In response to Jennasa18's blog:
http://jennasa18onpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/04/divided-democrats.html
First of all, let me just start off by stating that I really liked where you were headed with this one Jenna. I think that focusing on the division in the Democratic party is a worthwhile venture. Where I do have to disagree, however, is that this divisive battle between Obamarama and Mrs. "Kill Bill" Hil is in fact, trivial.
As always I would have to refer back to some of my previous posts on how politics today are more like a game of charades than they ever have been before. This whole hype between the two of them would have the average "unenlightened" American believe that all this commotion IS the actual election. I'll bet anyone $38 (because that's what it costs to fill up my tank with gas) that the actual Presidential race itself gets lets publicity and hype than this Democratic runoff has.
Now don't get me wrong ya'll, I'm not one of those completely cynical guys who is suspicious of everything and has no trust in elected officials at all. I do know that they can change some things and there are things that I wish could be fixed, but if history has only taught us one thing, it sure is not to believe everything a politician does or says.
This whole bickering between Barack and Hil IS, as you say, making the Republican party look a lot more under control. Now whether the Democratic nominees would do a better job than Old Man McCain, that's still up for debate. I think with any of them its just a shot in the dark and hope you don't miss. When it gets right down to it, we don't vote for the candidate who will do the most good, we just have to pick the one that will do the least damage!
Let them go at each other's throats I say! They're just acting anyways. I'm sure they both meet up secretly sometimes at 3am and play basketball and drink Boilermakers when nobody is looking. If you really look at all 3 remaining candidates and scrutinize where they stand, you will actually see that they REALLY really really do not differ a whole lot. They simply are good at taking the nominal little trivial differences that there are and blow them up a hundred fold. Its all just a game of charades Jenna. Don't let the back-biting and low blows fool ya. I can assure you that the Democratic party is not losing any substantial voting demographic as a result of this rift. Come November, all the silent Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote, and all the people stirred up by the publicity on the Democratic race will show up to vote, and this time around, its going to be close. So lets all just pick the one we believe will not dig us further in the hole we're already in and do our civic duty to vote. I'll even bet ya that a Democrat wins, because lets face it, I need to fill up my gas tank.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Hillary for US Storyteller
Way to go Hillary!! Now I can sleep well at night knowing that, if elected, I can rely on a 3am call to hear some great bedtime stories. Like the time you took on enemy sniper fire in Bosnia, where you narrowly escaped, managing to hotwire a nearby parked tank where you drove through heavy enemy fire and taking out a machine gun nest, all just in time to arrive and disarm the nuclear warhead and greet and pose with a young Bosnian girl.
Bravo! I think that we should all vote for Hillary Clinton because she has a lot of experience. Just think of all the experience she has as being First Lady! What have we learned about Hil? Well, she's an avid storyteller thats for sure. I for one thoroughly enjoy listening to all the bologna that comes pouring out every time she opens her mouth. She's also very good at standing by her man's side, when we all know that any other sensible woman would've dropped their man like a bad habit upon finding out that he's having "sexual relations" with another woman. Isn't it comforting to know that whenever in doubt as Commander in Chief she can always think back to her First Lady days and remember what her hubby would have done? WWBD is the bracelet she could carry around to help remind her "What Would Billy Do?"
Some people think the Democratic race is all about race and gender. Do we want a half-black senator for president or do we want to elect a half-woman senator...er, or is it a half-senator woman for president? Regardless, with all this hype, some people would think that this is the presidential election itself! My point from my second to last blog is proven by Hillary's folklore: that campaigning for public office is all a big game of charades and that ultimately, between her and Obama, it boils down to nothing more than a mere popularity contest.
Let Barack run for President over all those gun- and religion-clinging Americans and elect Hillary for a new public office: United States Storyteller. A good fairytale of hers sure could come in handy when your child can't sleep at 3AM.
Bravo! I think that we should all vote for Hillary Clinton because she has a lot of experience. Just think of all the experience she has as being First Lady! What have we learned about Hil? Well, she's an avid storyteller thats for sure. I for one thoroughly enjoy listening to all the bologna that comes pouring out every time she opens her mouth. She's also very good at standing by her man's side, when we all know that any other sensible woman would've dropped their man like a bad habit upon finding out that he's having "sexual relations" with another woman. Isn't it comforting to know that whenever in doubt as Commander in Chief she can always think back to her First Lady days and remember what her hubby would have done? WWBD is the bracelet she could carry around to help remind her "What Would Billy Do?"
Some people think the Democratic race is all about race and gender. Do we want a half-black senator for president or do we want to elect a half-woman senator...er, or is it a half-senator woman for president? Regardless, with all this hype, some people would think that this is the presidential election itself! My point from my second to last blog is proven by Hillary's folklore: that campaigning for public office is all a big game of charades and that ultimately, between her and Obama, it boils down to nothing more than a mere popularity contest.
