My Analysis of the GOP Primary, and the 2012 Election 3-11-12
My two cents on the GOP Primary field, and the upcoming 2012 General Election.
My two cents on the New Hampshire Primary
A typical frenzy of supporters and reporters in New Hampshire.
The results of the New Hampshire Primary were predicable…if but for a few surprises. Romney ran away with a victory tonight, taking 39.3% of all votes. Ron Paul was next with 22.9%, finishing up with former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman in 3rd with a respectable 16.9%.
In my opinion, a Romney win is slowly helping to paint a picture of what a majority of Republican voters are feeling right now. They are concerned with who can defeat the President above all at the end of the day. They have their doubts about some of Romney’s past stances and his overall conviction(as most of us do). They understand that the other candidates will not suffice, and President Obama will wipe the floor with them. The President would coast to victory if he was forced to compete against the likes of a Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum. Both the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses put to bed the assertion that the Tea Party is some how significant in its influence on this presidential contest in particular.
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney celebrates his victory.
This may be a a stretch, but I see yet another opening for Jon Huntsman. He placed a respectable 3rd, though it took almost a singular focus on the state.If Huntsman can outlast Gingrich and Santorum, he could possibly pick up their supporters. This would then create an opportunity to forge a unified coalition with the strength to battle Romney to the finish. I still the think that Romney will take it in the end, but I predict a longer primary slog than the front runners campaign is expecting.
The polls dont lie Scotty
-
- Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
-
- Wisonsin protesters making their voices heard at the State Capitol
I’m quite sure many of you all have been following the drama going on in Wisconsin of all places. All of the uproar is a result of legislation being pushed by Republican Governor Scott Walker that would pretty much eliminate the right of public employees unions to collectively bargain. This has called many to stage massive protests in Wisconsins state capitol. On top of that, the Democratic senators have fled the state into Illinois to avoid giving the Republican majority quorum to pass the bill.
Governor Walker has been publicly supported by the Republican establishment and fellow governors. He seems unwilling to compromise at this point, which I think is a grave mistake. The unions have already agreed to pay more for their healthcare, and other needed cuts because of the tough times, but are holding the line on collective bargaining, as they should. Its nice to see that a majority of the American people agree.
The latest NY Times/CBS News poll showed that 60% opposed weakening collective bargaining rights for public employees unions. Also, 61%(over half of them GOP voters )stated, “that salaries and benefits of most public workers were “about right” or “too low” for the work they do”. On top of that, Wisconsin voters may be having buyers remorse. Nitasha Tiku of nymag.com noted as much in a poll she cited:
But that’s not the only recent poll that could spell bad news for Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. If there were a hypothetical do-over of the state’s gubernatorial election, 52 percent of respondents in a PPP poll out yesterday said they would vote for Democrat Tom Barrett, the man Walker defeated, while only 42 percent said they would reelect Walker. That’s an flip-flop from what actually happened in the non-hypothetical elections, when Walker picked up 52 percent of the votes to Barrett’s 47 percent.
Governor Walker…..and other Republicans who think an aggressive, iron fisted strategy towards unions will work are mistaken. I think we all can agree as Americans that the deficit must be reduced, and everyone must sacrifice,including unions. But there is a difference between cuts and trying to eliminate unions completely. As you have seen, Democrats and union members are not afraid to protest and put up a fight. And you also see that Governor Walkers own citizens are turning on him…if only on this issue. Wake up Scotty.
Sprint rolls out new phone: Kyocera Echo
The new Kyocera Echo
Today, Sprint will be unveiling one of their newest phones, the Kyocera Echo. This is a dual screen Android 2.2 phone, and will have the ability to run an app on each screen at the same time. Greg Kamparak from mobilecrunch.com also has noted some additional features of the phone:
- Dual 3.5″ Screens, each one running at 480×800
- Kyocera’s utilizing a titanium hinge they designed in house here; it can be used as a standard candy bar phone, or unfolded into a clamshell, DS-like handset.
