RSS

Tag Archives: Politics

Was Willard a bully, or just a prankster?

11 May

Willard Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican Tea Party (GOTP) candidate for president said in a radio interview with crack journalist and Fox and Friends personality Brian Kilmeade “Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” referring to the alleged assault against fellow student John Lauber, where Romney cut off the Lauber’s hair while his friends held him down.

“I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize. I don’t remember that incident,” Romney said, laughing. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case.”

But wait, committing assault and battery weren’t the only allegations recently leveled against the conservative candidate, Kilmeade asked Willard specifically about having interrupted a closeted gay student in English class, Gary Hummel, by shouting, “Atta girl!”

Romney responded, “I really can’t remember that. As this person indicated, he was closeted,” Willard said. “I had no idea that he was gay and can’t speak to that even today. But as to the teasing or the taunts that go on in high school, that’s a long time ago. For me, that’s about 48 years ago. Again, if there’s anything I said that is offensive to someone, I certainly am sorry for that, very deeply sorry for that.”

What makes this potentially a lot worse for Romney is rather than confront the allegations head on and say he was wrong, he joked about it, he tried to brush it aside, “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far …”, Romney said.

I’m sorry, but holding people down and cutting off their hair is not hijinks, it’s bullying plain and simple; it’s assault and battery, and it’s wrong.

Why can’t Willard remember these things? If they’re isolated cases in his youth then he’d remember them, or are they snapshots in a collage of everyday incidents for Mitt?

“‘I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize. I don’t remember that incident,’ Romney said, laughing.

Romney said laughing”, that’s the crux of this “incident”; “Romney said laughing” because this was just boys being boys? This is the point that’s troubling to me, that he laughed about it. That he laughed about someone being assaulted.

These weren’t hijinks, not under any definition I’d use: Webster calls hijinks, “boisterous or rambunctious carryings-on: carefree antics or horseplay”.

So, for the rich and wealthy set at Cranbrook Schools back in the 60s assaulting fellow students, holding them down and cutting off their hair while they’re screaming for help is just “carefree antics or horseplay”?

There’s the ongoing disconnect and the small sliver of insight into the mind of someone who would be president; that combined with laughing about it troubles me.

Mitt wants to prove he’s not the same man he was all those years ago, stand up and apologize without the dismissive laughing, without the “if I offended someone” political tag line attached. Stand up and tell that man’s family he’s sorry for what occurred and move on.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 11, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Where is the dividing line?

10 May

I have some questions, and I’m not trying to pick a fight, these are legitimate questions:

Calling marriage a civil union changes it how?

My parents were not married by a priest, or a bishop, they were married by a Justice of the Peace. Was that a civil union, or a marriage?

A man and woman can be married, but a woman and woman or a man and a man can only be joined in a civil union, but both will have the exact same legal restrictions and benefits attached, so it’s just a name thing?

If marriage is a religious sacrament, then can it only be performed by someone appointed to do so by religions, and if so why do those performing a religious sacrament have to be recognized by the state (government) for it to be accepted by the state?

Clearly marriage is not only a religious sacrament, but an act of the state as well. I had to get a marriage license from the state of Maryland before I could be married (sealed) in the Washington DC Temple to my wife; so, which is it, a religious sacrament or a civil act of the state?

Do we – as a nation – change the term marriage so it means only the act performed by religious authority, and if performed by anyone else it’s a civil union? And which religions do we recognize to be legally able to perform this rite?

Same sex relationships are taught by almost every religion to be sinful, but in the United States of America we have a clearly defined separation of Church and State, which by-the-way, protects not only the civil population from a state proscribed religion but the state – and hence the civil population – from religious theocratic rule. If we, as a people, proscribe marriage based on religious definition upon the civil population, what else will we proscribe thence, and which religion gets to be the determining authority? Which brand of Christianity gets to rule the nation from behind the curtain, or which group of religions? Is this not the beginnings of the dreaded Sharia Law as practiced by some in the world of Islam?

What other rules from the Old Testament do we proscribe upon the civil population? Do we – as parents – get to stone our children if they are disobedient? Do we kill the man who plants two different crops side by side? Do we kill those who break the Sabbath?

What is the dividing line between theocratic rule and our constitutionally established democratic republic?

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 10, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Romney’s Book of Lies – Chapter 2, Obama’s Hollowing of the Navy?

08 May

Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presumptive candidate Willard Mitt Romney’s pledging that within his first 100 days in office, he’d “reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from nine per year to 15.

“I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region.”

