for 33 years.
(5) Biden: First wife killed in car accident in 1972; married to his current wife for almost 30 years.
Yeah, you have to really scrape your way to the bottom of the Democratic field to find divorces. The only Dem Presidential candidate with any kind of credible shot who has gotten divorced is...Chris Dodd, who divorced in 1982.
In fact, if you think about it, the entire field of Dems deemed credible boasts fewer divorces than Rudy Giuliani alone!
What does this mean for Republicans? I don't know, but it's a sad day when you compare your candidate to a Clinton and are left wondering about their morals.