- It’s packing a 1GHZ Snapdragon CPU
- Android 2.2
- No Sprint 4G here, folks. It’s 3G only.
It is slated to land in stores around the spring, and is estimated to be about $189 with a two year contract.
Abortion doctor who killed live babies with scissors charged in Philadelphia
Dr. Kermit Gosnell
Dr. Kermit Gosnell was charged with murder and other offenses in connection with late term abortions that he has performed. Gosnell operated the Womens Medical Society for over 30 years, and performed illegal late term abortions for minorities, immigrants, and poor women. He is accused of delivering 7 babies alive…then severing their spinal chords with scissors.
One of the more troubling aspects of this story is how the government health officials in Pennsylvania allowed a man like this to operate for so long, and failed miserably in their oversight responsibilities. Jamilah Lemieux of Clutch Magazine also touched on this same point:
In a press conference this Wednesday, Philadelphia D.A. Seth Williams stated that both the Department of Health and Department of State hold some responsibility for allowing the clinic to operate for so many years, despite being notified that two women had died during abortion procedures and having received numerous reports of dangerous practices. “What the [grand] jury found most troubling is that neither of those agencies took the time to investigate, to observe, to view, to go to the clinic itself since 1993,” Williams said in his statement.
On top of this all, it has also been noted that Dr. Gosnells wife Pearl(who has no license at all) also performed late term abortions, as well as other staff…including a teenage girl.
When the authorities investigated, they discovered an environment that was reminiscent of something you would see in a horror movie, according to Lemieux:
Investigators at the now closed abortion clinic found bags and bottles containing aborted fetuses in various parts of the building, as well as a shelf of jars holding the severed feet of babies. Equipment and furniture were “blood-stained, dusty and broken”, according to the CNN report.
I hope that Dr. Gosnell and others involved in this are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Democrats and Republicans….at a glance
One of my fraternity brothers asked me to present a comparison fo Democrats and Republicans. Below is a pretty good break down of how the partys differ on the issues. This is brought to you by ironduke of worldaffairs.com:
Fiscal:
Republicans favor lower taxes and a smaller government.
Democrats favor higher taxes to pay for social programs to ensure economic equality.
Economic:
Republicans are pro-business and are economic liberals. They favor free trade and free markets, are against tariffs and believe that employers should be able to freely set wages.
Democrats are pro-labor and conservative with regards to trade. They favor tariffs to protect domestic labor from competition overseas, support workers right to unionize, strike, and collectively bargain for wages.
Foreign and Defense Policy:
Republicans favor foreign and defense policies that is made largely independent from foreign pressures and influences.
Democrats favor give and take with foreign countries when making foreign and defense policy, favor humanitarian intervention, etc.
Moral Issues and Crime:
There is a large morally conservative wing of the Republican party, which is a relatively recent addition after Nixon’s Southern strategy of the 1960s and 70s. Anti-abortion, favors punishment over rehabilitation, supports the death penalty, faith-based initiatives, legislate morality with regards to media violence, pornography, etc.
Most Democrats are socially liberal, tend to be less religious, are pro-abortion, favor rehabilitation over punishment in criminal matters, against the death penalty, etc
This is just a simple breakdown, and some may not agree with all the comparisons, but for the most part it is pretty accurate.
Young Black Republican Parody
I stumbled upon this while checking out Huffington Post this week, and thought it was hilarious and that I should share this with the world. I’m a Democrat, but I have no problem with black Republicans….just a little light hearted humor. I would also like any black Republicans who read my blog to comment, and let me know if you have ever felt this way lol.
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and Keith Olberman speak out about Arizona shooting
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik recently sounded off on the incendiary and hateful rhetoric in response to the shooting of 18 people at a Safeway, one of them being Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords. Thus far, 6 people are known to have died from the shooting, including a 9 year old girl. Below is footage of the press conference in which Dupnik presides. You can start at the 1:00 mark to hear his commentary :
Keith Olbermann also gave his take on the whole incident:
I will not stoop so low to try and turn the tragedy of yesterday into a political and partisan blame game. Anyone who is doing this should be ashamed of themselves. It seems from what we know that Jared Lee Loughner was a very mentally disturbed man with some shocking views on government.
