Seems there is no limit or end to the continuing flow of idiocy and ignorance from republicans and republican candidates over the last few years. As the tea party candidates take hold of what were normal republican offices, or win over normal GOP candidates in primaries, the propensity for asinine, stupid, ignorant and outlandish comments rises.
Usually we have GOP stalwarts Michelle Bachmann (R MN), Louie Gohmert (R TX), Virginia Foxx (R NC) and Alan West (R FL) making the idiotic comments, but not this time!
Yesterday Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock chimed in with a doozy of a comment during a Indiana senate debate. Mourdock said: ""I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen"".
Of course this follows Missouri senate candidate Tod Akins dumb ass comments a month ago.
These types of comments keep coming from GOP candidates and politicians, so this isn't an isolated incident of one person misspeaking or being quoted out of context. These are a monthly to weekly occurrence and that leads me to think it exposes a deeper ideology that permeates republican thinking.
Mourdock defeated longtime Indiana senator Richard Lugar in the primary. This isn't the first time a "tea party" backed candidate has won over established mainline republicans, leaving the GOP in a difficult situation where the choice is to vote for a certifiable loon or to support the democrat.
Unfortunately in many house races, where the district is smaller and more polarized to lean GOP, the loony candidate ends up the winner, well because the republicans who make up the majority of those districts would rather send a straight-jacket ready idiot to congress over a democrat.
As long as these type of morons and loons get put into office by republican leaning districts, you can kiss any bi-partisan chances of getting bills passed, because these loons are not going to work with anyone not mirroring their ideology of lunacy.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Nevada voting numbers
Anyone can look up these numbers here: http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=1195 Which is a link to the Nevada Secretary of State site.
But since I was taking a peek at the numbers, I figured I would do a post showing the numbers through 3 days of early voting in Nevada!
The 3 days are: Saturday, October 20; Sunday October 21; Monday, October 22.
Total votes cast:
Clark County 10/20) 33,204 10/21) 25,999 10/22) 30,598 Total 80,801
Washoe County 10/20) 9,638 10/21) 4,837 10/22) 6,773 Total 21,248
Statewide 10/20) 49,980 10/21) 31,324 10/22) 44,008 Total 125,312
Clark County has accounted for 64.5% of the state total.
Vote by party affiliation:
Clark County
Democrat: 46,416 GOP: 28,321 Other:15,064
Washoe County
Democrat: 9,700 GOP: 8,314 Other: 3,234
Statewide:
Democrat: 60,389 GOP: 44,343 Other: 20,580
Statewide Democrats have cast 48.2% of total votes cast, GOP have 35.4% and Others have 16.4%
Absentee ballots returned:
Clark County: Dems 10,456 GOP 8,877 Other 3,524
Washoe County: Dems 2,905 GOP 2,967 Other 1,177
Statewide: Dems 15,525 GOP 15,460 Other 5,801
So far so good for the Democrats getting the vote out and getting to the polls!
Of course not every Democrat voter will vote for Obama and not every GOP will vote for Romney, but if you want to take a good thing away from these numbers (at this moment) it's that the total number of Democrats voting is only 4,534 behind the combined total of GOP and Other votes..........which means if a good percentage of Other votes go to Obama then (so far), Obama looks good for carrying Nevada!
Let's play pure politics with these numbers!
Let's say every Dem vote went to Obama and that all GOP votes went to Romney, then that 4,534 difference between the total of Dems and GOP/Other means if 22% of Other voters choose Obama the race is tied 50-50...........which means Obama can win Nevada if he probably gets 35% of the "Other" vote to go to Obama or to another candidate besides Romney.
Stay tuned and stay on course, two weeks to go, and every vote will count in Nevada, it could be THAT CLOSE!!
But since I was taking a peek at the numbers, I figured I would do a post showing the numbers through 3 days of early voting in Nevada!
The 3 days are: Saturday, October 20; Sunday October 21; Monday, October 22.
Total votes cast:
Clark County 10/20) 33,204 10/21) 25,999 10/22) 30,598 Total 80,801
Washoe County 10/20) 9,638 10/21) 4,837 10/22) 6,773 Total 21,248
Statewide 10/20) 49,980 10/21) 31,324 10/22) 44,008 Total 125,312
Clark County has accounted for 64.5% of the state total.
Vote by party affiliation:
Clark County
Democrat: 46,416 GOP: 28,321 Other:15,064
Washoe County
Democrat: 9,700 GOP: 8,314 Other: 3,234
Statewide:
Democrat: 60,389 GOP: 44,343 Other: 20,580
Statewide Democrats have cast 48.2% of total votes cast, GOP have 35.4% and Others have 16.4%
Absentee ballots returned:
Clark County: Dems 10,456 GOP 8,877 Other 3,524
Washoe County: Dems 2,905 GOP 2,967 Other 1,177
Statewide: Dems 15,525 GOP 15,460 Other 5,801
So far so good for the Democrats getting the vote out and getting to the polls!
