Imagine the following situation:
You are going 45 in a 40, on your way to an important meeting. All of a sudden, you see those dreaded blue and red lights in your mirror. Shit, you are going to be late. The cop pulls you over and tells you that you were speeding. You explain the situation, and then he lets you off with a warning. Most of us would be happy about this, and we would probably even brag. That is not how a mayor in Warren, Michigan responded to it however. (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_7735/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=HFAgurKX)
So, this mayor decided that he felt guilty not getting the ticket, and so he decided to call the cops and request one. He figured that it could be seen as favoritism, and thus he made the proper choice I know, most of us would think that this dude was batshit insane, but, frankly, it is good that he took the punishment that he deserved.
Most of us get mad when we are punished. We feel that we don't deserve it, that they were waiting just for us, and/or that the Government is out to get us. Personal responsibility is usually thrown out of the window, and that is what happens with tickets normally. In this case, however, the Mayor knew that he was responsible, and he made sure to suffer what he sowed. I really like the fact that a person was so concerned with right and wrong that he requested the proper punishment. This dude rocks
Even more impressive is that this comes from a politician. Far too often, our 'leader' decide that they are above the law. A simply look at Blago, Clinton, Bush, or Spitzer shows this trend. Finally there is a politician, though he is only a small town mayor, that is standing up and doing the proper, and moral thing. All the power to him. I believe that this mayor should run for Govenor.
Read more ...
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, December 8, 2008
Internets Beware; Watch What You Post
Quick entry for today, and for most of this week, as it is exam week. Additionally, next week I will be out camping with Peter O (you should recognize his comments) in the snow and freezing my ass off... I have no idea if I will get some posts done and delay-posted or not, but I will have something up on those days.
Anyways, onto the real story. I am somewhat careful of what I post online. Sure, I have some interesting ideas that I share with you all, and I have some photos of me doing questionable things (drinking and shooting) both on here and on Facebook. But, I really am quite careful when it comes to overall information. There have been times when I posted something inappropriate, or dangerous to myself, but I usually remove them, or ask that they are immediately deleted. That said, there is a problem in this country with people who don't pay attention to this issue, so, alas, I need to warn you all on some things...
So, here is the deal, how can people really think that this is a good idea? I mean, you have hard workers, clearly intelligent men, but all they are doing is screwing around and telling us about it. If Obama had posted this picture, there would be a huge, huge issue. Seriously, this was a big move, and the fact that Obama did not remove the offender is a clear sign of how his administration will be run. I do, however, approve of how Clinton handled the whole thing.
So, basically, I am saying that you should all be careful of what you post online. What you say today will matter tomorrow.
Read more ...Friday, November 28, 2008
A Response To "Republicans: It’s time to hang it up"... About The Right Splitting
Before I start, I would like to show you a quotation from my entry endorsing Obama for President. In this quote, I show you exactly what I think of third parties. Keep this in mind when you start reading my response to The Ohio Republic:
" To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national."
Over on The Ohio Republic, Harold has a post about the potential split in the Republican party that he sees occurring soon. I am going to be quoting his entry, so that I can respond below, and per the terms on the bottom of his blog, I need to include this:
"Permission is granted to use contents of this blog (except feeds copyrighted by their originators), provided that this copyright notice appears with the item used, and the use is not for profit."
"The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration)."
Claiming Hoover as an example of your party, or your own position, is probably not a good thing to do. That said, I agree that the old-school republicans, of which I do respect and enjoy, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The main point of a paleoconservative is mostly laze-fare in both social and business aspects. Furthermore, they should only care about the countries well being, making sure that we do not run into debt and that we are ready to defend ourselves. A true paleoconservative will only wish to go to war when either our country is attacked or if there is clear evidence that we NEED to go to war to protect ourselves. This is the position a lot of our founding fathers were, and this is a decent/good position.
"Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent. "
While I would not place Roosevelt, or even Nixon, with Reagan or Bush, I agree that the same fiscal sense as the paleoconservatives, while an invasion into the personal sphere, is the trademark of this group. To me, neoconservativisim is not a good position to be in, as it forces your believes (usually religious) upon the country. Additionally, the odds of being able to get our message around the world without going into debt (the fiscal republican part) is very unlikely. How can we have a war without a huge waste of money? Basically, I contend that their secondary goal, makes the neoconservatives lose their primary goal.
"The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible. "
The Republicans have weathered worse storms then this. When Lincoln left the party, they still were able to reform shortly there-after. I can not see that the party will fall due to only this issue. Frankly, at the start of the election season, I agreed that they would, but at the end, I thought the Democrats would.
"Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.
The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad. "
The Democratic party is splitting more than the Republicans are. Frankly, I see both extremes breaking off, and a new 'moderate' party forming with 20% from both camps. The old-school democrats are getting more and more alienated from their party as the far-left (huffpo, moveon, etc.) become the mainstay of the party. That said, as the Democrat party is the oldest party in US politics, I see this party as being stable and continuous.
"A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only. "
I sure as hell hope that Ron Paul will never get his own party. While I like the idea of this populist party, it is clear that this is simple old school republicans. Frankly, this is how the party was before Reagan, and this is what I think it should return to. Due to its previous existence for decades (right after the fall of the Whigs, until Reagan), this party would probably still be very stable. Hell, I would be a republican if it went back to this system.
That said, Rob Paul would not be the leader of this; Paul is in no way a supporter of social freedoms. Additionally, he is not for a strong national defense, nor does he have good economic plans. For more on Ron Paul, refer to my entry regarding him.
"The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative. "
To me, this party would be one of the worst things that we could have in the American political system. After all, why would we want a party that specifically aims to violate the Constitution. Don't we already have the Constitution Party for that? My biggest question to this party would be how they could justify a pro-life social policy, but an anti-life foreign policy, policy? Unlike the previous two parties, I can not see the neoconservatives as being a stable party. After all, any small party that is targeting only one specific area, will become redundant and thus loose votes. By doing this, the CC would regulate themselves to tiny-party status.
...
