Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

Shutdown Blues & The Promise of Reform in 2014

Photo of the Day, November 20, 2011.  Taken November 17, 2011. Occupy Portland - N17: Occupy the Banks.  Wells Fargo 900 5th Ave.  Portland, Oregon.  12:29 PM

Yes, it’s been quiet here, as I warned it would be after the election.  There may be another post on that later.

Shutdown.  Blah, blah…  All the stuff from the webs.  Been posting a ton of stuff on the Facebook page about this…

But this is where we may see some change in the future.  Maybe things needed to get this bad in D.C. before real change in Congress was possible.

First, a little about how this happened, in my eyes, at least. 

The Tea Partiers who are pushing this are concerned about jobs, this is a job retention strategy.  Their jobs, yes, self-preservation, yes, but that’s what it is.

The districts that elected them want to see some action against Obama and Obama care is about the only real policy / legislation they can find true fault with.  If they don’t do what they are doing, a lot of these radicals will be voted out and replaced with another round of amateurs who will flounder in futility as badly as the current crop of self proclaimed patriots.

Now, yes.  Anger against the GOP over this fiasco may cost some Republicans from more balanced, moderate districts their jobs in 2014, but it won’t be the far, far right minority.

This may be enough to toss the House back to the Dems, which may actually lead to a functioning Congress for a while.

But it doesn’t fix the problem.  The real problem is the procedural rules in both houses.  These arcane and, often, insane rules emerged over decades as one party or the other struggled against the domination of the other.

A silver lining to come out of all of this may be that rules reform could be a real winning campaign issue in 2014.  Usually, when the minority party comes into power, they, for many reasons, leave this stuff. 

However, I think candidate that campaign on reform could really do well in 2014, which may or may not lead to reform actually happening, but let’s cross one bridge at a time here.  For the GOP, this may be a critical strategy.  Yeah, my party broke the country, but I want to fix it.  Depending on how bad things get, this may be the only strategy they have.

If this comes to pass, then this current fiasco may lead to some really positive change down the  road.  And it really will take a disaster to make such change possible.  But maybe it will be worth it, in the long run.

For there to be any hope of reform, though, things are going to have to get a lot worse first.  If this stalemate is resolved soon, and if we end up not defaulting on our debts, then the electorate will have forgotten these events 13 months from now.  Sad but true.

And make no mistake, this is exactly why this is happening right now.

I am not rooting for disaster.  But, if it comes, then this will be my happy thought as I rummage through the dumpsters trying to keep the boys fed. 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Mitt Romney & Class Warfare, the 47%

UPDATE: September 24, 2012 Apparently I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted this, linking to TYT playlists and not to the specific Romney videos that I intended. So, the first two videos are going to be off topic. Lesson learned, I will watch for this in future posts and try not to repeat the mistakes of the past...

I've been all over this on the Facebook page, but I thought I'd post these up here, just for the hell of it... It's been awhile, so why not?

 

 

Related Posts

Monday, March 05, 2012

Putin, Clinton, & Bush… Oh my! The current, dynastic period of American history

No Trespass.  Gresham, Oregon.  February 5, 2012.  Photo of the Day, February 24, 2012.

Observers Detail Flaws in Russian Election - NYTimes.com:

Mr. Putin, who has already served eight years as president and four years as prime minister, won a new six-year term on Sunday with an official tally of 63.75 percent of the vote. He has already suggested that he might run again in 2018, potentially extending his tenure as Russia’s pre-eminent leader to 24 years, on a par with Brezhnev and Stalin.

Before we get all shocked about Putin and say, "It could never happen here!" think about this:

A likely list of US Presidents in a future text book...

1989 - 2021 or 2025 (32-34 years):
-Bush
-Clinton
-Bush
-Obama (almost Clinton & prominently featuring Clinton family members and former Clinton officials in the cabinet/administration)
-(Clinton or Bush likely)

Hillary and Jeb have to be considered the initial front runners in 2016.

I am starting to think of our current period as the Dynastic Period in American history.