I will say that ALL (regardless of political views) commentators, politicians, activists, and radio personalities should be very mindful of what they say, and how their words can be misconstrued by irrational people. Even Olbermann himself apologized for some incendiary comments he made about Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary campaign. I hope and pray that something like this never happens again, and I also pray even harder that the rest of the victims of this incident make a full recovery.
New chief of staff for Obama on the horizon??
Possible chief of staff....William Daley
President Barack Obama is considering a move to bring William Daley on board as chief of staff. Daley is an executive with JP Morgan Chase, and also is the former US Commerce Secretary under President Clinton. Daley is also the son of late Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.
This would be another very smart move, especially given the fact that Obama will soon have to deal with a Republican controlled house. According to the CNN political ticker, Daley is just what Obama needs given the political environment:
A Democratic source compared Daley to James Baker and said “he’d be the perfect ‘campaign’ chief of staff” because he’s a shrewd player and can run the White House while keeping an eye on the president’s 2012 prospects. Some of Daley’s other assets include his good relationships with the GOP as well as the business community
Another reason this would be a good move is that it would help to combat the impression that the Obama administration is “anti-business”. Many corporate executives and business leaders have been at odds with some of the administrations policies, which may also be a reason some of them are sitting on massive profits and not hiring. A Daley appointment would be a good sign to the business community that the administration is ready to repair the relationship they have with many in the business community, and do all they can to put americans back to work. This move would actually continue some of the moves Obama has made of late in regards to business, as Pat Dollard notes:
Still, Obama is generating more optimism among corporate executives after a series of actions and overtures, including a deal to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, efforts to boost exports such as a U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement, and a loosening of controls on some technology sales.
Interim chief of staff Pete Rouse has let it be known that he would rather not stay on in this position until the end of the first term, so finding a permanent replacement is essential. We will see what happens.
Subway helps vets move into business for themselves..GREAT STORY
I am a huge proponent of making sure that our veterans who fight to preserve our freedom are taken care of when they come home. When I stumbled upon a story in the Washington Examiner about Subway and what they are doing for veterans, I had to share it with you all.
In a push to get more veterans to become small business owners, the company has a pretty unique proposal:
The restaurant chain is waiving its typical $15,000 franchise fee for honorably discharged veterans who want to open a Subway location on a government or military installation, making it of particular interest in the Washington region.
The company also will cut the fee in half for veterans wanting to open a Subway at any non-military or non-government location.
I’m sure that some of veterans will take a look at this possible investment. Hopefully other companies will follow suit, and introduce other possible ventures such as this.
Tea party challenger for 2012 VA Senate race…could be a spolier
Jamie Radtke, who is the head of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots has officially filed papers today to run for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate that will be up for grabs in 2012. Gabriella Schwarz of CNN explained the reasoning for her jumping in the race:
Radtke said the recent tax deal passed by Congress and increased national spending contributed to her decision to run.
The entry of Radtke into the fray could complicate things for George Allen. The former Republican senator who was defeated by Jim Webb in 2006 is widely considered to be seeking to run for the seat again. He only lost re-election in 2006 by 1/3 of a percent(8805 votes), and many believe that loss was due to the fact that he spewed a racial epithet at a Indian American staffer of his opponents campaign at a rally. The former congressman and governor would definitely be the front runner for the Republican nomination. The problem is that Allen is considered an establishment Republican, and that could spell trouble in the primary. Republican voters have not been kind at all to establishment figures/front runners in their party, and many front runners(Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, Arlen Specter) have went down in flames. Radtke will surely run to the right of Allen, and go after him pretty aggressively.
George Allen will be able to raise massive amounts of cash, and put together a top flight campaign operation, but it remains to be seen if he can get enough support from the base to pull out a primary win. Because the likes of Sharon Angle, and Christine O’Donnell have pulled off primary upsets, it would never be too wise to count someone like Jamie Radtke out.