"I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about. "
The reason that more than two parties do not last is the way that our system is set up. With a winner take all system, it is best to try and keep your party stable, and thus not on the fringes. Any third party is on the fringes, and when it becomes mainstream, it gets taken by one of the two players. This works very well as it allows vetting, and socializing, of the more "extreme" ideas before they come to the center.
Overall, I do agree that the religious right (neoconservatives) will be splitting from the Republican party sooner or later. I do not think that they will form their own group, but that they will promptly align themselves with already existing groups. The Constitution Party, and other third parties, would be a good fit for these former Republicans.
Read more ...Monday, September 15, 2008
The Double Standard of American Politics - With Commentary from Barga
Post 51
Please remember that the political maps are now located at the end of the posts. I am still unpacking my boxes in my new apartment. You know, it didn't feel like mine until my bed got put in (even though everything was already here)
I was linked from Gaia, Huffington post, some comments on other blogs I participate in, and 5 (yes, 5) different people emailed me to do this entry. Recently, there was a post over at That Minority Thing which happened to discuss the hypocrisy and double standard that exists within politics. I have decided to copy it here and post my responses to each one. As a preview, I find most of these two volumes to be partisan bullshit and not really worth any response. They are comparing a vocal minority to what they think is right, which is pointless in politics.
We need to stop doing this sort of thing, it ruins politics and drowns out legitimate arguments.
My comments, of course, are bolded.
Vol. 1
-
If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “token hire.”
If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “game changer.”
In this case, both companies have morons in the HR department. One should be hired on merit alone (remember, Merit is not just qualifications, but how you would work with the other members.
-
If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you’re a “baby daddy.”
If you’re the same in Alaska you’re a “teen father.” (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you’re an F’n redneck that don’t want any kids, but that’s too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning noon and night).
This is an issue of semantics, I do not see the issue here; however, his description of his own self is quite amusing.
-
Black teen pregnancies? A “crisis” in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A “blessed event.”
A death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. The issue here is comparing all black pregnancies to ONE white one. Frankly, there needs to be less premarital pregnancies in all racial groupings.
-
If you grow up in Hawaii you’re “exotic.”
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re the quintessential “American story.”
The difference here is the narrative, you are comparing a living location to a life story. By doing this the right-side is able to argue one is a exotic danger and the other is your stereotypical American. That said, they are equal when the narrative is out (both exotic and both stereotypical).
-
Similarly, if you name you kid Barack you’re “unpatriotic.”
Name your kid Track, you’re “colorful.”
Where was the name 'barack' ever called unpatriotic. This seems to be an attempt by the left-side to make it a personal attack WHILE attacking the name of the DS-kid.
-
If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fulling vetting the individual you’re “reckless.”
A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”
Wait, people were calling Biden a reckless pick?
-
If you say that for the “first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country” it makes you “unfit” to be First Lady.
If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you “First Dude.”
You should be proud of your country as a participating American; however, you need not be proud of its actions. As for the fringe group, Peter O pointed out to me that that was misleading info. Get your facts straight...
-
A DUI from twenty years ago is “old news.”
A speech given without proper citation from twenty years ago is “relevant information.”
Both of these are non-issues raised because there is nothing else to say...
-
And, finally, if you’re a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife’s reoccurrence of cancer you’re a “questionable spouse.”
If you’re a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn with Downs Syndrome… Well, we don’t know what that is ‘cause THAT’S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK!
As far as I am aware Edwards was never challenged based on his commitment (or lack thereof) to his wife. If he was, and it was by the same party that is defending Palin, then we have an issue.
Vol. 2
-
If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you’re a “phoney.”
Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you’re “well loved.”
Obama was called a Phoney, or are you talking about Clinton here? Either way, so what. All democrats are phonies and all Republicans are loved to the right-side. The inverse is true to the left-side.
-
SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to “get to know you.”
If you’re white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you’re “one of us.”
Who determined when America knew a candidate; I sure as hell was not asked.
-
If you give your wife a dap on stage, it’s actually a “terrorist fist jab.”
If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child’s hair on national TV it’s an “adorable moment.” (Seriously, forget about abstinence only, teach these folks some grooming skills).
I am not seeing the likeness here. The far-right called the fist jab terroristic, not the majority of the right.
-
DTD SAYS: If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you’re an “extremist.”
If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you’re a “fundamentalist.”
Fundamentalists are extremists. The Jews for Jesus (thus, not Jews) are the exact same as Wright.
-
If you’re a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you’re “uppity.”
If you’re a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate (it might be five more school over the next five years. No one has yet verified whether or not Palin was actually ever registered at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. But, you know how shady people are who ever attended any kind of school in Hawaii).
The only person I remember calling Obama Uppity was his own Veep candidate: Biden.
-
SeanOcali says: If you’re 18, white, and get a 16 year old girl pregnant “life happens.”
If you’re 18, black, and impregnate a 16 year old girl, you’re a “registered sex offender.”
Depends on the state; either way, the law should be above color.
-
If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of “Change,” it’s just “empty rhetoric.”
If one week before your party’s national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about “Change,” that’s “red meat.”
What? McCain is not about change, nor is he about Bush, he is about the positions he has always been. Obama is about change (be that good or bad).
And your last lesson for the day:
If you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a moderate Republican, if you’re female, male, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, or GLBT, if you’re a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, agnostic or atheist - “Yes, we can!”
If you’re a pitbull with lipstick from Alaska, “Yup, yup!”
This just proves my point that this is nothing but a political attempt to create controversy. People, grow up, and act like bloody adults.
*Map Update*
So, when they release roughly 5000 polls in one week this is nearly impossible for me to do. Obama barely gained anywhere and McCain gained a bunch. Look at the polls your self over at Real Clear Politics yourself if you want to see the more recent update (my info is from Noon on Sunday).