Of course not every Democrat voter will vote for Obama and not every GOP will vote for Romney, but if you want to take a good thing away from these numbers (at this moment) it's that the total number of Democrats voting is only 4,534 behind the combined total of GOP and Other votes..........which means if a good percentage of Other votes go to Obama then (so far), Obama looks good for carrying Nevada!
Let's play pure politics with these numbers!
Let's say every Dem vote went to Obama and that all GOP votes went to Romney, then that 4,534 difference between the total of Dems and GOP/Other means if 22% of Other voters choose Obama the race is tied 50-50...........which means Obama can win Nevada if he probably gets 35% of the "Other" vote to go to Obama or to another candidate besides Romney.
Stay tuned and stay on course, two weeks to go, and every vote will count in Nevada, it could be THAT CLOSE!!
The final debate !
Well folks, the last debate is over and done with and from everything I can find, President Obama came out ahead in every poll & focus group (that wasn't stacked or fixed!)!!
I personally don't think Obama winning the the last two debates will have a huge impact on the polls, maybe a small percent or two bump at best. The country seems pretty set on who they will vote for and the "undecideds" are a small percentage of the electorate this year.
Obama was clearly more effective in this debate and, honestly, foreign policy is not a strong area for Romney, unless it's international banking. Romney appeared to be playing it safe, not saying too much, and trying hard to avoid any really gaffs or outlandish (for Romney's standards) comments. One big surprise was how much Romney agreed with Obama on various issues, and the right wing punditry noticed also, wondering why Romney wasn't more aggressive and attacking like in the previous two debates. Again I think the calmer Romney was his camps strategy to play it down the middle and not fumble the ball.
Obama was clearly more aggressive in the last two debates, and I can't help but wonder if the current poll margins might be a little wider in Obama's favor had he come out in the first debate like he did in the last two debates. From what I gathered, the first debate was the most watched of the three, and I can't say Obama won undecideds over with the "first impression" factor of the first debate.
I, for one, am glad the debate season is behind us. I still think while Obama has done good things with the economy, it's still a sore subject with the "casual" voter, who might not know or realize the extent of Republican obstruction and therefore unknowingly put the full blame on Obama for the slow recovery.
So with 14 days (as of this writing), it now comes down to the turn out. There is enough "Obama hate" out there that no Democrat or Obama supporter should take this election lightly or think they don't need to vote. Democrats have to turn out in big numbers, especially in the 7 or 8 "swing" states that will decide this election.
So far, here in Nevada, the democrats have been heading to the polls in very good numbers since early voting opened on October 20th !!!
Get out and vote, regardless of your location, and make your voice heard!!!
I personally don't think Obama winning the the last two debates will have a huge impact on the polls, maybe a small percent or two bump at best. The country seems pretty set on who they will vote for and the "undecideds" are a small percentage of the electorate this year.
Obama was clearly more effective in this debate and, honestly, foreign policy is not a strong area for Romney, unless it's international banking. Romney appeared to be playing it safe, not saying too much, and trying hard to avoid any really gaffs or outlandish (for Romney's standards) comments. One big surprise was how much Romney agreed with Obama on various issues, and the right wing punditry noticed also, wondering why Romney wasn't more aggressive and attacking like in the previous two debates. Again I think the calmer Romney was his camps strategy to play it down the middle and not fumble the ball.
Obama was clearly more aggressive in the last two debates, and I can't help but wonder if the current poll margins might be a little wider in Obama's favor had he come out in the first debate like he did in the last two debates. From what I gathered, the first debate was the most watched of the three, and I can't say Obama won undecideds over with the "first impression" factor of the first debate.
I, for one, am glad the debate season is behind us. I still think while Obama has done good things with the economy, it's still a sore subject with the "casual" voter, who might not know or realize the extent of Republican obstruction and therefore unknowingly put the full blame on Obama for the slow recovery.
So with 14 days (as of this writing), it now comes down to the turn out. There is enough "Obama hate" out there that no Democrat or Obama supporter should take this election lightly or think they don't need to vote. Democrats have to turn out in big numbers, especially in the 7 or 8 "swing" states that will decide this election.
So far, here in Nevada, the democrats have been heading to the polls in very good numbers since early voting opened on October 20th !!!
Get out and vote, regardless of your location, and make your voice heard!!!
Friday, October 19, 2012
Romney spurned by his own!?!?
Seems Mitt Romney is not having much success picking up votes or endorsements from area's one might think Romney would be well received!?!?
In Massachusetts, where Romney served as governor, Romney is losing big in various polls.
Snap shot of October poll numbers show Obama running away in Romney's "home state" of Massachusetts.
Western NE University poll: Obama +30%
WBUR/MassINC poll: Obama +16
Public Policy Polling: Obama +14
Rasmussen Reports: Obama +15
So what does it say about a candidate (Romney) that's the very state where he served as governor is rejecting him by such large decisive margins?!?!
These Massachusetts pools have been in Obama's favor throughout the campaign, and we know Massachusetts general leans democratic, but still getting beat by such margins has to say something about Romney.
Now Today, Friday October 19, 2012, we get this shocker from the Salt Lake Tribune:
Obama has earned another term
In Massachusetts, where Romney served as governor, Romney is losing big in various polls.
Snap shot of October poll numbers show Obama running away in Romney's "home state" of Massachusetts.
Western NE University poll: Obama +30%
WBUR/MassINC poll: Obama +16
Public Policy Polling: Obama +14
Rasmussen Reports: Obama +15
So what does it say about a candidate (Romney) that's the very state where he served as governor is rejecting him by such large decisive margins?!?!
These Massachusetts pools have been in Obama's favor throughout the campaign, and we know Massachusetts general leans democratic, but still getting beat by such margins has to say something about Romney.
Now Today, Friday October 19, 2012, we get this shocker from the Salt Lake Tribune:
Obama has earned another term
In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem-solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.
Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.
For full text of the endorsement:
Very telling that the Salt Lake Tribune, a major paper in the major city/market in the state of Utah would endorse Obama over Romney.
This is no small slight.
1) Mitt Romney is LDS (Mormon). Salt Lake City is the headquarters of the LDS Church.
2) Salt Lake City hosted the winter Olympics in 2002. Mitt Romney was called in to supposedly "rescue the Salt Lake Olympics.
Fist off, don't think for once second that the state of Utah won't go for Romney by large margins in this election, but this endorsement from one of the major newspapers in what is LDS central is quite stunning.
It's a major coup for an LDS politician to get to this point in a presidential race and 99.99% would think that every entity that is associated with LDS leanings would stand in support of Romney's run. It's not like an LDS candidate gets this close very often, so one would think that all the available tools would be put to use in Romney's favor.
And Romney is seen and noted as the saviour of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Saving the state and region from possible world wide embarrassment should the Olympics have bombed.
This Obama endorsement basically calls out Romney for his multiple stances on various issues and his complete lack of specifics on his tax plan deductions and medicare policy.
I have to give the Salt Lake Tribune major credit for calling out Romney for what he has become: A multiple stance flip-flopper, who will basically say anything to get elected and offers no specifics on what he would do if he gets elected.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Presidential debate # 2
The second presidential debate is in the books and my feeling is progressives/liberals can easily say that THIS is the Obama we wanted to see!
President Obama was engaged, brought the facts, and most importantly countered the lies of Mitt Romney. This sowing by the president was a nice turnaround from the first debate where Romney's many lies went unchallenged.
This time Obama countered and countered strong, with the top moment being the back and forth over the Rose Garden press conference and what term Obama supposedly used. Romney insisted that Obama never said terrorism and it took a week or more to use the word. Romney doubled down and stared at Obama quizzically and asked again "for the record" what did you say? The president calmly looked Romney in the eye and said "look at the transcript". This was the a spot where Romney thought he had Obama nailed, and it backfired miserable as even debate moderator Candy Crowley (CNN) said Romney was wrong!!
Romney tried to bully the moderator a bit at the beginning, and for a short time I thought "here he (Romney) goes again in taking over the debate", but Crowley quickly took back here position of moderator and pretty much kept both debaters in line for the rest of the debate. You could sense the angst from Romney as he really wanted to takeover the debate and make it similar to the first debate, but Crowley held her ground.
Over all a good showing by the president, no major damage and he made ground by countering the Romney lies!
Another ares which went big on Twitter was the Romney reference to "Binders full of women" when addressing the women in the workplace and fair pay act (Lilly Ledbetter Act). That term trended on twitter, which means it was so active it was all over in peoples tweets!
The president also had a good moment on the Lilly Ledbetter Act by saying Romney would not support it and referencing that the Romney campaign had no idea what it was. Journalist Sam Stein is on tape calling the Romney campaign and asking if they support the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and there was a moment of stunned silence and then a quick "We'll get back to you on that" response.......an obvious admission that the Romney campaign had no idea about the new law.
So two debates down, one to go next Monday. The next debate will focus on foreign policy, so look for Romney to once again hammer the Libya Embassy issue and middle east strife.
I think any progressive/liberal/democratic angst over the president's debate performance was greatly eased by last nights showing! Obama now needs to take the third debate and then we need to get out and VOTE !!!!
OBAMA-BIDEN 2012!!
President Obama was engaged, brought the facts, and most importantly countered the lies of Mitt Romney. This sowing by the president was a nice turnaround from the first debate where Romney's many lies went unchallenged.
This time Obama countered and countered strong, with the top moment being the back and forth over the Rose Garden press conference and what term Obama supposedly used. Romney insisted that Obama never said terrorism and it took a week or more to use the word. Romney doubled down and stared at Obama quizzically and asked again "for the record" what did you say? The president calmly looked Romney in the eye and said "look at the transcript". This was the a spot where Romney thought he had Obama nailed, and it backfired miserable as even debate moderator Candy Crowley (CNN) said Romney was wrong!!
Romney tried to bully the moderator a bit at the beginning, and for a short time I thought "here he (Romney) goes again in taking over the debate", but Crowley quickly took back here position of moderator and pretty much kept both debaters in line for the rest of the debate. You could sense the angst from Romney as he really wanted to takeover the debate and make it similar to the first debate, but Crowley held her ground.
Over all a good showing by the president, no major damage and he made ground by countering the Romney lies!
Another ares which went big on Twitter was the Romney reference to "Binders full of women" when addressing the women in the workplace and fair pay act (Lilly Ledbetter Act). That term trended on twitter, which means it was so active it was all over in peoples tweets!
The president also had a good moment on the Lilly Ledbetter Act by saying Romney would not support it and referencing that the Romney campaign had no idea what it was. Journalist Sam Stein is on tape calling the Romney campaign and asking if they support the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and there was a moment of stunned silence and then a quick "We'll get back to you on that" response.......an obvious admission that the Romney campaign had no idea about the new law.
So two debates down, one to go next Monday. The next debate will focus on foreign policy, so look for Romney to once again hammer the Libya Embassy issue and middle east strife.
I think any progressive/liberal/democratic angst over the president's debate performance was greatly eased by last nights showing! Obama now needs to take the third debate and then we need to get out and VOTE !!!!
OBAMA-BIDEN 2012!!
Friday, October 12, 2012
VP Debate thoughts
Last night's Vice Presidential debate was pretty good overall by all parties involved.
The moderator ABC's foreign policy correspondent Martha Raddatz was good, in that her questions were specific, and she held the debaters to the subject and also questioned suspect answers to her initial question. She kept the pace of the debate going without allowing run on answers and moved from topic to topic therefore halting any "I have to respond to that last item..." type of thing from the debaters.
Some areas were left uncovered in this debate just as they were in the first presidential debate, such as immigration and women's issues.
I thought Joe Biden did well in countering Ryan's suspect "facts" such as the $716 billion taken from Medicare lie that Romney and Ryan have been telling at every opportunity. Also Biden called out Ryan on the stimulus bill by pointing out that as much as Ryan says the stimulus was bad, and didn't work (another fabrication!) that Ryan wrote TWO letters requesting stimulus funding for his district in Wisconsin..............nothing like pointing out a bit of GOP hypocrisy!
Biden did well in clarifying the differences between the Romney/Ryan vs Obama/Biden when it comes to protecting Medicare, Social Security and the new tax plans.
Ryan did his part for the Romney team, this debate was no rout, but it did show a difference between an experienced Joe Biden and a younger policy wonkish Paul Ryan.
I give Joe Biden the edge in this debate - He was strong, forceful, caring and had answers to every claim put forth by Ryan.
Overall it was a good debate and I didn't see one candidate making big gains on the other, but this performance by Joe Biden should buoy hopes of democrats and Progressives after a less than scintillating showing by President Obama in the first debate.
I think this showing by Biden is a bit of what we might see from Obama in the coming presidential debates. Obama needs to counter the lies that Romney will surely throw out, after all it's been his campaign strategy for better than a month, so the President would know the lies will be coming from Romney.
Obama needs to hit Romney like Biden did with references to the 47% comment. That needs to be hammered home by Obama as it was the single factor that gave Obama a bump in the polls heading into the first debate...........and Obama needs to hammer home the flip-flopping of Romney on various issues. Romney has changed stances over and over, almost on a daily basis, Obama needs to make that a negative on Romney's lack of conviction and his wavering style won't be good if he becomes president.
Good job Joe! Now on to the next debate and a big Obama rally!!
The moderator ABC's foreign policy correspondent Martha Raddatz was good, in that her questions were specific, and she held the debaters to the subject and also questioned suspect answers to her initial question. She kept the pace of the debate going without allowing run on answers and moved from topic to topic therefore halting any "I have to respond to that last item..." type of thing from the debaters.