As a Democrat, I am jumping with joy at this situation. If Radtke is able to knock off George Allen, she will have far less appeal with moderate Republicans and independents than Allen would have…only helping Jim Webb’s re-election chances. And even if Allen pulls out a primary win, he may be pretty bruised and battered from a tough primary, and have burned through a lot of his cash fending off a challenger. That would in turn weaken him in a general election battle against Webb. We will see what happens.
Minimum Credit Card Payments… Just Say NO
Using credit cards comes with plenty of traps, but none is as deep — or easy to fall into — as minimum payments. Card issuers make it seem so easy: even if you owe thousands of dollars, you could settle that monthly bill with a minimum payment that’s just a small percentage of your actual balance. Minimum payments can be as low as 1.5%, so you could pay less than $100 on a balance that’s in the four digits!
The good news is that the danger of making minimum payments is now spelled out for all card users right on their monthly statement. The CARD Act of 2009, in effect since February this year, requires card issuers to display on each statement how long it would take the account holder to pay off their balance paying only the minimum payment, along with information on how much they’d have to pay in order to pay off that debt within three years.
But for many consumers, that still isn’t enough information. Let’s say you owe $10,000. Your credit card company may tell you how long it would take you to pay off that balance if you made the minimum payment — but what if you paid a bit more that that? There are, of course, online calulators that can help you with that math. But it pays to put things into more of a visual perspective, as well.
Credit cards should be a convenience–not a tool for spending money that you won’t have within the next month.
From Ed Johnson Business Correspondent
Reverend Pat Robertsons suprising take on pot
In a stunning revelation, influential christian conservative Reverend Pat Robertson has recently called for the decriminalization of marijuana. This is very interesting, because you would not think that a southern baptist minister such as Robertson would have these views. He seems to finally admit what many have been saying for years…that the war on drugs has spent billions, but not achieved the results that many had hoped. The reverend references the huge cost of fighting this futile war:
We’re probably spending more on prisons than on education,” the segment notes, and argues that, given the “50% failure rate” of the prison system (a statistic based on one claiming that 50% of all prisoners end up committing a second crime), it’s time for a change in the way prisoners are handled, this time with less “secular” appeal and with more of a biblical approach.
Robertson is advocating the use of faith-based programs, and other types of treatment and counseling that will be much more cost effective, while at the same time being much more effective at helping those with drug addiction. He also rails against the many Republicans who have for years ran on the “tough on crime” mantle, which gets them elected, but is the wrong approach to curbing drug problems:
He goes on to speak more truth…its refreshing to see someone tell it like it is, especially on the right end of the spectrum. I didn’t know that was possible. Here’s more from the reverend:
“We’re locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they’ve got 10 years with mandatory sentences,” Robertson continued. “These judges just say, they throw up their hands and say nothing we can do with these mandatory sentences. We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes and that’s one of ‘em.
“I’m … I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.”
I am very happy to see someone as conservative as Pat Robertson coming to the realization that we must be smart and creative in how we fight crime, not just tough. With states facing extreme budget shortfalls, we must find the most cost effective way to handle crime that we can.
Jindal wastes millions
It looks like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was wrong all along. During the gulf oil spill, Jindal repeatedly criticized the Obama administrations response to the oil spill, and attempted to portray the response that he and the local officials implemented as much more efficient.
In the midst of the oil spill, Jindal and local officials aggresively advocated the idea of sand berms being built. Despite the fact that numerous scientists and federal government agency officials objected to this idea, Jindal forged ahead, and pressured the federal government to demand that BP pay for the project. The feds relented, and eventually went forward with the project, to the tune of $360 million dollars. The reason that many objected to this idea, was because they stated that it would be too costly, and would do little to capture the spilled oil. Turns out the feds and scientists were right. Below is the press conference in which Jindal announces that the berm project will move forward:
The independent commission that was set up by President Obama to investigate the oil spill concluded that the sand berms were a collosal waste of money, and captured virtually no oil. In a statement, they noted that, “they could comfortably conclude that the decision to green light the underwhelmingly effective, overwhelmingly expensive Louisiana berm project was flawed”.