With the new polls release Virginia is now in the McCain camp as is North Dakota. Obama lost ground in almost every state, and thus is getting closer and closer to not being a winner (He lost ground in both NH and NM, both would cost him the election by a few votes). Nationally, McCain had a gigantic spike as he is now +2.3. In the EC count, Obama is still winning with 273 to 265, but it is very close. Next week we will see if this is a bounce due to Palin and the Convention or not.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Friday, August 8, 2008
How To Win Ohio (or prevent Obama from doing it)
Post 41:
Take a good look at the layout of the counties of Ohio. Remember it, you will need it. Ohio is going to be a swing state again in this coming election and Obama needs to win it in order to become the president. McCain, in theory, can keep the status quo in Ohio which would ensure his victory; basically, keep Obama from winning Ohio and McCain wins it all. Lets look at how a Democrat can win Ohio.
When you look at the counties of Ohio notice three particular areas, the places around Franklin, Lucas, and Cuyahoga counties. These counties and the surrounding areas are essential Democratic strongholds in this state. We can assume that these will be democrat areas. Now, to win the rest of the state by a large enough margin Obama would need to ensure that he gets at least 40% in the Appalachian counties, that is, the counties on our eastern border. Think of it as an inverse-C. If Obama can get these counties he should have this state.
Looking at the past elections, Clinton, Strickland, Other Clinton, and Bush won these areas easily. Ignoring Strickland (who argued based on his location and life experience) these counties were won by hitting home three issues: economy, security, taxes. If you can ensure the working people of these areas that you will help the economy (give them jobs), secure this country (being a Republican helps in this area) and lower taxes then you can win. You need these people to win this state. Furthermore, the people in those areas reflect Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, so it is essential to have them.
All McCain needs to do is win in one of the three categories and he should be able to pull of a win in Ohio. With 60+% of Ohioans thinking that we should stay in Iraq he has security down pat. So, basically, if McCain can ensure the people of Appalachia that he will not raise taxes and that he will bring them jobs then McCain can win this state. Also, the fact that Obama is black will help McCain out slightly in those areas.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
Take a good look at the layout of the counties of Ohio. Remember it, you will need it. Ohio is going to be a swing state again in this coming election and Obama needs to win it in order to become the president. McCain, in theory, can keep the status quo in Ohio which would ensure his victory; basically, keep Obama from winning Ohio and McCain wins it all. Lets look at how a Democrat can win Ohio.
When you look at the counties of Ohio notice three particular areas, the places around Franklin, Lucas, and Cuyahoga counties. These counties and the surrounding areas are essential Democratic strongholds in this state. We can assume that these will be democrat areas. Now, to win the rest of the state by a large enough margin Obama would need to ensure that he gets at least 40% in the Appalachian counties, that is, the counties on our eastern border. Think of it as an inverse-C. If Obama can get these counties he should have this state.
Looking at the past elections, Clinton, Strickland, Other Clinton, and Bush won these areas easily. Ignoring Strickland (who argued based on his location and life experience) these counties were won by hitting home three issues: economy, security, taxes. If you can ensure the working people of these areas that you will help the economy (give them jobs), secure this country (being a Republican helps in this area) and lower taxes then you can win. You need these people to win this state. Furthermore, the people in those areas reflect Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, so it is essential to have them.
All McCain needs to do is win in one of the three categories and he should be able to pull of a win in Ohio. With 60+% of Ohioans thinking that we should stay in Iraq he has security down pat. So, basically, if McCain can ensure the people of Appalachia that he will not raise taxes and that he will bring them jobs then McCain can win this state. Also, the fact that Obama is black will help McCain out slightly in those areas.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
McCain, Part 2
Post 28:
*MAP UPDATE*
Due to not being here for an update in the map on Monday I will be posting it today.
As sad as this is, it appears as though there have been no changes in the map. Obama still has an easy win in November.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*
This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1,McCain, Part 1, and the newest entry, Obama, Part 2. This time I am going after some of McCains smaller issues that I take offense to. I think that McCain is dropping the ball in these three areas: The Gas Tax, Protecting Marriage, Lets Chat About Stem Cells. Mr. McCain, if you wish to keep my vote (and, being in Ohio, I am rather important) please take a better stand on these issues.
The Gas Tax:
A few months ago McCain joined Clinton in calling for a gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day (a bit late for this now). Obama, rightly, rejected the idea and called it stupid. While this is no longer important, this shows me how far McCain is willing to pander to get some votes. The gas tax would never have worked; it would have saved the average American roughly 75$ for the time it was extended. To me, that seems wasteful when it would push our federal government even further into debt. However, McCain was busy pandering to not-so-intelligent Americans who would fall for this sort of thing. Straight-Talk Express my ass.
Protecting Marriage:
Let me set one thing straight, I do not support marriage. I believe that marriage should be a contract between parties that consent, nothing more, nothing less. That said, because nobody is going to be getting rid of marriage anytime soon, I find it is most pertinent that we preserve this right for ALL Americans. Why should we only allow certain people to get married. Studies have shown time and time again that homosexual persons are born that way, not that it is a choice (though why anybody would chose to be hated by a large patch of humanity always gets lost on me). If your loved one was in the hospital, or died and wanted to leave you something, or even wanted you on their health care plan, your wishes are only granted if you happen to have the opposite genitalia. THAT IS BULLSHIT. All Americans should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law (we are not all equal though) and thus all Americans should have the same basic rights.
Lets Chat About Stem Cells:
Stem cells are a major issue in American politics these days. While the source (abortion) of embryonic stem cells is an issue, most parties agree that Adult stem cells are okay. Well, adult stem cells are not as effective, and they do not do the needed things. I do not understand why people are against embryonic stem cells. If the fetus is going to be aborted, why not use it for a common good? If Nancy Regan comes out in support of these stem cells, then how can any self-respecting Republican not support their use?
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
*MAP UPDATE*
Due to not being here for an update in the map on Monday I will be posting it today.
As sad as this is, it appears as though there have been no changes in the map. Obama still has an easy win in November.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*
This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1,McCain, Part 1, and the newest entry, Obama, Part 2. This time I am going after some of McCains smaller issues that I take offense to. I think that McCain is dropping the ball in these three areas: The Gas Tax, Protecting Marriage, Lets Chat About Stem Cells. Mr. McCain, if you wish to keep my vote (and, being in Ohio, I am rather important) please take a better stand on these issues.