Of course, there have been a few more shenanigans in the Russian elections than the American elections.  2000 not withstanding, though, Americans are clearly choosing their leaders from these prominent families.

Recently, I read an article saying that Jeb may even jump in this year to save the GOP from their circular firing squad.  And I think there is little doubt that Hillary will take a shot at 2016.  It wouldn’t even be the most shocking event ever if she ends up being on the 2012 ticket as VP.

In 2008, one of the main reasons why I supported Obama in the primaries was that I felt having a 20 year stretch with only the last names Bush or Clinton residing in the White House was bad for America and bad for our democracy, even if we liked the people in office (or some of them).

Continuing this trend for another four to eight years?  Having the potential for the Presidency to be passed back and forth between two families, if Hillary was elected twice, for nearly thirty years?

That is dangerous, I believe, for any democracy. 

I suspect, though, that we may not be done with Presidents named Bush and Clinton. 

I would be very surprised not to see either Hillary or Jeb picking up a nomination in the future, and 2016 may even end up being Bush v. Clinton in the general.

And they are young enough that both may eventually end up in the White House.

Picture this:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Bush, Clinton

If everyone gets two terms, that would be 44 years of dynastic presidencies with one, minor exception.  Almost half a century.

Age may limit these far reaching possibilities. 

Hillary will be 81 in 2028 and 86 in 2033 (end of the latest possible second term in this scenario).

Jeb will be 76 in 2028 and 80 in 2033.

In comparison, Ronald Reagan, our oldest president so far, was almost 70 when he was first inaugurated in 1981 and served until two weeks before his 78th birthday.  He lived to age 93, but was crippled by Alzheimer's for, at least, the last 10 years of his life.

This article drifts a little towards the unsteady conspiracy theories from time to time, but it also makes plenty of solid points.

The Jeb Scenario: Can You Say “President Bush” Again? | Snip.it:

The Bushes are nothing if not resilient. George W. Bush, he of so few qualifications but with his own distinctive Bush personality and formidable charisma, came out of the dust of his father’s re-election defeat in 1992, stronger than his father ever was politically. And though W. is now persona non grata to many, his brother would come back as a significantly different brand. He’s widely regarded as more capable, much more focused, much better at delivering points. He’s able to pull off a kind of sober, reasonable persona, more stable than a Santorum or a Gingrich or most of the other contenders. Rich but not entitled. A kind of Romney—without the Romney.

And yet….And yet he is still a Bush. That means a great deal, because, putting aside all the stylistic differences, this is a clan with a mission. It’s a mission they’ll never talk about, beyond vague statements about a sense within the family of Duty to Nation. No, the Bush clan is the ultimate representative of the game plan of the one percent of the one percent. What they stand for in private is much, much more troubling than most Americans know. What I learned in the five years I spent investigating them—as they were going out of power the last time—shook me to my core.

Related Posts

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Conservative voters: Poorly informed with low IQs & voting against their own best interests?

Occupy Portland - N17: Occupy the Banks!  Portland, Oregon.  11:23 AM

I was just going to throw this link up onto Snip.it & Pinterest, but I really felt some words were necessary here.

First of all, I have known some very intelligent people who have conservative political views.  Not only are they smart, but their political views are smart as well.  Their arguments are usually well developed, informed, and are very intelligent, based on legitimate facts, figures and historical interpretations.

Quite often I disagree with them, but this is because we subscribe to some different historical and philosophical interpretations.  However, when we debate, I hope both of us walk away better informed than when we started. 

These debates usually change no minds, but they can actually make each of our arguments stronger, because through a well-informed conversation on an issue, we both learn some new facts and figures, holes are punched in our weaker arguments, and we have to find support for fuzzy truths we may have thrown out in haste or drop those imperfect arguments from our repertoire.  In the end, each side can make a better informed decision on the point being discussed and, hopefully, takes away stronger arguments in defense of our views.

But what about right and wrong?  What about winning?  Well, in intelligent debates, we are usually arguing sane problems and issues that have multiple, legitimate, intelligent solutions.  There usually is not a right answer or a wrong answer.  Or they are very complex problems that require the best ideas from both the right and the left to be adequately resolved.