Blogger Pat Dollard has an interesting theory as to the true reason that Governor Jindal acutally forged ahead with advocating the berm project:
Some have even charged that the plan was nothing more than a multi-million dollar kickback for the governor’s supporters. “The only reason those sand berms are still being built is because Bobby Jindal has supporters he needs to pay back,” a current Louisiana officeholder, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing dealings with the Jindal administration, told Yahoo News back in October. “It’s that simple … follow the money. The people making money off this thing are people that gave money to Jindal.”
I’m glad that the record has now been set straight, and that we now know that Governor Jindal’s berm project was an absolute waste of money, and did little to stop the oil. The facts dont lie governor.
The Effects of Unemployemt Benefits
For Democrats, the timing was awkward. On Dec. 7, the morning after President Barack Obama announced a tax-and-spending deal with congressional Republicans that will extend unemployment benefits for another 13 months, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that there were 3.4 million job openings as of the end of October.
In other words, millions of jobs are going unfilled at the same time that millions of out-of-work Americans are getting checks for being unemployed. That’s red meat for free-market conservatives who dislike government meddling in the private sector. Under the deal’s terms, wrote Erick Erickson, editor of the influential RedState blog, “we will also continue subsidizing unemployment—yes you read that right. At some point it becomes welfare, not unemployment compensation.”
Obama is making no apologies for a provision he says will be a lifeline to the families of the unemployed as well as a stimulus to the economy. “There are people right now who, when the unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay the bills,” he said at a Dec. 7 news conference.
Liberal Democrats were angry that the budget deal preserves the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income families and pegs the estate tax at a lower-than-scheduled 35 percent, with a full exemption for estates worth less than $5 million. To fire up growth, the agreement also allows businesses to write off 100 percent of their capital spending as a business expense next year. Capital gains and dividends taxes stay at 15 percent.
Help for Lower Incomes
Yet the deal includes plenty of help for lower-income Americans, including not only the unemployment benefit extension but also a temporary 2-percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax and continuations of the earned-income and child tax credits.
Brokering a deal required giving both sides the goodies they wanted, so the deal contains more stimulus than most economists had expected. High Frequency Economics, an analyst group, raised its 2011 U.S. growth forecast to 3 percent from 2.5 percent. Goldman Sachs (GS) economists estimated the gross domestic product boost at a half to a full percentage point over previous expectations.
The one part of the deal that could irk some GOP stalwarts is the extension of jobless benefits. Do the extra checks make unemployment higher than it would otherwise be by paying people to sit at home? Or do the checks sustain growth by supporting the spending power of households with out-of-work breadwinners?
In truth, unemployment benefit extensions do both—they raise the jobless rate a bit, and they make the economy grow faster. What’s clear is that extending jobless benefits makes more sense when the unemployment rate is exceptionally high, as it is now, at 9.8 percent in November. Although there may be a lot of jobs open at any given moment, most are quickly filled because there are so many job seekers. That makes the 3.4 million jobs open on the last day of October seem less impressive. And because aid to the jobless is almost immediately spent (as opposed to tax refunds for the wealthy), it is the most effective means of stimulating demand, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a Sept. 28 report.
Deal Preserves Extensions
The deal struck by Obama on Dec. 6 came a week after the expiration of the latest extension of unemployment benefits. If Congress rejects it, about 2 million people will begin to lose extended unemployment benefits this month, and about 7 million will lose them by November 2011, according to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Although state unemployment benefits ordinarily last just 26 weeks, Congress has passed a series of federal extensions that give people up to 99 weeks—nearly two years’ worth. The deal would keep those extensions in place through the end of 2011. Ninety-nine weeks, however, would still be the maximum.
Economists have long known that unemployment benefits induce some people to pass up available jobs. But how many people? In April, Rob Valletta and Katherine Kuang, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, used a simple but clever technique to answer the question. They looked at whether the duration of unemployment was longer for people who lost their jobs (and thus were probably collecting unemployment insurance) than for people who voluntarily left their jobs or were new entrants to the labor force (and were less likely to be receiving benefits). They found only a small difference, implying by their calculation that the extension of benefits added about 0.4 percentage point to the jobless rate in late 2009. At the request of Bloomberg Businessweek they did an update through November 2010 that yielded a new estimate of 0.8 percentage point. “I can’t make a strong case for which is correct,” Valletta wrote in an e-mail.
Anthony Roebuck, 44, a union sheet metal worker from Brighton, Colo., who was laid off from a construction company in April, scoffs at the notion that he would pass up a job because he’d rather collect unemployment benefits. The AFL-CIO put a reporter in touch with him by phone. Finding work is partly a matter of pride and partly a matter of necessity, Roebuck says. Jobless benefits aren’t enough to live on: “When you’re in the working part of America, you typically live to what your paycheck is, aside from putting a little money aside. When that paycheck is taken away, you’re living beyond your means.”
Business Correspondent Ed Johnson www.swagvest.com
Source: BusinessWeek Magazine
Clintons Back!!!!Just in time
President Obama and Bill Clinton
Former President Bill Clinton made it back to his old stomping grounds on Friday. He held a joint press conference with President Barack Obama to voice his support for the recent tax cut deal that the President brokered with Republicans.
This was a very smart move by the White House, because this provides them another very credible surrogate to continue to trumpet the argument that this tax cut deal is the best that we could get, and actually a good compromise given the political circumstances. It may not do as much to mute the anger that many on the far left have over Obama’s compromise, but it should remind them that if the last successful TWO TERM Democratic president endorses this, then they would be wise to accept it and move on.
Below is the press conference for you to view in its entirety. It seemed as if Bill Clinton had not lost a step, and he was very comfortable addressing the media with ease.
Investing Strategy – Pay YOURSELF First
To become a successful investor, make investing a part of your daily life. You already pay the companies behind your credit card, gas, water, electric, cable, and phone bills every month, right? Why not add yourself to the list? Heck, put yourself right at the top. Set aside a chunk of money to save or invest when you first get your paycheck, and you can happily forget about it for the rest of the month.
The more you save, the more wealth you create — but anything is better than nothing. Even a few dollars saved now will be worth more than lots of dollars saved later.
With online banking and brokerage services, it’s easier than ever to set up automatic monthly transfers between your checking account and a savings account or investing vehicle of your choice. You’ll be surprised how easy it is to live on a little less money each month — in fact, you probably won’t even notice the difference.
From Business Correspondent Ed Johnson www.swagvest.com
GOP Senators derail 9/11 health bill
There has been so much going on in Washington, that its hard to keep up with all of it. The negotiations on extending the Bush tax cuts have grabbed most of the headlines, which is understandable. What caught my attention today though, was the 9/11 health bill, and the fact that it has been derailed by Republican opposition.
The fateful day seared in all Americans memory....9/11
The James Zadruga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act would have provided $7.5 billion in healthcare and compensation for first responders, and survivors of the brutal 9/11 attack on our country. The bill is named after NYPD officer James Zadruga, who like many first responders, lost his life due to inhaling toxic fumes and dust near the 9/11 site. James Zadruga’s son Joseph put into words the pain and suffering many of the familys are feeling, as well as their frustration at Congress for their inexcusable inaction on the matter:
It could have been a good Christmas present for the first responders who are dying,” he said. “Every month we lose a couple. It’s going to increase as the time goes on.