The Gas Tax:
A few months ago McCain joined Clinton in calling for a gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day (a bit late for this now). Obama, rightly, rejected the idea and called it stupid. While this is no longer important, this shows me how far McCain is willing to pander to get some votes. The gas tax would never have worked; it would have saved the average American roughly 75$ for the time it was extended. To me, that seems wasteful when it would push our federal government even further into debt. However, McCain was busy pandering to not-so-intelligent Americans who would fall for this sort of thing. Straight-Talk Express my ass.
Protecting Marriage:
Let me set one thing straight, I do not support marriage. I believe that marriage should be a contract between parties that consent, nothing more, nothing less. That said, because nobody is going to be getting rid of marriage anytime soon, I find it is most pertinent that we preserve this right for ALL Americans. Why should we only allow certain people to get married. Studies have shown time and time again that homosexual persons are born that way, not that it is a choice (though why anybody would chose to be hated by a large patch of humanity always gets lost on me). If your loved one was in the hospital, or died and wanted to leave you something, or even wanted you on their health care plan, your wishes are only granted if you happen to have the opposite genitalia. THAT IS BULLSHIT. All Americans should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law (we are not all equal though) and thus all Americans should have the same basic rights.
Lets Chat About Stem Cells:
Stem cells are a major issue in American politics these days. While the source (abortion) of embryonic stem cells is an issue, most parties agree that Adult stem cells are okay. Well, adult stem cells are not as effective, and they do not do the needed things. I do not understand why people are against embryonic stem cells. If the fetus is going to be aborted, why not use it for a common good? If Nancy Regan comes out in support of these stem cells, then how can any self-respecting Republican not support their use?
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
Monday, July 7, 2008
Obama, Part 2
Post 27:
*NOTE*
I am currently in Sandusky, Ohio. If this is updated at 12 AM (midnight) on Monday then it is all good. If this is not and posted later (by myself when I get home) then I apologize for the problem.
*END OF NOTE*
This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1 and http://whalertly.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-part-1.html. This time I am addressing some of Obama's newer issues and one of his older issues (that is also current). I have several problems with Obama, among them these three pop to the top of my mind: His Flip flopping - His liberal voting record (the older issue) - The Fist Bump. While these may seem petty and pointless, this is a blog about my opinion; these issues actually are issues to me. Obama: what really grinds my gigantic notched wheels.
His Flip Flopping:
In 2004 one issue hurt John Kerry more than anything else could, the fact that he was labeled a 'flip flopper'. Granted, Kerry made it easy on himself when he said “I supported the war before I didn't”. Come on now, have some subtlety. While it is typical for nominees to pledge far out ideas to the party base prior to sealing the nod and then move to the center for the actual election, they normally do it with some style and hide their move; McCain has started to flip on some positions and move to the center, but he is mostly doing it under radar. Obama, on the other hand, holds press conferences announcing he is migrating his position. From NAFTA to public funding to Iraq (still not nearly as far as he will move in the end) to Wright, he makes it well known. This annoys me to no end. While I am all for changing your mind when new evidence is presented, changing it for sole political gain really turns me off. Obama, I thought you were not politics as usual, turns out that you are the same.
His Liberal Voting Record:
Time and Time again the records come out and show that Obama votes constantly with his voting block. He is rated as the most liberal senator in most polls, and in almost all polls he is at least in the top 5 of most liberal. Now, as I attacked McCain as moving to far to the right, I am attack Obama as being to far to the left. When I vote for a president I am picking a person who I think would be good at leading the country, not just 40% of it or so. I want a person who will work with both sides, a person who crosses the border, a person who actually is an American, not a Republican or Democrat. Obama just does not seem to have that record. If Mr. Obama were to move more towards the center than I think that he would be a much much better candidate.
The Fist Bump
This is just a personal pet peeve of mine. After sealing up the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama and his wife celebrated by bumping fists with one-another. To me this just reeks of immaturity and a pompous attitude. I want a president who shakes hands, a president who acts his age, a president who doesn't act like a deal just went down. I bump hands during a good play DURING FRISBEE, I would never bump hands with my boss after he win a big case. To me this just seems way to immature and out of place. Please, Mr. Obama, act like you are running for the president, not like you are running for Homecoming King.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
*NOTE*
I am currently in Sandusky, Ohio. If this is updated at 12 AM (midnight) on Monday then it is all good. If this is not and posted later (by myself when I get home) then I apologize for the problem.
*END OF NOTE*
This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1 and http://whalertly.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-part-1.html. This time I am addressing some of Obama's newer issues and one of his older issues (that is also current). I have several problems with Obama, among them these three pop to the top of my mind: His Flip flopping - His liberal voting record (the older issue) - The Fist Bump. While these may seem petty and pointless, this is a blog about my opinion; these issues actually are issues to me. Obama: what really grinds my gigantic notched wheels.
His Flip Flopping:
In 2004 one issue hurt John Kerry more than anything else could, the fact that he was labeled a 'flip flopper'. Granted, Kerry made it easy on himself when he said “I supported the war before I didn't”. Come on now, have some subtlety. While it is typical for nominees to pledge far out ideas to the party base prior to sealing the nod and then move to the center for the actual election, they normally do it with some style and hide their move; McCain has started to flip on some positions and move to the center, but he is mostly doing it under radar. Obama, on the other hand, holds press conferences announcing he is migrating his position. From NAFTA to public funding to Iraq (still not nearly as far as he will move in the end) to Wright, he makes it well known. This annoys me to no end. While I am all for changing your mind when new evidence is presented, changing it for sole political gain really turns me off. Obama, I thought you were not politics as usual, turns out that you are the same.
His Liberal Voting Record:
Time and Time again the records come out and show that Obama votes constantly with his voting block. He is rated as the most liberal senator in most polls, and in almost all polls he is at least in the top 5 of most liberal. Now, as I attacked McCain as moving to far to the right, I am attack Obama as being to far to the left. When I vote for a president I am picking a person who I think would be good at leading the country, not just 40% of it or so. I want a person who will work with both sides, a person who crosses the border, a person who actually is an American, not a Republican or Democrat. Obama just does not seem to have that record. If Mr. Obama were to move more towards the center than I think that he would be a much much better candidate.
The Fist Bump
This is just a personal pet peeve of mine. After sealing up the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama and his wife celebrated by bumping fists with one-another. To me this just reeks of immaturity and a pompous attitude. I want a president who shakes hands, a president who acts his age, a president who doesn't act like a deal just went down. I bump hands during a good play DURING FRISBEE, I would never bump hands with my boss after he win a big case. To me this just seems way to immature and out of place. Please, Mr. Obama, act like you are running for the president, not like you are running for Homecoming King.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
Friday, June 20, 2008
Obama, Part 1
Post 20:
This is a continuation of Wednesdays entry
We all know that I am a big McCain supporter and I have several issues with Obama. While I have posted them several times, mostly in the form of my entry on Obama's Advisors, I have not posted anywhere near the amount of issues that I have with him and his campaign. My three biggest concerns over Obama are: What is this change you refer to - Lets chat about universal health care - His arrogance about Ohio. Yes, I am well aware that the Ohio part is more or less there because I like the idea of my state getting more money into our economy, but so be it. Obama: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.
What is this change you refer to:
If the header text on your website says “change we can believe in” you better have some damn good change and some pretty good explanation of it. Obama's rhetoric is right on, the change is all nice looking and good sounding. For the record, Obama's Blueprint for change was not working when I was writing this, so I am using his list of issues. His positions on Civil Rights (along with disabilities) are nice, provided you ignore that it in no way helps gays. His statements on the economy, Health care, and poverty are nice, but they do not show what he will be able to do. Obama runs around, saying he will bring change, but then either does not show how he will or it becomes obvious that he has no power (Congressional area) to make those changes. Obama should back off a bit on some of his harder plans before they come back to bite him in the ass.
Lets chat about universal health care:
I am all for helping out those who need it, and I think that all people should be able to receive treatment. However, the question becomes, should it be the federal government that is paying for it? Sure, Canada and a few other countries (including Cuba, if you trust Michael Moore) have fairly good public health care but they also have some problems. I think that we should make this state-by-state, wait a few years, and view the results to see how it works. In some states this would be a good thing, however, others, might not be so good. This way, we make sure it has the best effect while trying to help all at the same time. No matter what, however, we should allow the wealthier to spend their own money (not using ANY taxpayers money) on their own care, if they so deem.
His arrogance about Ohio:
Recently Obama's camp said several things that could easily be taken to mean that he is disregarding Ohio and Florida for the November 270. Well let me tell you what, if you want to win 270 in November you have to win Ohio's 270 in November. To win this state you need to win Columbus, and the areas surrounding us (touched by 270). Furthermore, to win in November, you need to win Ohio. The path to 270 does not always need Ohio, but, based on the other states he thinks he can win, Ohio is the best bet. Think of this logically, why waste money on three states that Kerry lost by 3-7 points when you could spend that same money on one state that bush won by 1 point. Simple logic Obama, Ohio is the game. Plus, you know, My state needs money, as our economy is tanking. THAT IS RIGHT OBAMA, YOU NEED OHIO.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
This is a continuation of Wednesdays entry
We all know that I am a big McCain supporter and I have several issues with Obama. While I have posted them several times, mostly in the form of my entry on Obama's Advisors, I have not posted anywhere near the amount of issues that I have with him and his campaign. My three biggest concerns over Obama are: What is this change you refer to - Lets chat about universal health care - His arrogance about Ohio. Yes, I am well aware that the Ohio part is more or less there because I like the idea of my state getting more money into our economy, but so be it. Obama: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.
What is this change you refer to:
If the header text on your website says “change we can believe in” you better have some damn good change and some pretty good explanation of it. Obama's rhetoric is right on, the change is all nice looking and good sounding. For the record, Obama's Blueprint for change was not working when I was writing this, so I am using his list of issues. His positions on Civil Rights (along with disabilities) are nice, provided you ignore that it in no way helps gays. His statements on the economy, Health care, and poverty are nice, but they do not show what he will be able to do. Obama runs around, saying he will bring change, but then either does not show how he will or it becomes obvious that he has no power (Congressional area) to make those changes. Obama should back off a bit on some of his harder plans before they come back to bite him in the ass.
Lets chat about universal health care:
I am all for helping out those who need it, and I think that all people should be able to receive treatment. However, the question becomes, should it be the federal government that is paying for it? Sure, Canada and a few other countries (including Cuba, if you trust Michael Moore) have fairly good public health care but they also have some problems. I think that we should make this state-by-state, wait a few years, and view the results to see how it works. In some states this would be a good thing, however, others, might not be so good. This way, we make sure it has the best effect while trying to help all at the same time. No matter what, however, we should allow the wealthier to spend their own money (not using ANY taxpayers money) on their own care, if they so deem.
His arrogance about Ohio:
Recently Obama's camp said several things that could easily be taken to mean that he is disregarding Ohio and Florida for the November 270. Well let me tell you what, if you want to win 270 in November you have to win Ohio's 270 in November. To win this state you need to win Columbus, and the areas surrounding us (touched by 270). Furthermore, to win in November, you need to win Ohio. The path to 270 does not always need Ohio, but, based on the other states he thinks he can win, Ohio is the best bet. Think of this logically, why waste money on three states that Kerry lost by 3-7 points when you could spend that same money on one state that bush won by 1 point. Simple logic Obama, Ohio is the game. Plus, you know, My state needs money, as our economy is tanking. THAT IS RIGHT OBAMA, YOU NEED OHIO.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
McCain; Part 1
Post 19:
I was originally planning on having a three part series with entries on Clinton, Obama, and McCain but Clinton dropping out of the race brought that to a stand still. So, I am going to have a two part series with McCain and Obama; well, the series is two part for now (hence why I have 'part 1' in the title). I do expect to have more to complain about with this two people in the near future and closer to the November deadline of the campaign.