Once again, Willard’s view of reality doesn’t measure up; the total number of ships in the Navy has been declining steadily since the 1980s. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the need for large numbers of warships has not been a priority when the military has been fighting small-scale wars with minimal combat at sea. Dating back well into the Bush/Cheney era the Navy has said it needs a minimum of 313 ships to perform its missions. It now has 284 ships, up from a low of 278 in 2007. Hold on now, that’s an increase from the previous President?

Once more, despite Willard’s inference, there’s a full-time carrier presence in the Persian Gulf and has been pretty much since Desert Storm, but while there’s no full-time presence in the Mediterranean, carriers are frequently there for deployments in the Middle East.

So, let’s see; there’s been an increase in ships since President Obama took office; and we’ve had a commanding carrier presence in the Persian Gulf – that would be the area Iran uses incidentally – another couple of lies perhaps, or is Willard truly this ignorant of defense issues and foreign affairs, in spite of trying to portray himself otherwise? It appears Romney’s stuck in 1980 – he believes he’s Ronald Reagan and that President Obama’s Jimmy Carter; the President’s no Carter, and Willard’s no Reagan.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 8, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

McCain picked Palin because she was qualified?

07 May

According to former GOP presidential candidate John McCain, Sarah Palin’s qualifications were the overriding reason he selected the former Alaska governor as his 2008 presidential running mate.

Giving some free, and unsolicited, advice to Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presumptive candidate Willard Mitt Romney’s upcoming choice of a running mate, McCain said on ABC’s “This Week” that the “primary, absolute, most important aspect is if something happened to him, would that person be well qualified to take that place?”

“I happen to believe that was the … primary factor on my decision in 2008,” McCain said, “and I know it will be Mitt’s.”

Having a “person [Romney] knows he could trust,” is also a critical consideration,” McCain told host Jake Tapper.

So, John McCain really, honestly, believes Sarah Palin, the woman who couldn’t name a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, the woman who couldn’t name one magazine or newspaper she read to keep up on what was happening in the world, the women who had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was and who made outrageous claims of being well versed on Russia because you could see it from Alaska was qualified to be vice president?

One more example as to why McCain had no business being President, and to show how lucky we are he was never elected.

He needs to come clean and admit picking Palin was not just a mistake but a disastrous mistake, and the only qualifications she had was that she was a woman and that she was younger than him.

Palin was picked to help offset McCain’s “old man” image, and because someone in his campaign staff thought they could capitalize on President Obama’s having not picked Hillary Clinton as a running mate. They believed millions of disaffected Democrat women would come flocking to their banner because he chose a woman. Didn’t matter who the pick was, they just needed a woman.

He screwed up; that’s all, he screwed up, and his pick proved what everyone suspected, that John McCain had lost it.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 7, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thoughts on the Occupy Movement

03 May

Most revolutions – to include our own – are, in the beginning, driven by economic disproportional perceptions (remembering that perception is reality); the Boston Tea Party was an act by petulant protesters reacting to a series of taxes (most particularly on tea) by the government …

The French Revolution was brought on by perceived economic differences between classes and resentment by peasants, laborers and the bourgeoisie toward the traditional seigneurial privileges possessed by the nobility – the French Government was dealing with staggering debt as a result of coming to America’s aid in its own revolution.

The Russian Revolution likewise was a creation of perceived economic differences between the classes and resentment of royalty, and a government dealing with staggering debt brought on by World War I.

The Occupy Movement is also a creation of perceived economic differences between the classes – except its not aimed at a political monarchy – but at a perceived financial upper class (a nobility) in our country. It’s coupled with an economy trying to recover from the worse recession since the Great Depression and a staggering debt brought on by more than a decade of war.

One of Romney’s greatest hurdles is to break the perception he’s one of “them”, something not helped by owning five homes (complete with car elevators), multiple Cadillacs, dressage horses, $990 silk tee-shirts, and offshore accounts in the Caymans and Switzerland … “perception is reality”, and with the country in the grips of perceived economic turmoil, being fabulously wealthy doesn’t help when running for the Presidency; joking that you “like to be able to fire people” doesn’t help. Romney saying he’ll overturn controls recently implemented on the Stock Market and Banking Industry doesn’t help.The political and economic reality is that today’s Republican Tea Party (GOTP) can’t survive by protecting the uber-wealthy at the expense of everyone else; when Willard Mitt Romney fails in his bid for the White House, it won’t be negative advertising that does it, it’ll be his own wealth, and his inability to shake the rich-boy born with a silver foot in his mouth image.

It doesn’t help when Governors like Scott Walker giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and businesses and then blaming the deficit created on “special interest” groups like teachers and nurses doesn’t help the perception.

It doesn’t help when right-wing talker Sean Hannity (a millionaire) says poor people can make great big pots of rice and beans and live just fine; a definite “let them eat cake” moment.