Of course, I am not talking about racism, prejudice, discrimination, or science.  I usually find that intelligent conservatives and I pretty much share the same views here.  Because we are not stupid or ignorant.

Which brings us to this…

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information | | AlterNet:

…Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.


It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.


But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust.  Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo".

Pausing for a second…  I do not equate conservative ideology with intolerance, necessarily.  Social conservatism, perhaps, but not conservatism in general. 

It seems as if a narrow path is being walked here, almost but not quite defining conservatism as racist and intolerant.  That may be problematic.  Further, if these sorts are drawn to the conservative ideology, does that mean conservative ideology is intolerant?  Or does it become intolerant because of the influx of these intolerant people with low IQs?  In the end, does it matter even matter where the causes and effects lay?  Or has it become a self-perpetuating cycle with the chickens shitting all over the eggs they are laying, beyond any identification of cause and effect?

Blah.  From here the article climbs up onto more solid ground…  The problem lies not with a lack of intelligent conservatives, but with the way the intelligent conservatives have been pandering to their side’s “basest, stupidest impulses.” 

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

…"the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

This is troubling in so many ways.  But this is why so many poor Americans are fervent Republicans while many of the policies and practices of the GOP act against their own best interests at worst, or have little to do with any issues really effecting the poor at best.

Even more troubling:

In the UK, “the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.”

And even worse, and heading towards my real point here:

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

Many of the policies that benefit corporations are acutely harmful to the poor.  Tax policy?  Maybe, maybe not, but the minimum wage?  Expensive workplace safety regulations?  Even more costly environmental protection regulations? 

The people arguing for deregulation will never live where the water supply has been poisoned by carcinogens, so why should they worry?  Guess who gets to live there?  The people voting for the conservative candidates who argue that such regulations kill jobs. 

The real issue is not the IQ of the voters.  I know for a fact that many of the loudest voices on the left should be locked in small rooms and only allowed to talk to rocks.  Both sides have these people. 

But what is so disturbing to me is how so many on the right so callously prey upon the ignorance of many in their voting base. 

Perhaps this is my own prejudice, but what I see so often is the left saying, vote for us and we’ll keep the plant next door to your house from killing you while the right says, vote for us, and we’ll keep the left from putting job killing regulations on the plant next door to you and who really believes in all that science stuff, anyway, that says arsenic is bad for you?  Jobs and superbabies!  You can have it all! 

I used the photo of the class warfare sign at the top of this post because I feel that this really is class warfare.  It is an act of class warfare for the right to use these tactics on their own supporters. 

The right says we cannot have a discussion about income inequality, because that is class warfare and an attack on the capitalist principles of the American Dream.  Those on the right who would actually benefit from having this discussion, those who desperately feel the worsening ache of the dying American Dream every day, turn angry, fearful eyes towards those on the left who are fighting for them, away from those on the right who are actually stealing access to the American Dream from the vast majority of the country’s citizens in the first place.

And that, beyond being reprehensible, is just plain frightening.

Related Posts

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Is the GOP really this anti-Romney? Now they’ve got a little Santorum on their shoes…

Yep.  It’s Rick’s turn…

Here is a scary one. Unfortunately, embedding is disabled: Rick Santorum Argues With Student Over Gay Marriage http://youtu.be/PzzDrOR30U8

Source: youtu.be via Aaron on Pinterest

 

Urban Dictionary: santorum

Related Posts

Another one bites the dust: Bachmann Out

Another bullet dodged, several more to go... Sanatorum? Really?

There’s Something About Michele | TPM2012:

Now that Michele Bachmann has dropped out of the presidential race, TPM took a look back at a memorable candidacy and compiled our favorite moments:

Some more winning moments...

Related Posts

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Obama: God wants us to put people back to work

From 2011-10-06 Occupy Portland

Obama: God wants us to put people back to work:

Stumping for his jobs bill today, President Obama invoked a unique source of support: God.