It is hard for me to say that I am thinking of voting primarily Republican in November. I am used to being a true-blue democrat (against my own party-liners policy) and have some issues voting for a overall ticket of more than 25% republican. But, you know, that is how it is looking to be this year. That is, unless McCain keeps his downward run that he is on (I think it is to take in some conservatives). McCain has started to wallow in a few areas, most notably: Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next - You want to drill where - Stop flirting with the base. There are several other reasons that I could consider ditching McCain over in the next few months, but, I will save those for future posts. John McCain: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.
Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next:
Recently McCain is on the record as saying Sam Alito and John Roberts are the type of judges that he would appoint to SCOTUS. I have a slight issue with this, as they are vastly different judges. While both are geniuses and great Constitutional Scholars (there is little doubt in either party about this), they are vastly different in their thought processes and decisions. Alito is right wing, believes that moderating from the bench is bad (yet he does it) and works the Constitution to what he want. Roberts, on the other hand, is more moderate (yet still right), believe that moderating from the bench is okay when needed (does not do it) and works his desire to what the Constitution says. Clearly, Roberts and Alito are vastly different, and I only want judges similar to one of them (Roberts) on the bench. So Johnny Boy, what is it, Roberts or Alito?
You Want To Drill Where:
Today (yes, today, I am up to date) John McCain said that he would plan on removing the ban on drilling off the coast of America. This is loosely related to my gas problem entry and the Glass City Jungle entry about China Drilling. McCain argues that we can help end our dependency on foreign oil simply by drilling in our pristine waters off the coast of this country. I, as do 33% of Americans, strongly disagree with this view. We should not risk our natural beauty and the ecosystems any more simply because we want to save some cash. I think that we should invest in alternative energies or go without a car before we destroy our oceans further.
Stop Flirting With Your Base:
McCain, we moderates and independents support you because you are bipartisan, break from you party, and are a good guy. STOP FLIRTING WITH THE BASE. You are destroying all of your bipartisan work by doing this. You Finance Bill, your Immigration bill, and your breaking from the party is why we love you. We are sick of partisan politics in Washington and want somebody who will not be partisan to be in the White House. So, what do you do? You take your gang of 14 credentials and toss them down the toilet to try and get the base. NEWS FLASH, the base is not going to vote Obama, court us moderates.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Read more ...
I was originally planning on having a three part series with entries on Clinton, Obama, and McCain but Clinton dropping out of the race brought that to a stand still. So, I am going to have a two part series with McCain and Obama; well, the series is two part for now (hence why I have 'part 1' in the title). I do expect to have more to complain about with this two people in the near future and closer to the November deadline of the campaign.
It is hard for me to say that I am thinking of voting primarily Republican in November. I am used to being a true-blue democrat (against my own party-liners policy) and have some issues voting for a overall ticket of more than 25% republican. But, you know, that is how it is looking to be this year. That is, unless McCain keeps his downward run that he is on (I think it is to take in some conservatives). McCain has started to wallow in a few areas, most notably: Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next - You want to drill where - Stop flirting with the base. There are several other reasons that I could consider ditching McCain over in the next few months, but, I will save those for future posts. John McCain: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.
Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next:
Recently McCain is on the record as saying Sam Alito and John Roberts are the type of judges that he would appoint to SCOTUS. I have a slight issue with this, as they are vastly different judges. While both are geniuses and great Constitutional Scholars (there is little doubt in either party about this), they are vastly different in their thought processes and decisions. Alito is right wing, believes that moderating from the bench is bad (yet he does it) and works the Constitution to what he want. Roberts, on the other hand, is more moderate (yet still right), believe that moderating from the bench is okay when needed (does not do it) and works his desire to what the Constitution says. Clearly, Roberts and Alito are vastly different, and I only want judges similar to one of them (Roberts) on the bench. So Johnny Boy, what is it, Roberts or Alito?
You Want To Drill Where:
Today (yes, today, I am up to date) John McCain said that he would plan on removing the ban on drilling off the coast of America. This is loosely related to my gas problem entry and the Glass City Jungle entry about China Drilling. McCain argues that we can help end our dependency on foreign oil simply by drilling in our pristine waters off the coast of this country. I, as do 33% of Americans, strongly disagree with this view. We should not risk our natural beauty and the ecosystems any more simply because we want to save some cash. I think that we should invest in alternative energies or go without a car before we destroy our oceans further.
Stop Flirting With Your Base:
McCain, we moderates and independents support you because you are bipartisan, break from you party, and are a good guy. STOP FLIRTING WITH THE BASE. You are destroying all of your bipartisan work by doing this. You Finance Bill, your Immigration bill, and your breaking from the party is why we love you. We are sick of partisan politics in Washington and want somebody who will not be partisan to be in the White House. So, what do you do? You take your gang of 14 credentials and toss them down the toilet to try and get the base. NEWS FLASH, the base is not going to vote Obama, court us moderates.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Read more ...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
On Clinton Dropping Out
Post 14:
I had a different post all ready for tonight, but then SD and Montana had to go and vote, causing me to jump to this post. Yes, I know it is biased. Yes, I know it is small. And, yes, I expect a lot of flack for it. I DO NOT THINK THAT CLINTON SHOULD DROP OUT. There, I said it, I took my stance, now, read my reasoning before you attack me. Clinton should not drop out for three different reasons: Neither candidate has the number needed to be the winner (pledged) - Obama will loose in November to McCain without her, so she should stay for the veep offer - Dimaio is still out there, think about the case law that could create (plus, she still has an argument to the credentials committee).
Neither Candidate has the Number Needed to be the Winner (Pledged):
According to CNN's Election Center Obama has 1,761 pledged delegates, Clinton has 1,636 pledged; that means that Obama is 350 or so pledged from the 2,118 pledged needed (assuming Florida/Michigan do not change at some point). Clinton is 470 or so away from the same mark. Clearly neither candidate has the numbers needed. This argument does ignore the fact that Obama does have more delegates than needed provided you count supers. I do not think that we should consider Obama/Clinton supers until the convention, as a lot can happen in that time that would make them wish to switch.