Some areas were left uncovered in this debate just as they were in the first presidential debate, such as immigration and women's issues.
I thought Joe Biden did well in countering Ryan's suspect "facts" such as the $716 billion taken from Medicare lie that Romney and Ryan have been telling at every opportunity. Also Biden called out Ryan on the stimulus bill by pointing out that as much as Ryan says the stimulus was bad, and didn't work (another fabrication!) that Ryan wrote TWO letters requesting stimulus funding for his district in Wisconsin..............nothing like pointing out a bit of GOP hypocrisy!
Biden did well in clarifying the differences between the Romney/Ryan vs Obama/Biden when it comes to protecting Medicare, Social Security and the new tax plans.
Ryan did his part for the Romney team, this debate was no rout, but it did show a difference between an experienced Joe Biden and a younger policy wonkish Paul Ryan.
I give Joe Biden the edge in this debate - He was strong, forceful, caring and had answers to every claim put forth by Ryan.
Overall it was a good debate and I didn't see one candidate making big gains on the other, but this performance by Joe Biden should buoy hopes of democrats and Progressives after a less than scintillating showing by President Obama in the first debate.
I think this showing by Biden is a bit of what we might see from Obama in the coming presidential debates. Obama needs to counter the lies that Romney will surely throw out, after all it's been his campaign strategy for better than a month, so the President would know the lies will be coming from Romney.
Obama needs to hit Romney like Biden did with references to the 47% comment. That needs to be hammered home by Obama as it was the single factor that gave Obama a bump in the polls heading into the first debate...........and Obama needs to hammer home the flip-flopping of Romney on various issues. Romney has changed stances over and over, almost on a daily basis, Obama needs to make that a negative on Romney's lack of conviction and his wavering style won't be good if he becomes president.
Good job Joe! Now on to the next debate and a big Obama rally!!
Another republican makes moronic comment
The republican party has become a fountain of epically moronic comments in the last few years. Not sure if the increase in lunacy among republicans is a product of the teaparty influence or the new found resurgance of the religious right/evangelicals. Either way the republican party is being pulled to the weird side by the influence of those two groups and the republican desire to appeal to those groups.
In todays example of GOP idiocy we have a Wisconsin state representative in the spotlight.
Taken from Current TV website:
Commenting on a rape case involving two high school students, Wisconsin state Rep. Roger Rivard told a local newspaper last year that his father had once given him the advice, "some girls rape easy."
http://current.com/groups/news-blog/93927037_wisconsin-republican-some-girls-just-rape-easy.htm
Stay tuned people, because this type of lunacy from replublicans will keep coming!!
In todays example of GOP idiocy we have a Wisconsin state representative in the spotlight.
Taken from Current TV website:
Commenting on a rape case involving two high school students, Wisconsin state Rep. Roger Rivard told a local newspaper last year that his father had once given him the advice, "some girls rape easy."
http://current.com/groups/news-blog/93927037_wisconsin-republican-some-girls-just-rape-easy.htm
Stay tuned people, because this type of lunacy from replublicans will keep coming!!
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Romney lies from Debate #1
Quite a few pundits mentioned, noted and commented on the number of lies and flashoods Mitt Romney told during the first presidential debate. Even the fact checkers chimed in with their analysis of the Romney truth stretching.
Now to put it all in one easy simple location, with supporting data and commentary, I suggest you take a look at the following video:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9r6TA1PNG_M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Now to put it all in one easy simple location, with supporting data and commentary, I suggest you take a look at the following video:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9r6TA1PNG_M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Monday, October 8, 2012
Republican lunacy raise's it's head again
Two quick items in what is becoming a long list of lunacy within the republican party:
First we have Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) who says:
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth,” he said. “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
My point here is not to belittle Mr. Broun's belief in the bible, but his literal interpretation that the earth is 9,000 years old (or 6,000 something for other bible time liner's). Anyone with any modicum of knowledge of the workings of the solar system, galaxy and the universe would realize 9,000 years is not going to be enough time to create what we see. I guess if you have the "magician in the sky" theory of thinking, anyone can conceive of everything being created in mere moments by the wizard, magician or deity of your choice.
I have a hard time grasping why a person of Mr. Broun's thinking can actually sit on the House Science Committee, when he basically has no reason to believe in science and therefore probably discounts any scientific evidence as witchcraft.
To read more on Mr. Broun's imaginary friend theory: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolution-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php
Secondly we have a disturbing item from the state of Arkansas where a Mr. Charlie Fuqua had this gem in his book:
The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.
In the same book, Fuqua advocated for expelling Muslims from the U.S., saying it would solve what he described as the "Muslim problem."
For more on Mr. Fuqua's version of Old Testament parenting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html
If these are the type of candidates the republican party is going to trot out for public office, the party is in deep trouble.
I personally can't see normal, thinking people taking to these extreme odd ball beliefs. If the GOP wants to continue down the path of running idiots for office, I can't help but to think the GOP might face extinction as a major political party. Sure there are areas, regions and pockets of people who will support full fledged American Taliban type candidates, but to most of America these loons are just that LOONS and they bring the republican party to the edge of becoming a fringe party of extremists, ruled by nothing more than the bible and 12th century thinking. To these types of candidates, science and fact have no place in policy making. To them it all boils down to some obscure bible passage or "teaching" and all else be considered blasphemy.
First we have Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) who says:
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth,” he said. “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
My point here is not to belittle Mr. Broun's belief in the bible, but his literal interpretation that the earth is 9,000 years old (or 6,000 something for other bible time liner's). Anyone with any modicum of knowledge of the workings of the solar system, galaxy and the universe would realize 9,000 years is not going to be enough time to create what we see. I guess if you have the "magician in the sky" theory of thinking, anyone can conceive of everything being created in mere moments by the wizard, magician or deity of your choice.
I have a hard time grasping why a person of Mr. Broun's thinking can actually sit on the House Science Committee, when he basically has no reason to believe in science and therefore probably discounts any scientific evidence as witchcraft.
To read more on Mr. Broun's imaginary friend theory: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolution-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php
Secondly we have a disturbing item from the state of Arkansas where a Mr. Charlie Fuqua had this gem in his book:
The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.
In the same book, Fuqua advocated for expelling Muslims from the U.S., saying it would solve what he described as the "Muslim problem."
For more on Mr. Fuqua's version of Old Testament parenting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html
If these are the type of candidates the republican party is going to trot out for public office, the party is in deep trouble.
I personally can't see normal, thinking people taking to these extreme odd ball beliefs. If the GOP wants to continue down the path of running idiots for office, I can't help but to think the GOP might face extinction as a major political party. Sure there are areas, regions and pockets of people who will support full fledged American Taliban type candidates, but to most of America these loons are just that LOONS and they bring the republican party to the edge of becoming a fringe party of extremists, ruled by nothing more than the bible and 12th century thinking. To these types of candidates, science and fact have no place in policy making. To them it all boils down to some obscure bible passage or "teaching" and all else be considered blasphemy.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Take away from the 1st debate
In the previous posting, I linked to a few articles that analyzed the debate, as I was going through the limitless web pages, it came down to the point I could endlessly post links, but I think as the day goes on anyone who cares will be able to find thousands of various avenues to break down and fact check last nights debate.
So as a secondary posting today, I thought I would just opine myself on the events of last night and how I saw the debate and the aftermath going forward to the election.
As I mentioned in today's earlier post I saw two glaring things:
The one big thing that stood out was Romney's multiple claims of Obama cutting $716 billion from Medicare - A claim that has been debunked by just about every fact checker out there - yet Obama did little to challenge or counter the claim.
The Ryan budget takes the exact same amount out of Medicare and does it in a way that harms patients much more than the Obama reduction does, yet Obama failed to point out that Romney was claiming Obama was doing something THAT ROMNEY'S OWN VICE PRESIDENTIAL PICK PUT IN THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET!!
Obama NEVER mentioned Romney's Bain Capital when the "Tax breaks for jobs to China" portion of the debate came along. Why didn't Obama counter with the vulture capitalistic ways of Bain Capital and the jobs that Bain shipped overseas?
Obama never once mentioned the 47% comment that the Obama campaign has used extensively in advertising since the recording became public.
Obama never once mentioned anything about the GOP war on women.
Obama even went as far as to say he agreed with Romney on Social Security needing tweaking!?!? This is a hot button issue that the democrats have been using to hit the republicans on, and Obama comes and and says he "agrees with Romney"!?!?
There just seemed to be a complacency on the Obama side and he did not retort or engage Romney when Romney was factually wrong.
This was a golden chance for Obama and the democrats to come out and punch Romney on his lies, (many were the same lies he tells on the campaign trail) and strengthen the lead Obama has been showing in recent polling and put some distance between himself and Romney going into the final 30 days of the campaign.
Had Obama come out fighting and countering Romney in this debate, Obama and the democrats could have given a swift blow to the Romney campaign which was faltering entering the debate.
Now it looks like the GOP & Romney campaign have been energized. Money from big donors might have evaporated, diminished or been transferred to senate and house races and away from Romney.
This wasn't the deciding moment for either campaign, but it was a chance for Obama to really seize the lead going into the final 30 days and a good showing could have been a blow to Romney's campaign and changed the dynamics.
To use a sports metaphor: Obama played not to lose, rather than playing to win...........not sure this was the time for that type of debate strategy, if it was a strategy, but this close to the election, with Romney stumbling in the last 3 weeks, this was the time to go for the throat and crush what was left of the Romney campaign.............instead Romney now has new life, his base and republicans are energized and they see a glimmer of hope for a November win........a strong debate performance by Obama might have wiped that out and been in a stronger position 30 days out..............this was an big opportunity lost by the Obama camp.
So as a secondary posting today, I thought I would just opine myself on the events of last night and how I saw the debate and the aftermath going forward to the election.
As I mentioned in today's earlier post I saw two glaring things:
- Romney was prattling off as many falsehoods and lies as he could, even taking over the debate and sort of shoving moderator Jim Lehrer aside.........Romney obviously was coached to be the aggressor, and he pulled it off.
- Obama seemed complacent and not as intense as many wanted him to be. He was looking at his notes more than he probably should have while Romney was rattling off rapid fire statements, and Obama let Romney off the hook in many cases where Romney was blatantly lying.
The one big thing that stood out was Romney's multiple claims of Obama cutting $716 billion from Medicare - A claim that has been debunked by just about every fact checker out there - yet Obama did little to challenge or counter the claim.
The Ryan budget takes the exact same amount out of Medicare and does it in a way that harms patients much more than the Obama reduction does, yet Obama failed to point out that Romney was claiming Obama was doing something THAT ROMNEY'S OWN VICE PRESIDENTIAL PICK PUT IN THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET!!
Obama NEVER mentioned Romney's Bain Capital when the "Tax breaks for jobs to China" portion of the debate came along. Why didn't Obama counter with the vulture capitalistic ways of Bain Capital and the jobs that Bain shipped overseas?
Obama never once mentioned the 47% comment that the Obama campaign has used extensively in advertising since the recording became public.
Obama never once mentioned anything about the GOP war on women.
Obama even went as far as to say he agreed with Romney on Social Security needing tweaking!?!? This is a hot button issue that the democrats have been using to hit the republicans on, and Obama comes and and says he "agrees with Romney"!?!?
There just seemed to be a complacency on the Obama side and he did not retort or engage Romney when Romney was factually wrong.
This was a golden chance for Obama and the democrats to come out and punch Romney on his lies, (many were the same lies he tells on the campaign trail) and strengthen the lead Obama has been showing in recent polling and put some distance between himself and Romney going into the final 30 days of the campaign.
Had Obama come out fighting and countering Romney in this debate, Obama and the democrats could have given a swift blow to the Romney campaign which was faltering entering the debate.
Now it looks like the GOP & Romney campaign have been energized. Money from big donors might have evaporated, diminished or been transferred to senate and house races and away from Romney.
This wasn't the deciding moment for either campaign, but it was a chance for Obama to really seize the lead going into the final 30 days and a good showing could have been a blow to Romney's campaign and changed the dynamics.
To use a sports metaphor: Obama played not to lose, rather than playing to win...........not sure this was the time for that type of debate strategy, if it was a strategy, but this close to the election, with Romney stumbling in the last 3 weeks, this was the time to go for the throat and crush what was left of the Romney campaign.............instead Romney now has new life, his base and republicans are energized and they see a glimmer of hope for a November win........a strong debate performance by Obama might have wiped that out and been in a stronger position 30 days out..............this was an big opportunity lost by the Obama camp.
Debate wrap up
Well the first presidential debate is in the books and it was full of items that can be disected by pundits, experts, spinmeisters, etc........and apparently they have as the post debate reports and commentary is fully underway.
My take from last nights debate was mainly the two glaring things that stood out to me:
1) Mitt Romney basically said "debate rules and facts be damned, I'm plowing ahead regardless"
2) Obama was fairly passive and nonconfrontational.
Lets go to the first item, which is the lack of facts put forth by Mitt Romney. The "fact checking" organizations and media outlets are chiming in on the way Romney played loose with the facts.
Here is a sampling with links to the falsehoods from Romney:
ROLLINGSTONE Magazine listed the top 5 Romney lies:
1. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." Romney flatly lied about the cost of his proposal to cut income-tax rates across the board by another 20 percent (undercutting even the low rates of the Bush tax cuts). Independent economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade.
2. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." Romney has claimed that he will pay for his tax cuts by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions. The factual problem? Romney hasn't named a single loophole he's willing to close; worse, there's no way to offset $5 trillion in tax cuts even if you get rid of the entire universe of deductions for the wealthy that Romney has not put off the table (like the carried interest loophole or the 15 percent capital gains rate.) The Tax Policy Center report concludes that Romney's proposal would create a "net tax cut for high-income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower- and or middle-income taxpayers." Moreover, some of Romney's tax cuts are micro-targeted at American dynasties, particularly his proposal to eliminate the estate tax, which would reduce his own sons' tax burden by tens of millions of dollars.