Let Barack run for President over all those gun- and religion-clinging Americans and elect Hillary for a new public office: United States Storyteller. A good fairytale of hers sure could come in handy when your child can't sleep at 3AM.
Monday, April 7, 2008
When Will We Learn to Swallow Our Pride First?
In response to Sophie's blog asking the question of when will our troops come, I noticed that this was quite the hot topic and I am going to have to agree that it is a fine time to go ahead and start retracting our forces. Do I mean up and evaporate from the premises? No, definitely not. There is still a need for an American presence as we slowly pull out our young men.
I write this commentary coming from a predominantly military family. Come to think of it, I am the only male who didn't ultimately join one of the branches of the US military. As I'm sure Sophie does too, I take extremely great pride in our troops and have the utmost respect for them and what they do. They are merely young boys who put everything aside to risk life and limb for causes that are unclear and often unknown to them and that is extremely admirable. But we get to a point now where we have to stop and think, "God, what the hell are we still doing over there?"
It comes down to pride. Honest to God,stiff-necked pride. The US basically made a big boo boo in occupying Iraq for this long and is too proud to admit their wrongdoing and simply withdraw. This is not to say that we haven't accomplished anything while being over there. And while we all know that we've wasted plenty of good mens' lives (either to enemy or friendly fire for that matter), wasted innocent civilian lives, and billions of US tax-payers' dollars, we cannot ignore the many insurgents and terrorist cell leaders who have been successfully caught. Need I mention the capture of Saddam?
So overall I'd have to agree with Sophie. Her overall logic is on point and backed up fairly well, although I will probably disagree that all this war has gotten us is dead soldiers. But yes, ultimately, this war on "terror" has been an overall waste of resources. Perhaps no one knew it would end up this way, but we sure have seen it for awhile now. So why aren't we sucking it up and grinning and bearing it as we bring our troops home? I'll tell you why. Pride. Its the American way.
I also concur with Sophie's view on foreign policy compared to domestic issues. Anyone can see that currently, the US needs to lighten up on trying to fix everyone else's problems in the world and spend a little more time and effort on the issues here at hand. Sophie mentioned outsourcing, our dwindling economy, and increased reliance on imported goods to name a few, all of which need tending to. The real dilemma here though Sophie, is whether or not any of the Presidential hopefuls are actually going to do anything to bring them home. We already know McCain won't so it's up to whoever takes the Democratic lead to do something about it. What are the odds? Survey says... Not so great.
Link to Sophie's blog:
http://modernuspolitic.blogspot.com/2008/03/when-will-our-troops-come-home.html
I write this commentary coming from a predominantly military family. Come to think of it, I am the only male who didn't ultimately join one of the branches of the US military. As I'm sure Sophie does too, I take extremely great pride in our troops and have the utmost respect for them and what they do. They are merely young boys who put everything aside to risk life and limb for causes that are unclear and often unknown to them and that is extremely admirable. But we get to a point now where we have to stop and think, "God, what the hell are we still doing over there?"
It comes down to pride. Honest to God,stiff-necked pride. The US basically made a big boo boo in occupying Iraq for this long and is too proud to admit their wrongdoing and simply withdraw. This is not to say that we haven't accomplished anything while being over there. And while we all know that we've wasted plenty of good mens' lives (either to enemy or friendly fire for that matter), wasted innocent civilian lives, and billions of US tax-payers' dollars, we cannot ignore the many insurgents and terrorist cell leaders who have been successfully caught. Need I mention the capture of Saddam?
So overall I'd have to agree with Sophie. Her overall logic is on point and backed up fairly well, although I will probably disagree that all this war has gotten us is dead soldiers. But yes, ultimately, this war on "terror" has been an overall waste of resources. Perhaps no one knew it would end up this way, but we sure have seen it for awhile now. So why aren't we sucking it up and grinning and bearing it as we bring our troops home? I'll tell you why. Pride. Its the American way.
I also concur with Sophie's view on foreign policy compared to domestic issues. Anyone can see that currently, the US needs to lighten up on trying to fix everyone else's problems in the world and spend a little more time and effort on the issues here at hand. Sophie mentioned outsourcing, our dwindling economy, and increased reliance on imported goods to name a few, all of which need tending to. The real dilemma here though Sophie, is whether or not any of the Presidential hopefuls are actually going to do anything to bring them home. We already know McCain won't so it's up to whoever takes the Democratic lead to do something about it. What are the odds? Survey says... Not so great.
Link to Sophie's blog:
http://modernuspolitic.blogspot.com/2008/03/when-will-our-troops-come-home.html
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Anyone Up for Charades?