Obama's theological appeal came while protesting that House Republicans have ignored his $447 billion American Jobs Act, even while approving legislation re-affirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

"That's not putting people back to work," Obama said during a jobs speech at a bridge in Washington, D.C. "I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work."



'via Blog this'

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Ronald Reagan and Obama both said the same thing about taxes for the wealthy

Yes. Then again, Reagan would be way too liberal for the Republican Party these days. And Nixon would be burned at the stake as a liberal, transgendered, freak of nature, hippie, pagan, dirt eater... Eisenhower? We can't even go there. This is a family show. Sometimes.

Thanks to Aleshia on Facebook for spotting this clip.



This is not our grandparents' Republican Party...


Republicans 2012: A little Huntsman for the morning coffee

Well, my "morning" coffee, at least.  Up late working on behind the scenes web infrastructure.

A couple links and clips devoted to my project to publish every thing I notice and have time to publish on Huntsman...  Great appearance by Hunstman on Colbert earlier this week... Here's hoping he gets his bump.


Jon Huntsman on the tea party, the polls, and his hair: the Yahoo News interview | The Ticket - Yahoo! News:
He spoke of compromise and working with Democrats in order to "get things done."
"I hate the divide in this country because being divided as Americans is not natural. It's un-American," Huntsman said. "It's not consistent with who we are as blue-sky optimists. We're problem-solving people." 
This has been Huntsman's pitch all along: He's the guy who can "do things," even if it means working with, (or, in his case as Obama's ambassador to China, for) liberals.
But the pitch isn't selling.
It's not for a lack of conservative ideas. Huntsman's loophole-slashing tax reform plan, which would create three income tax brackets of 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent, received glowing reviews from the Wall Street Journal editorial board and FreedomWorks, a Washington, D.C.-based tea party group.
But his tax plan hasn't been enough to get Huntsman out of the basement tier of long-shot 2012 candidates, and Huntsman knows it.
...
"Inevitably, people will insist that the work of the country gets done," Huntsman said in his interview with Yahoo News. "You've got to have candidates who will run and say, I'm going to get the work of the country done, I'm not going to sell out for right or left."
"People are going to say, Hallelujah! We've been waiting for this moment to finally get people in there who can deal with debt, with tax reform, energy independence, our wars abroad," he said. "We can only go on like this for long." 
He pointed to the summer debate over the debt ceiling, a process that eventually culminated in an 11th hour deal, but only after months of negotiations, threats of default and countless Capitol Hill media stunts. A few days later, Standard & Poor's downgraded the nation's credit rating anyway.
"If that wasn't an embarrassment, I don't know what is," Huntsman said. "You had a whole class of my party saying, basically, Go ahead and default. Default?! ...We should have had the 'doer class' who stood up at that point and be willing to say, No, we're not going to let nonsense stand in the way of getting to work.'"
That's the role Huntsman wants to play, but at this point, Republican voters aren't trying to cast that part. In New Hampshire, where Huntsman moved his campaign headquarters a few weeks ago and where he spends most of his time, he's polling at less than 5 percent. 
New Hampshire residents aren't even donating to his campaign. In the last quarter, Huntsman's campaign reported just two donors in the entire state who gave a combined $1,000. 
'via Blog this'

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Republicans 2012: You know you are in trouble when...

...Pat Robertson tells you to bring it down a notch.

Perry says it was a ‘mistake’ for him to participate in 2012 debates | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

No real news here...

Perry says it was a ‘mistake’ for him to participate in 2012 debates | The Ticket - Yahoo! News:

Many political observers agree that Rick Perry's dismal debate performances have helped spark his dramatic collapse in recent polls. Now, not surprisingly, the Republican presidential hopeful insists his biggest mistake in the campaign so far was agreeing to participate in the forums at all. 
"These debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates. It's pretty hard to be able to sit and lay out your ideas and your concepts with a one-minute response," the Texas governor told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly. "So, you know, if there was a mistake made, it was probably ever doing one of the [debates], when all they're interested in is stirring up between the candidates instead of really talking about the issues that are important to the American people." 
'via Blog this'

Monday, October 24, 2011

Obama-mail: Grabbing the executive action reigns

From 2011-10-06 Occupy Portland
Just re-posting from my inbox...

2012

Friend --

Now that each and every Senate Republican has vowed to block measures that would create jobs, President Obama is not going to wait for them to rebuild the economy and bring financial security back to the middle class.

Today, he announced new rules on federal mortgages to prevent more families from losing their homes to foreclosure. And that's just the beginning -- the President said he would continue to make the changes he can by executive action, while continuing to urge Congress to act on legislation to strengthen the economy and create jobs.

If Congress doesn't act, he will -- because millions of Americans can't just wait for Congress to do their jobs. That's why thousands of you have been calling and tweeting your representatives over the past month, joining the President in sending a message to lawmakers in Washington that they need to act now.

We're not just going to continue to wait -- and we'll be keeping up the pressure by making sure they're hearing from folks across the country every day about why they need to act.

Will you share your story -- and join President Obama in telling Congress that we can't and won't wait?


Republicans in Congress have repeatedly filibustered the President's ideas to create jobs now -- ideas that until recently were supported by Republicans.

The President's action today also stands in stark contrast to the positions of the Republicans running for president. Mitt Romney even told a newspaper last week that we actually shouldn't act; we should let the housing crisis "run its course" and "hit the bottom" so that "investors" can come in and buy up these homes at cheap prices. He's saying to homeowners that they are on their own, forcing thousands of families to explain to their kids why they have to give up their homes.

Doing nothing while families struggle: that's the opposite of what this president and this campaign stand for. President Obama isn't going to let Congress' inaction stop him from doing what he can right now.

So here's what the President's announcement means:

    -- More families whose homes are under water will get help and save money on their monthly mortgage payment through the Home Affordable Refinance Programs.

    -- If the value of your mortgage is $100,000 and your house is valued at $75,000, you previously weren't able to refinance to save your home -- forcing many families to pay higher interest rates. As a result of today's announcement, many more responsible homeowners will be able to lower their rates and pay their debts.

    -- And this is just one of the incremental changes to come. Next, the President will announce new steps to help young people manage their federal student loan debt while they look for a job and get on their feet. He'll also take action to help small businesses and entrepreneurs, spur the engines of job growth, create new jobs, and assist veterans in finding them.

These measures alone are not a comprehensive solution to the economic challenges we face. That needs to come out of Congress -- and if they're going to finally put party aside, they're going to need to keep hearing from us. President Obama is stepping up the pressure, and he's counting on us to keep going, too.

Get the President's back and keep the heat on Congress -- tell your story of why we can't wait any longer:

http://my.barackobama.com/We-Cant-Wait


Thanks,

James

James Kvaal
Policy Director
Obama for America

GOP & 2012: A grab bag of headlines from everyone's favorite dysfunctional family

Does Mitt Romney have the GOP presidential nomination wrapped up? - CSMonitor.com
Douthat acknowledges what he calls counterexamples: Very conservative Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and very liberal Democrat George McGovern in 1972.

“Goldwater and McGovern, for all their weaknesses, were far more credible nominees than a Perry, a Herman Cain, a Michele Bachmann, a Newt Gingrich,” Douthat writes. “They were too extreme to win the general election, but they were not political novices or washed-up self-promoters, and they had a mix of eloquence and experience that’s largely absent from the current Republican field.”


'via Blog this'

Mitt Romney GOP front-runner but wouldn't beat Obama, says poll - CSMonitor.com
A strong Republican nominee would be seen as having a reasonable chance of defeating Obama. The AP-GfK poll released Wednesday indicates that half of all Americans now believe Obama does not deserve to be re-elected.

But none of the Republicans vying to challenge him in 2012 has yet been able to outpoll him in a hypothetical head-to-head match up. And the Republican race remains in flux.


'via Blog this'

Rick Santorum tries to watch football while Newt Gingrich talks | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Don't feel too bad for Gingrich. All the candidates seem pretty tired of listening to one another.

'via Blog this'

What Rick Perry told Parade, exactly, about Obama birth certificate - CSMonitor.com:
In general, his remarks are a bit odd.

In the interest of letting readers decide for themselves, we present the entirety of that portion of the interview, which Governor Perry gave to Parade contributing writer Lynn Sherr:

Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?

I have no reason to think otherwise.

That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.

But you’ve seen his.
I don’t know. Have I?

You don’t believe what’s been released?
I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.

'via Blog this'


Washington Post Social Reader on Facebook
The birthers eat their own

The people who brought you the Barack Obama birth-certificate hullabaloo now have a new target: Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a man often speculated to be the next Republican vice presidential nominee. While they're at it, they also have Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana and perhaps a future presidential candidate, in their sights.

Each man, the birthers say, is ineligible to be president because he runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a president must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Rubio's parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth, and Jindal's parents were citizens of India.

The good news for the birthers is that this suggests they were going after Obama, whose father was a Kenyan national, not because of the president's political party. The bad news is that this supports the suspicion that they were going after Obama because of his race.

Monday, October 17, 2011

On SNL (with Video): Rick Santorum fantasizing about gay shower sex (because I just can't say that enough...)











Livewire | TPM: Santorum: SNL Debate Sketch Was 'Bullying'
Rick Santorum found himself debating the rest of the GOP field from inside a gay bar over the weekend. Actually, that was just where SNL placed Andy Samberg as he was portraying the candidate in a sketch. Neither Samberg’s Santorum not the candidate himself were pleased with the placement.
In an interview over the weekend, Santorum claimed that the sketch was “bullying.” “We’ve been hammered by the left for my standing up for the traditional family and I will continue to do so,” Santorum said. “The left, unfortunately, participates in bullying more than the right does. They say that they’re tolerant, and they’re anything but tolerant of people who disagree with them and support traditional values.”
'via Blog this'

Related Posts

Friday, October 14, 2011

Huntsman boycotts Nevada debate in protest of date

Just because I've decided to web log everything I see on Huntsman...

AP News | AccessNorthGa.com: Huntsman's decision is not a huge surprise. His rival Mitt Romney has strong political support in Nevada. And Huntsman has staked his political future on New Hampshire
'via Blog this'

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Go Republicans! Another case of keeping millions unemployed to put one man out of work

Hint: Much of what we say about you pulling this crap is meant as a joke, not as a suggestion.

This...
Americans, unlike the Senate, approve of Obama’s jobs bill, poll says | The Ticket - Yahoo! News:

Senate Republicans Tuesday may have blocked President Obama's jobs bill, but a new poll suggests that's not what a majority of Americans want.
Nearly two-thirds of the respondents to a survey from NBC/Wall Street Journal voiced their approval when pollsters were told them the details of the president's "American Jobs Act"-- including that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, and extend unemployment benefits. NBC reports that 63 percent of respondents said they favored the bill, with just 32 percent opposing it.           'via Blog this'

...reminds me of this...




PS: I stole the second one from here: http://www.republicanjobcreation.com  It is worth a look.




Monday, October 10, 2011

Huntsman outlines foreign policy views - AP

Just because I've decided to web log everything I see on Huntsman...

Associated Press - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper:

Republican presidential contender Jon Huntsman says the United States cannot show its strength on the international stage when it is weak domestically.

The former diplomat and Utah governor on Monday told a New Hampshire audience that the United States needs to scale back its role in Afghanistan and to focus on rebuilding the U.S. economy. He is highlighting his foreign policy experience that, so far, hasn't been a deciding factor in the race.

The campaign has been dominated by domestic issues, especially jobs and the economy. Huntsman says a shifted U.S. foreign policy could help put Americans back to work.

...

In a speech planned for Monday in this early nominating state, he called for a scaled-back U.S. role in international engagements, such as Afghanistan, and called for spending cuts at the Pentagon.

"Simply put, we are risking American blood and treasure in parts of the world where our strategy needs to be rethought," Huntsman said in remarks prepared for delivery.