3. "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work."
4. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." Romney is reviving Sarah Palin's old death panels lie here. Obamacare does establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board to help constrain the growth of Medicare spending. The body has no authority to dictate the practices of the private insurance marketplace. And the law also makes explicit that this body is banned from rationing care or limiting medical benefits to seniors.
5. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." In the biggest whopper of the night, Romney suggested that his health care proposal would guarantee coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions. This is just not true. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you would be shit out of luck. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage, as even Romney's top adviser conceded after the debate was over.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#ixzz28LmBR5td
We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
Now lets look at a good write on how Obama let Romney get away with his lies & the frustration it has caused across progressive circles:
Romney lied brazenly about everything—notably on taxes—yet over and over again an honest but listless and meandering Obama failed to effectively challenge him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/03/obama-allowed-mitt-romney-to-get-away-with-lies-in-debate-showdown.html
Presidential Debate: Mitt Romney Shines By Pushing Lies, Obama Misses Mark By Not Calling Him Out
Much like the criticism Sen. Obama faced back when he was debating Hillary Clinton, some will argue that Obama was far too gracious in dealing with his overly abrasive challenger.
Issues of style are one thing, but Obama failing to challenge Romney on some of his more blatant lies was particularly problematic.
This includes the repeated accusation that Obama wants to make $716 billion in cuts to Medicare despite it often being highlighted in the media that Romney’s own running mate has the same amount of cuts in his own plan. Unfortunately, Romney repeated this falsehood several times throughout the debate without a direct challenge from the President.
http://newsone.com/2053227/the-presidential-debate-2/
My take from last nights debate was mainly the two glaring things that stood out to me:
1) Mitt Romney basically said "debate rules and facts be damned, I'm plowing ahead regardless"
2) Obama was fairly passive and nonconfrontational.
Lets go to the first item, which is the lack of facts put forth by Mitt Romney. The "fact checking" organizations and media outlets are chiming in on the way Romney played loose with the facts.
Here is a sampling with links to the falsehoods from Romney:
ROLLINGSTONE Magazine listed the top 5 Romney lies:
1. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." Romney flatly lied about the cost of his proposal to cut income-tax rates across the board by another 20 percent (undercutting even the low rates of the Bush tax cuts). Independent economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade.
2. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." Romney has claimed that he will pay for his tax cuts by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions. The factual problem? Romney hasn't named a single loophole he's willing to close; worse, there's no way to offset $5 trillion in tax cuts even if you get rid of the entire universe of deductions for the wealthy that Romney has not put off the table (like the carried interest loophole or the 15 percent capital gains rate.) The Tax Policy Center report concludes that Romney's proposal would create a "net tax cut for high-income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower- and or middle-income taxpayers." Moreover, some of Romney's tax cuts are micro-targeted at American dynasties, particularly his proposal to eliminate the estate tax, which would reduce his own sons' tax burden by tens of millions of dollars.
3. "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work."
4. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." Romney is reviving Sarah Palin's old death panels lie here. Obamacare does establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board to help constrain the growth of Medicare spending. The body has no authority to dictate the practices of the private insurance marketplace. And the law also makes explicit that this body is banned from rationing care or limiting medical benefits to seniors.
5. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." In the biggest whopper of the night, Romney suggested that his health care proposal would guarantee coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions. This is just not true. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you would be shit out of luck. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage, as even Romney's top adviser conceded after the debate was over.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#ixzz28LmBR5td
We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
- Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
- Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
- Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
- Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
- Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
- Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
- Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
- Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
- Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
Now lets look at a good write on how Obama let Romney get away with his lies & the frustration it has caused across progressive circles:
Romney lied brazenly about everything—notably on taxes—yet over and over again an honest but listless and meandering Obama failed to effectively challenge him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/03/obama-allowed-mitt-romney-to-get-away-with-lies-in-debate-showdown.html
Presidential Debate: Mitt Romney Shines By Pushing Lies, Obama Misses Mark By Not Calling Him Out
Much like the criticism Sen. Obama faced back when he was debating Hillary Clinton, some will argue that Obama was far too gracious in dealing with his overly abrasive challenger.
Issues of style are one thing, but Obama failing to challenge Romney on some of his more blatant lies was particularly problematic.
This includes the repeated accusation that Obama wants to make $716 billion in cuts to Medicare despite it often being highlighted in the media that Romney’s own running mate has the same amount of cuts in his own plan. Unfortunately, Romney repeated this falsehood several times throughout the debate without a direct challenge from the President.
http://newsone.com/2053227/the-presidential-debate-2/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)