As anyone who even remotely follows politics is probably aware of, its pretty hard these days to believe anything that comes out of a politician's mouth. This is nothing new, as you can pick up any history book and find examples of previous politicians saying one thing and doing another. Sure I understand that situations and circumstances can change from when someone is campaigning for public office and up to several years later. Take President Wilson for example. During campaigning, he was against Woman's Rights but after a few years in presidency and such movements from the NWP and NAWSA, his stand on woman's suffrage changed.
But in this day and age we see the same old game of charades going on time and time again in almost every level of public office. The whole point of campaigning is to make known your stand on important issues and to thereby win the support of Americans who, ultimately, will or will not put you in office. The problem we are encountering more and more often is politicians saying one thing and then saying or doing something completely different. We've seen in the past years politicians such as John Kerry, President Bush, and Mitt Romney take heat for changing their supposed stance on issues and be labeled as flaky and wishy-washy.
Seriously, its a simple game of acting. Regardless of what a politician really truly feels deep down inside what little soul they ma have, they are gonna say whatever they think will win over voters. Is this true of all people running for office? Probably not. Is it possible that all these people are simply having a change of mind or of heart? In most cases, no. The problem is, this makes it difficult for a democratic society such as ours to make a good decision on who to elect into office. Thats the thing; how am I supposed to make an intelligent decision if the person that I am voting for doesn't really stand for the issues that made me vote for them? This is probably why we as a country keep screwing ourselves over by electing who we think is going to do a good job and then turns out to be a real flop in the end. *Ahem* Bush *Cough*
So this is the conundrum that we live in here in America. Do we believe what we hear? Its all so hard to tell. Not to mention all the scandal that the competition always kicks up it makes it nearly impossible to dig deep and see what our elected officials really feel. I know an answer. From now on, all campaigning public officers will be subject to a series of lie-detection tests. Well at least thats the way I feel about it. Or at least thats what YOU think...
But in this day and age we see the same old game of charades going on time and time again in almost every level of public office. The whole point of campaigning is to make known your stand on important issues and to thereby win the support of Americans who, ultimately, will or will not put you in office. The problem we are encountering more and more often is politicians saying one thing and then saying or doing something completely different. We've seen in the past years politicians such as John Kerry, President Bush, and Mitt Romney take heat for changing their supposed stance on issues and be labeled as flaky and wishy-washy.
Seriously, its a simple game of acting. Regardless of what a politician really truly feels deep down inside what little soul they ma have, they are gonna say whatever they think will win over voters. Is this true of all people running for office? Probably not. Is it possible that all these people are simply having a change of mind or of heart? In most cases, no. The problem is, this makes it difficult for a democratic society such as ours to make a good decision on who to elect into office. Thats the thing; how am I supposed to make an intelligent decision if the person that I am voting for doesn't really stand for the issues that made me vote for them? This is probably why we as a country keep screwing ourselves over by electing who we think is going to do a good job and then turns out to be a real flop in the end. *Ahem* Bush *Cough*
So this is the conundrum that we live in here in America. Do we believe what we hear? Its all so hard to tell. Not to mention all the scandal that the competition always kicks up it makes it nearly impossible to dig deep and see what our elected officials really feel. I know an answer. From now on, all campaigning public officers will be subject to a series of lie-detection tests. Well at least thats the way I feel about it. Or at least thats what YOU think...
Monday, March 3, 2008
Who will take care of Medicare?
The New York Times recently published this article on the growing economic burden of our Medicaid and Medicare health insurance programs. Both Medicaid, which caters to the poor, and Medicare, aimed at the elderly, cost over $627 billion and consisted of 23% of federal spending last year. It is expected for those numbers to double in ten years and at that time will consist of more than 30% of the federal budget.
The bulk of these increases generally come from increased health spending which spurs as a result of ever developing technology and new medicines. It seems as though if we want to be able to further enjoy the benefits of medical advancement, we have take a bigger bite out of the budget.
So it looks like we can't have our cake and eat it too.
Sure the Democratic Presidential candidates speak of increasing health insurance to those not covered by Medicaid and Medicare, but no one has offered a plan on how to handle the growing cost of maintaining these two programs.
That seems to be the conundrum that we as a people are in. Everytime we attempt to solve one issue, another problem almost always emerges. These candidates only cater to one side of the issue, while their opposition caters to the other. It forces the public to pick the option that will screw us over the least. I personally would like to see someone come up with a plan of action to take care of these programs. Having a sibling and a grandparent who benefit from both Medicaid and Medicare, I certainly don't want them left in the hands of a program destined to go broke in 10 years.
Reduce government spending and debt or increase government funding for more social programs? That is the question as you can see with this issue and it looks like you've got to pick one side of the fence to be on because you sure as heck aren't going sit on this one.
Article:
The bulk of these increases generally come from increased health spending which spurs as a result of ever developing technology and new medicines. It seems as though if we want to be able to further enjoy the benefits of medical advancement, we have take a bigger bite out of the budget.