Republicans refused to let the bill move to formal debate until the Bush tax cuts were extended for the wealthiest Americans. The final vote was 57-42, with all Republicans uniting in opposition to the bill. To me, it is unconscionable that Republicans could act in such a cold hearted manner, and refuse help to policeman, fireman, and other workers who risked their lives to save and protect those hurt in the twin towers because of the terrorist attack. I truly wonder what type of human being can make tax cuts for Americans who don’t know how many homes they have(as John McCain famously put it in 2008) a bigger priority than looking out for the brave workers that risked it all to keep America safe in its gravest hour.
This did not have to be a partisan issue at all. Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists did not distinguish between Republicans or Democrats when they decided to fly the planes into the building and cause the mayhem they did. Just as we came together as a nation after September 11th, warring politicians should be able to end the partisan bickering, at least for a bill like this. Sadly they missed the mark again.
Political Survival 101: Protect the Senate
We need to make sure that the Democratcs you see there are still standing after 2012.
This is the second installment of my column called “Political Survival 101″. I am writing this in hopes that President Obama and his advisors make serious changes politically and policy wise, to ensure that he is reelected in 2012. I think that Obama’s focus needs to be on pushing a few moderate policies in order to protect vulnerable Democratic senators who are looking warily to re-election battles in 2012. Compromise on the tax cuts was a good start, though I feel he should have extracted more from the Republicans.
Currently, the Senate is comprised of 53 Democrats, and 47 Republicans. That is a very slim margin, and can easily be tilted to the Republicans favor in 2012 if we dont immediately shift course. The main Democratic Senators who are the most vulnerable come from mostly states that either supported John McCain by significant margins in 2008, or were only won by slim margins by President Obama . They are as follows:
- Jim Webb(D-VA)
- Kent Conrad(D-ND)
- Ben Nelson(D-NE)
- John Tester (D-MT)
- Claire McCaskill(D-MO)
- Bill Nelson-(D-FL)
Essentially, I think the best strategy the President should employ to protect them is to push all other legislation to the back burner unless it deals with the economy or creating jobs. Dont Ask Dont Tell, the DREAM Act, Immigration, as well as any hot button social issues need to be tabled until after the 2012 election. Issues such as these are exactly ones in which Republicans will hammer vulnerable Democrats with….but only if there are any risky votes taken. Many courageous Democrats representing moderate to conservative districts took tough votes and supported healthcare, the energy bill, bailouts, and other pieces of legislation that were unpopular in their districts. The end result was that 49 Democratic members of the House lost their seats, and 5 Democratic members of the Senate went down in defeat.
Those numbers are grim, but also can be viewed as a wake up call to the President and his advisors. The message they were sent on November 2nd was, “get to the middle fast”. Here are some other nuggets to throw out, courtesy of the American Osteopathic Associations analysis of the midterm elections:
- Republicans won every Senate race along the once Democratically tilted I-70 corridor(Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri)
- Republicans won 22 Democratic incumbent seats and did not lose a single incumbent seat in the South
I don’t mean to minimize the important of issues such as the Dream Act, Dont Ask Dont Tell, or others….but the fact is that putting the American people back to work should be our #1 priority. Focusing solely on that and the economy will be good for the country, and good politically as well. People have a way of acting irrationally when they are unemployed and frustrated(as the midterms showed us), but at the same time forgetting they were mad at a politician when they find a good job, and the economy picks up. Listen up Mr.President.
Good Speaking Skills are VERY Important
Post by Ed Johnson of www.swagvest.com
It’s no secret that employers like job candidates to show initiative. But even more important, according to new findings from the National Association of Colleges and Employers, is that they express that go-getter attitude with strong speaking skills.
The data, part of NACE’s annual job outlook report, show that spoken communication is employers’ most sought after “soft skill” when looking to fill open slots. The ability to speak well comes in above a strong work ethic, teamwork, analytical skills and, yes, initiative.
Everett Collection
Speak well. And ask not about the sick-leave policy.
The survey suggests hiring managers aren’t getting what they want. The NACE report found that employers were between “somewhat satisfied” and “very satisfied” with candidates’ oral-communication skills—the top ranking is “extremely satisfied.”