It doesn’t help when the controlling party in the House appears to be resentful of keeping student loan interest rates low, unless it can cut health care programs primarily aimed at low income women, while fighting tooth and nail to keep tax rates at the lowest level in 60 years for the wealthiest 1%. Congressman Ryan is a mufti-millionaire, and his “budget” proposes deep cuts in social spending while increasing spending on the military and protecting tax cuts for the wealthy (his class); the perception is the ruling class (wealthy “nobility) doesn’t care about the rest of the population.

Remember, “perception is reality”; and the perception is that 1% control the wealth and the government, and some elements of the 99% aren’t staying quiet about it; it doesn’t excuse the destruction of private property, but conversely there’s no excuse for some use of excessive force used by police officers either – that only helps the protest grow, it doesn’t cow it.

Whether you agree with the Occupy Movement or not doesn’t matter, it’s here; the perceived reality for those who are struggling to pay the rent, and to pay for school, and to eat from day-to-day is there’s a huge disparity in our country between those who have and those who don’t.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 3, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Romney’s Book of Lies – Chapter 1, Obama’s Massive Defense Cuts

28 Apr

Here’s something new I’ll call Romney’s Book of Lies (because I’ll throw some additional chapters out there from time to time, if for no other reason than to raise the BP of conservatives):

Romney pledged, “As president, on day one, I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy and I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts. Time and again, we have seen that attempts to balance the budget by weakening our military only lead to a far higher price, not only in treasure, but in blood.” Mittens also has vowed to increase the size of the military by 100,000 troops, a move he says is needed to reduce the hardship of long and frequent deployments.

Unfortunately for Romney there have been no “massive defense cuts” under President Obama, although he has slowed the “projected” rate of increase and in April asked the Pentagon to identify an additional $400 billion in reductions over the next 12 years, he hasn’t “cut” a single penny from defense spending.

When President Obama was sworn in, the defense budget was $513 billion, not counting $153 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the budget year that ended 30 Sep 11, the figure was $530 billion, with an additional $159 billion to pay for the wars. So, as anyone can plainly see, there has been an increase in defense spending under President Obama, not some imaginary “cuts”; and for the current fiscal year (FY 12), the President has requested $553 billion for the defense budget, exclusive of war costs. But, in a deal worked out by Congress and the White House as part of a deficit-reduction plan in August, he was forced to come down to $513 billion – I hope everyone was paying attention to who wanted to spend $553 billion and who forced it to go down to $513 billion; in case you missed it, it would be the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) controlled Congress – meaning the House of Representatives – who as any fifth grader knows, controls the federal purse strings.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 28, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Latest 2012 Presidential Polls – 27 April 12 Edition

27 Apr

Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential hopeful Willard Mitt Romney prevailed in all five primaries held on Tuesday – no duh. Who were his opponents, a disgraced former House Speaker and a crazy Congressman from Texas? And even though he’s running against two virtually non-existing candidates Willard still hasn’t managed to capture the magic 1,144 delegates needed to be the winner; so, he remains the “presumptive” winner.

The biggest news to come from Tuesday’s primaries is that Newton Leroy Gingrich will announce he’s dropping out of the race early next week – of course he hasn’t been in the race since his “colony on the moon” moment.

The regular season primary wins to date: Romney 26; Gingrich 2; Ron “What’s His Name” 0 and anyone but Romney 10.

The GOTP Delegate Count (1,144 needed to win) to date is: Romney 838; other than Romney 267; Gingrich 141 and Paul 88.

The current GOTP Popular Vote Count is:

Romney 5,221,445

Other than Romney 3,376,375

Gingrich 2,402,960

Paul 1,335,024

Although Willard’s the presumptive nominee, it’ still a big fat hairy fact – as it has been all through the primaries – there’ve been more votes cast for anyone but Romney than for Romney:

Anyone but Romney 7,114,359 (58%)

Romney 5,221,445 (42%)

That’s right sports fans; Willard’s only managing 42% of his own party’s vote to date; the President must be truly terrified by the amount of support Romney’s garnering.

So, how does the “presumptive” GOTP candidate stand up against the President?

The most recent “viable” polls (which are neither FOX News nor Rasmussen) the Gallup Tracking poll of registered voters conducted 21-26 Apr 12; if the general election were held today:

President Obama 50/Romney 43

According to the National Journal poll of voters conducted 19-22 Apr 12; if the general election were held today:

President Obama 47/Romney 39

If the general election was held today, Willard Mitt Romney would be the GOTP nominee, and he’d lose to President Obama in the general election.