So it looks like we can't have our cake and eat it too.
Sure the Democratic Presidential candidates speak of increasing health insurance to those not covered by Medicaid and Medicare, but no one has offered a plan on how to handle the growing cost of maintaining these two programs.
That seems to be the conundrum that we as a people are in. Everytime we attempt to solve one issue, another problem almost always emerges. These candidates only cater to one side of the issue, while their opposition caters to the other. It forces the public to pick the option that will screw us over the least. I personally would like to see someone come up with a plan of action to take care of these programs. Having a sibling and a grandparent who benefit from both Medicaid and Medicare, I certainly don't want them left in the hands of a program destined to go broke in 10 years.
Reduce government spending and debt or increase government funding for more social programs? That is the question as you can see with this issue and it looks like you've got to pick one side of the fence to be on because you sure as heck aren't going sit on this one.
Article:
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Primary will show where Texans stand on encouraged or mandated insurance
To mandate health insurance or not to mandate; that is the question. And with the Democratic debate this Thursday at the University of Texas at Austin, many Texans will get to see how both Obama and Clinton stack up to each other on the issue.
It all boils down to whether Texas voters prefer a mandatory health insurance, similar to Texas' mandatory auto insurance laws, or a mandatory coverage for children only. Obviously Obama will encourage adults to seek coverage, but coming from a middle class income, I can understand how a required coverage would be a turn-off. Especially since Texas has a high number of uninsured residents.
At the moment, I'm considered lucky to have an employer offered health plan that is, quite frankly, the cheapest I've ever seen, but many other Americans who are above the poverty line but not wealthy, are not as fortunate. Especially with the difficulty in obtaining affordable coverage with a pre-existing health condition. So to make the majority of middle class America - who don't qualify for Medicaid - have some kind of coverage is basically forcing them to either break the law and stay uncovered or increase their cost of living by up to 34%.
Our other option? McCain would be so kind as to advance Bush's tax cuts and let us keep more of our hard-earned money to pay for the already costly insurance. Hmmm... makes it a little awkward for middle class Republicans it seems.
Texans would be well to do if they supported to the health plan least likely to fail. Children should have to be covered, but let grown adults decide if they can afford coverage or not. But I guess we'll see how Texans really feel about it after the debate is over and the primary votes are tallied. See ya in March!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/022008dnbusHealthMandate.3bac732.html
It all boils down to whether Texas voters prefer a mandatory health insurance, similar to Texas' mandatory auto insurance laws, or a mandatory coverage for children only. Obviously Obama will encourage adults to seek coverage, but coming from a middle class income, I can understand how a required coverage would be a turn-off. Especially since Texas has a high number of uninsured residents.
At the moment, I'm considered lucky to have an employer offered health plan that is, quite frankly, the cheapest I've ever seen, but many other Americans who are above the poverty line but not wealthy, are not as fortunate. Especially with the difficulty in obtaining affordable coverage with a pre-existing health condition. So to make the majority of middle class America - who don't qualify for Medicaid - have some kind of coverage is basically forcing them to either break the law and stay uncovered or increase their cost of living by up to 34%.
Our other option? McCain would be so kind as to advance Bush's tax cuts and let us keep more of our hard-earned money to pay for the already costly insurance. Hmmm... makes it a little awkward for middle class Republicans it seems.
Texans would be well to do if they supported to the health plan least likely to fail. Children should have to be covered, but let grown adults decide if they can afford coverage or not. But I guess we'll see how Texans really feel about it after the debate is over and the primary votes are tallied. See ya in March!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/022008dnbusHealthMandate.3bac732.html
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Results: It's All in the Details
Well, for my first post on my blog, I thought it would fun to share with all ya'll an interesting article from the New York Times I found in regards to some "fun facts" that were come across while calculating the numbers from Super Tuesday and the caucuses.
It first points out the almost perfect division on the Democratic side of the votes. If you tally up the 21 reporting states from tuesday, Clinton barely, if at all, pulled ahead of Obama with a calculated %50.19 - %49.80 split, respectively. It will be interesting to see how such a close race will turn out for the Democratic spot and to see how fast it gets resolved and a clear winner is determined. Do I smell a recount?
Then it goes on to point out how, curiously, Obama seems to be winning practically all the caucuses (not to mention some Latino votes who are normally faithful to Clinton). Whether or not this is related to his uncanny ability to deliver powerful and inspiring feelings is still up for debate.
Also addressed is the record-breaking voter turn-out for primaries; now up to %27 of eligible voters as opposed to %25.9 set back in 1972! Did it really take us all this LONG to realize that our own complaceny at the voting balot is mostly to blame for the mess we're currently in? Apparently so, but like they say, we're "a day late and a dollar short." Maybe two decades ago was when we should've really been showing up. But oh well, we'll only do it once, right?
For the full story go here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)