How can you boost those results? Remember that the first time you get to show off your way with words out loud is in your interview. And practice makes perfect.
A number of career-services offices provide video recordings of mock interviews so you can sharpen your answers before the real thing. Amy McPherson, associate director for student and alumni services at Virginia Tech, says watching a playback of your interview helps you weed out “filler words” like “um,” and “uh,” as well as “unprofessional” words such as “like.”
Virginia Tech and many other schools also subscribe to the online service InterviewStream, which offers webcam-based practice interviews that time your answers, forcing succinctness.
Alternatively, practice with a friend. Next time you’re preparing a research paper, see if you can pitch the idea to a classmate out loud, in no more than a few sentences. Have the partner do the same, then critique each other’s ability to crystallize the complex thesis in layman’s terms. You can even offer up constructive tips on the research topic itself.
Aside from oral-communications skills, The NACE found that hiring managers were dissatisfied with job candidates’ work ethic, another opportunity to demonstrate your worth.
Nancy Burkett, director of career services at Swarthmore College, says just because graduates these days seek more work-life balance than their parents, that doesn’t mean they’re lazy. She suggests tailoring your cover letter and inquiries accordingly to emphasize the work side of that equation.
For example, talk about how you’ve juggled a rigorous course load with a part-time job and an appointment as club president. And ask the interviewer about how the company recognizes performance or what opportunities there are for cross-training to build your skill-set.
Source: Wallstreet Journal Online
Anderson Cooper embarasses TX State Rep who questioned President Obamas citizenship
Honestly, I have no problem with a Republican disagreeing with President Obama’s agenda for legitimate reasons, such as a difference of opinion on policy. They lose my attention when they delve into issues like questioning his citizenship or religion. Those issues have both been addressed by President Obama, and people who still aren’t satisfied are those on the far right, and on the fringe.
One of those individuals is Texas State Representative Leo Berman, who is introducing a bill that will require that all presidential candidates produce a valid birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot in Texas. This is clearly a move that has roots in the fact that some wackos still hold on to the widely refuted claim that President Obama is not a US citizen.
Thankfully, CNN ‘s Anderson Cooper brought Berman on his show, and completely destroyed his entire argument with clear, sound evidence and factual information. What a sight to see. The clip is below:
Republican congressman:”Obama is very urban”
I am quite used to hearing idiotic things come out of the mouth if Congressman Steve King(R-IA), but what he said on Monday, tops the list. King was speaking on the House floor on Monday to voice his opposition to the Pigford 2 settlement, which granted compensation to black farmers who were discriminated against by the USDA. The Pigford 2 settelement was apporved in the Senate last Monday, with bipartisan support. King seems to imply that President Obama is helping the farmers and expediting this settlement because he is black, and the farmers in the lawsuit are African American. Below are the infamous quotes:
“Figure this out, Madame Speaker: We have a very, very urban Senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he’s going to run for president, and what does he do?” King said. “He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim.
We’ve got to stand up at some point and say, We are not gonna pay slavery reparations in the United States Congress, he said. That war’s been fought. That was over a century ago. That debt was paid for in blood and it was paid for in the blood of a lot of Yankees, especially. And there’s no reparations for the blood that paid for the sin of slavery. No one’s filing that claim.”
Below is the actual video clip of King spewing this nonsense. This guy is an embarassment to the US Congress and the state of Iowa. I often wonder whats in the water in his district…it must be something potent, because no sane person would continue to vote for a nut like this.
http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=LW97LM2SBFN9CNPQ&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp
The originial Pigford Settlement was brought by Timonthy Pigford and thousands of other black farmers who had been denied loans and aid by the USDA. Initially, $1 billion was paid out to many of the farmers in the settlement. The issue is that an additional 70,000 farmers filed claims late and could not proceed, due to the fact that the USDA did a poor job in serving notice and letting farmers know about filing claims and deadlines. Thankfully, their was a provision in the 2008 judgement that allowed for farmers to file a second claim if their was just cause to do so.
Sound Off