Obama can not Win in November Without Her:
28% of Clinton supporters (which means 14% of the party) are willing to vote for McCain over Obama in November. Without this 14% Obama has no chance in the primary, plus, he has little chance in pulling the independents and moderates to his side. By placing Clinton in the veep spot he should be able to keep most of her group (losing maybe 1-3%) and pull the moderates/independents that Clinton holds strong. Plus, Clinton helps Obama keep the party base loyal to the party so that they will not switch over to McCain. This move alone might help keep me voting blue in November.
Dimaio is Still Out There, Plus the Credentials Committee:
Dimaio V. DNC is still floating out there, just waiting for SCOTUS (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) to pick it up and make great case law out of it. As much as it might seem like it, the Florida and Michigan cases are still not settled. While Florida might stay as it is, Clinton has a great argument in front of the Credentials Committee that Michigan should give no votes to Obama (which push him over the edge) as he was not on the ballot there. Nobody voted for him there; HE TOOK HIMSELF OFF!!!!! Obama deserves no votes from Michigan as he voluntarily removed himself, and I think that Clinton will win that.
Clearly there is no winner in this race yet.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Read more ...
I had a different post all ready for tonight, but then SD and Montana had to go and vote, causing me to jump to this post. Yes, I know it is biased. Yes, I know it is small. And, yes, I expect a lot of flack for it. I DO NOT THINK THAT CLINTON SHOULD DROP OUT. There, I said it, I took my stance, now, read my reasoning before you attack me. Clinton should not drop out for three different reasons: Neither candidate has the number needed to be the winner (pledged) - Obama will loose in November to McCain without her, so she should stay for the veep offer - Dimaio is still out there, think about the case law that could create (plus, she still has an argument to the credentials committee).
Neither Candidate has the Number Needed to be the Winner (Pledged):
According to CNN's Election Center Obama has 1,761 pledged delegates, Clinton has 1,636 pledged; that means that Obama is 350 or so pledged from the 2,118 pledged needed (assuming Florida/Michigan do not change at some point). Clinton is 470 or so away from the same mark. Clearly neither candidate has the numbers needed. This argument does ignore the fact that Obama does have more delegates than needed provided you count supers. I do not think that we should consider Obama/Clinton supers until the convention, as a lot can happen in that time that would make them wish to switch.
Obama can not Win in November Without Her:
28% of Clinton supporters (which means 14% of the party) are willing to vote for McCain over Obama in November. Without this 14% Obama has no chance in the primary, plus, he has little chance in pulling the independents and moderates to his side. By placing Clinton in the veep spot he should be able to keep most of her group (losing maybe 1-3%) and pull the moderates/independents that Clinton holds strong. Plus, Clinton helps Obama keep the party base loyal to the party so that they will not switch over to McCain. This move alone might help keep me voting blue in November.
Dimaio is Still Out There, Plus the Credentials Committee:
Dimaio V. DNC is still floating out there, just waiting for SCOTUS (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) to pick it up and make great case law out of it. As much as it might seem like it, the Florida and Michigan cases are still not settled. While Florida might stay as it is, Clinton has a great argument in front of the Credentials Committee that Michigan should give no votes to Obama (which push him over the edge) as he was not on the ballot there. Nobody voted for him there; HE TOOK HIMSELF OFF!!!!! Obama deserves no votes from Michigan as he voluntarily removed himself, and I think that Clinton will win that.
Clearly there is no winner in this race yet.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Read more ...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Obama's Advisers
Post 6:
*NOTE*
I know that I have been running around one topic and was trying to circle it, eventually coming to it, but I have sense realized that there is something more pressing. This is a temporary retrieve from that circle, this is not about the topic I was going for. The similar entries will shortly resume (I.e. Monday).
*ENDING OF THE NOTE*
Many people have been hit by manufactured controversies in politics recently. From Governors having affairs to Hillary running from sniper fire. The idea of controversies being manufactured seems to keep getting passed around. Sure, it is understandable when you are trying to sell something, in this case, the news, but it is not understandable that we always need these things in politics. Recently, Obama has been under fire from several different manufacture controversies. The most recent, and most discussed, being: The Reverend Wright - The Flag Pin - His elitist comments (along with Michelle's). All of these controversies are absurd yet all will be a big issue in November. Really, the main thing is, all of them could have been avoided. Obama's Advisers; What Really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.
The Reverend Wright
Now, I know that most people (democrats that is) do not think that a spiritual advisor should matter when looking at a person. Look at their positions, look at what they say, look at how they vote; do not look at where a person sits in a pulpit. I agree with you, for the most part, provided one can prove that any radical ideas held by the priest/rabbi/father/what-have-you are not held by the candidate. I do not think that Obama is racist, anti-semitic, anti-American, or anything like that. However, when looked at alongside several other things (including the other two big 'issues') a fair amount of voters will see that in Obama. My issue with this whole Wright thing is that Obama dug himself a grave. He said “I can not disown Wright any more than I can disown blacks”. Then, after nothing new happens (Wright talks publicly, I consider that the same as YOUTUBE), he switches. Obama dug himself a whole, because either he lied before or he doesn't pay attention to the news. I hope it is the previous, because I would rather have a liar than an uneducated person. The thing is, Obama's advisers should have seen this coming (we all knew Wright would go talk) and handled this in the first speech (back in March), not a month later. They really dropped the ball there.
The Flag Pin
Now, I in no way think that a symbol is our country. I do not think that burning the flag is wrong and I do not think that Obama should be required to wear a flag pin. That said, why is he? Earlier this election cycle when asked about why he no longer wore the pin Obama made it a big deal by making a whole 1st Amendment speech. Good, case over, don't wear the thing. Suddenly, here comes Obama with the pin on, about the same time that the GOP starts attacking his patriotism. Seems a little coincidental there, but we can ignore that for this blog (will show up in another, trust me). So, after making a big deal about why he should not have one, Obama suddenly does have one. This is a huge issue; we saw in 2004 that a simple flip flop on a seemingly nothing thing has dire consequences in the election. A flip flop on patriotism (as the GOP would spin it) will harm Obama greatly in the coming campaign, especially in states like Ohio and Penn., where this sort of stuff resonates with the working stiffs (who Obama needs to gain ground with). This seems to be another area where Obama's advisers have dropped the ball.
Obama's elitist comments, and Michelle
Calling a female reporter “sweetie”, calling citizens of a large voting state “bitter and clingy”, saying that “this is the first time I am proud of this country”, and saying that “WV is only voting Clinton because they are racist”. Come on now people, this is a clear problem that the Obama camp is having. Before I get to the meat of this, I must say, SHUT THE HELL UP MICHELLE. Seriously, she is harming Obama's campaign greatly, almost as much as Wright did, by saying the most stupid things at the worst times. Moving on, I think that Obama is an elitist, as I think any person who wishes to run this country is; however, only Obama comes off that way. His comments imply that he looks down on people, doesn't think much of working stiffs, and has an issue with this country. That is not going to help him get elected. Sure, he makes slip ups, and I am fine with things like that (I actually think that the sweetie comment was a slip up), however he (and Michelle) also make gigantic mistakes. They both say things that will only harm them, thinking that all they need to win are the elite college educated. NEWS FLASH, you need the entire spectrum of people to win, and if you keep isolating the lower end, you can not win. This is one area where Obama's advisers are most present, these are his speeches for gosh sake. If anything, this is where they should catch his problems. Alas, low and behold, yet again, Obama's advisers have screwed the campaign. What, is this like the tenth, twentieth time? It simply comes down to one question; What should Obama do? This Democrat thinks that Obama should fire his staff, duct tape his wifes mouth, and higher people who have run campaigns before (or, you know, just go hang with the Clinton Camp).
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks
Read more ...
*NOTE*
I know that I have been running around one topic and was trying to circle it, eventually coming to it, but I have sense realized that there is something more pressing. This is a temporary retrieve from that circle, this is not about the topic I was going for. The similar entries will shortly resume (I.e. Monday).
*ENDING OF THE NOTE*
Many people have been hit by manufactured controversies in politics recently. From Governors having affairs to Hillary running from sniper fire. The idea of controversies being manufactured seems to keep getting passed around. Sure, it is understandable when you are trying to sell something, in this case, the news, but it is not understandable that we always need these things in politics. Recently, Obama has been under fire from several different manufacture controversies. The most recent, and most discussed, being: The Reverend Wright - The Flag Pin - His elitist comments (along with Michelle's). All of these controversies are absurd yet all will be a big issue in November. Really, the main thing is, all of them could have been avoided. Obama's Advisers; What Really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.
The Reverend Wright
Now, I know that most people (democrats that is) do not think that a spiritual advisor should matter when looking at a person. Look at their positions, look at what they say, look at how they vote; do not look at where a person sits in a pulpit. I agree with you, for the most part, provided one can prove that any radical ideas held by the priest/rabbi/father/what-have-you are not held by the candidate. I do not think that Obama is racist, anti-semitic, anti-American, or anything like that. However, when looked at alongside several other things (including the other two big 'issues') a fair amount of voters will see that in Obama. My issue with this whole Wright thing is that Obama dug himself a grave. He said “I can not disown Wright any more than I can disown blacks”. Then, after nothing new happens (Wright talks publicly, I consider that the same as YOUTUBE), he switches. Obama dug himself a whole, because either he lied before or he doesn't pay attention to the news. I hope it is the previous, because I would rather have a liar than an uneducated person. The thing is, Obama's advisers should have seen this coming (we all knew Wright would go talk) and handled this in the first speech (back in March), not a month later. They really dropped the ball there.
The Flag Pin
Now, I in no way think that a symbol is our country. I do not think that burning the flag is wrong and I do not think that Obama should be required to wear a flag pin. That said, why is he? Earlier this election cycle when asked about why he no longer wore the pin Obama made it a big deal by making a whole 1st Amendment speech. Good, case over, don't wear the thing. Suddenly, here comes Obama with the pin on, about the same time that the GOP starts attacking his patriotism. Seems a little coincidental there, but we can ignore that for this blog (will show up in another, trust me). So, after making a big deal about why he should not have one, Obama suddenly does have one. This is a huge issue; we saw in 2004 that a simple flip flop on a seemingly nothing thing has dire consequences in the election. A flip flop on patriotism (as the GOP would spin it) will harm Obama greatly in the coming campaign, especially in states like Ohio and Penn., where this sort of stuff resonates with the working stiffs (who Obama needs to gain ground with). This seems to be another area where Obama's advisers have dropped the ball.
Obama's elitist comments, and Michelle
Calling a female reporter “sweetie”, calling citizens of a large voting state “bitter and clingy”, saying that “this is the first time I am proud of this country”, and saying that “WV is only voting Clinton because they are racist”. Come on now people, this is a clear problem that the Obama camp is having. Before I get to the meat of this, I must say, SHUT THE HELL UP MICHELLE. Seriously, she is harming Obama's campaign greatly, almost as much as Wright did, by saying the most stupid things at the worst times. Moving on, I think that Obama is an elitist, as I think any person who wishes to run this country is; however, only Obama comes off that way. His comments imply that he looks down on people, doesn't think much of working stiffs, and has an issue with this country. That is not going to help him get elected. Sure, he makes slip ups, and I am fine with things like that (I actually think that the sweetie comment was a slip up), however he (and Michelle) also make gigantic mistakes. They both say things that will only harm them, thinking that all they need to win are the elite college educated. NEWS FLASH, you need the entire spectrum of people to win, and if you keep isolating the lower end, you can not win. This is one area where Obama's advisers are most present, these are his speeches for gosh sake. If anything, this is where they should catch his problems. Alas, low and behold, yet again, Obama's advisers have screwed the campaign. What, is this like the tenth, twentieth time? It simply comes down to one question; What should Obama do? This Democrat thinks that Obama should fire his staff, duct tape his wifes mouth, and higher people who have run campaigns before (or, you know, just go hang with the Clinton Camp).
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks
Read more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)