How big would Willard lose? Well, if the General Election were held today, the Electoral College totals based on all available current poll numbers:

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 27, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arpaio claims President’s Birth Certificate is a phony?

24 Apr

Arch conservative, Republican Tea Party (GOTP) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s planning to hold a news conference where he’ll no doubt prove beyond a shadow of a doubt just how delusional he really is; he’s claiming he’ll be releasing new findings from his ongoing investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate, which he believes is a forgery.

Reportedly, in an interview with birther-friendly website World Net Daily, the so-called, self-proclaimed, “toughest sheriff” in America says he’ll be revealing new evidence he believes will prove that Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service documentation are bigger fabrications than he is.

Arpaio held a press conference last month where he unveiled his probe’s “initial findings” claiming there was probable cause to believe the President’s identification documents were forged.

Arpaio’s no class act, this is the same guy who’s currently under federal investigation from the Department of Justice surrounding alleged racial profiling by his department; of course with the substantial resources of the Maricopa Sherriff’s Department we might expect that his next announcement will be that he knows who killed the Lindbergh baby, and where Amelia Earhart’s been the past 75 years. It’s probably nice to know the Sherriff’s most pressing issue is to continue down the rabbit hole of birtherism and that there’s nothing more important to be worried about in Maricopa. Regarding the President’s birth certificate being a phony; who else but Arpaio would be more capable of spotting a forgery, after all he’s been impersonating a law enforcement officer for quite some time now.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 24, 2012 in Lunatics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Latest 2012 Presidential Polls – 24 April 12 Edition

24 Apr

Today there will be primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but it doesn’t matter in the least – Romney’s going to win his party’s nomination and the other guys will eventually walk away – unless they’re drawn to the idea of being president like a moth is drawn into a flaming candle; then Romney still wins and they end looking more ridiculous than they do now.

Since we’ve finished the first Santorum free week of the 2012 Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential campaign season, not much has really changed in the land of make believe known as Romney for President; he’s still sticking his silver foot in his mouth, and he’s still flip flopping more than a landed trout on everything from personal income taxes to immigration.

However, even though Santorum’s dropped out, the regular season primary still putters on and our current record remains: Romney 21; Gingrich 2; Ron “What’s His Name” 0 and anyone but Romney 10.

The GOTP Delegate Count (1,144 needed to win) to date is: Romney 656; other than Romney 272; Gingrich 140 and Paul 67.

The current GOTP Popular Vote Count is:

Romney 4,595,908

Other than Romney 3,209,301

Gingrich 2,284,557

Paul 1,191,026

Although Willard’s the presumptive nominee, it still remains – as it has all through the primaries – there have been more votes cast for anyone but Romney than for Romney:

Anyone but Romney 6,684,884

Romney 4,595,908

So, how does the “presumptive” GOTP candidate stand up against the President?

The most recent “viable” polls (which are neither FOX News nor Rasmussen) the Gallup Tracking poll of registered voters conducted 18-22 Apr 12; if the general election were held today:

President Obama 47/Romney 44

According to the NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl poll of registered voters conducted 13-17 Apr 12; if the general election were held today:

President Obama 49/Romney 43

If the general election was held today, Willard Mitt Romney would be the GOTP nominee, and he’d lose to President Obama in the general election.

How big would Willard lose? Well, if the General Election were held today, the Electoral College totals based on all available current poll numbers:

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 24, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Army cancels Nugent appearance?

21 Apr

According to news sources the United States Army has cancelled Ted Nugent’s upcoming appearance at Fort Knox, KY, citing inflammatory language while expressing his displeasure with President Barack Obama.

“After learning of opening act Ted Nugent’s recent public comments about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided to cancel his performance on the installation,” it’s Facebook posting says.

So far, the 23 Jun 12 concert remains on the Fort Knox schedule, with REO Speedwagon and Styx listed as “co-headliners,” and army personnel are saying they’ll grant requests for refunds in light of their decision to nix the opening act.

Of course, this cancellation’s simply the latest wrinkle in a controversy engulfing the aging rocker since last weekend when, speaking at an NRA convention, Nugent proclaimed he’d be “dead or in jail” if the President’s reelected in November.

Also referring to the President, as well as Democratic candidates in general, he said, “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November.”

As President Obama’s the Commander in Chief, and as the men and women serving at Fort Knox are his subordinates, and as it’s a violation of the UCMJ for service personnel to threaten the life of the President, the Army’s completely right to cancel Nugent, especially since he clearly has a hard time keeping his yap shut, and who knows what he’d say on an Army post. Words have meaning, and the meaning of Nugent’s misguided words were a threat to the President, hopefully with a few more cancellations he’ll learn to think before he mouth’s off.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 21, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →