In yet another example of the kind of slant you can only get from liberal news organizations, politifac gave Mitt Romney its "lie of the year" award. He got it for his claim Jeeps were being made in China.....
That's it,
that's the "lie of the year."
Forget when Harry Reid accused Romney of
not paying taxes in over ten years. No, that wasn't that big. It certainly
wasn't that much of a big deal since Harry felt comfortable enough to then move
on to call Romney a poor example for the Mormon faith. Nothing wrong with that
either I guess.
Forget when Obama's campaign manager Stephanie Cutter
stated Romney could be guilty of a felony. No, that's not that bad either. Heck,
a few weeks later when President Obama faced the press he was asked point blank
about this accusation and it's effect on the "tone" of the campaigns. Obama's
response "well, lets be clear, no one has said Romney is a felon." BTW, there was
no follow up on this false statement from the President. Nope, Cutter's remarks
and Obama's false statement later are not that bad.
It's not even
that bad when an Obama Superpac put out an ad accusing Romney of causing a
woman's death from cancer. The ad featured a man who had been laid off by a
company purchased from Bain Capital. His wife still had a job, but lost it a few
years later herself. Still a few years later she unfortunately was diagnosed
with cancer and ended up passing away. No, that wasn't the lie of the
year either.
The lie of the year..... was Romney when he stated Jeeps are
being made in China.... Are you friggin kidding me?
Here's the link to
the news story.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romne....--election.html
Friday, December 28, 2012
NY Newspaper publishes names of gun owners
A newspaper is "naming names" of all those who own firearms and where they live in two counties, so far, in New York.
I guess openly creating a list and seeking to turn neighbor against neighbor is "cool" again. This is especially amusing considering how much the liberals despise Senator Joseph McCarthy for his investigations into citizens for unamerican activities and ties to communism.
I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say I have no issue with my name and location being published and it being known that I am a gun owner. I think the more it's known I keep a gun where I live, the less likely it will be that I'm targeted by criminals or would be thugs.
A blogger has responded though, and published the home locations for the editors and journalists responsible for this as well. What's good for the goose I guess.
.......................................
Thousands of critics – including some journalism professionals – have weighed in. And at least one blogger has retaliated by publishing the names and addresses of editors and executives at the Journal News, the publication headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., north of New York City and part of the Gannett organization.
Still, the Journal News is not backing down. Editors say they’ll publish information on handgun owners in a third county (Putnam) once county officials have responded to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that resulted in tens of thousands of names and addresses in Westchester and Rockland Counties.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem
I guess openly creating a list and seeking to turn neighbor against neighbor is "cool" again. This is especially amusing considering how much the liberals despise Senator Joseph McCarthy for his investigations into citizens for unamerican activities and ties to communism.
I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say I have no issue with my name and location being published and it being known that I am a gun owner. I think the more it's known I keep a gun where I live, the less likely it will be that I'm targeted by criminals or would be thugs.
A blogger has responded though, and published the home locations for the editors and journalists responsible for this as well. What's good for the goose I guess.
.......................................
Thousands of critics – including some journalism professionals – have weighed in. And at least one blogger has retaliated by publishing the names and addresses of editors and executives at the Journal News, the publication headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., north of New York City and part of the Gannett organization.
Still, the Journal News is not backing down. Editors say they’ll publish information on handgun owners in a third county (Putnam) once county officials have responded to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that resulted in tens of thousands of names and addresses in Westchester and Rockland Counties.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem
Sunday, December 2, 2012
What Would W. Do?
We now have 30 days left until the fiscal cliff is reached and the country faces severe repercussions for Washington's failure to come to a budget compromise. While the President should feel emboldened by being re-elected, I am shocked at the offer he recently gave Republicans. It wasn't just that he wanted more taxes than he had pushed for while campaigning, that is to be expected. It wasn't just that he wanted an immediate approval of 80 billion dollars in stimulus spending for the "infrastructure" the guy's a spender, this request would be expected. It wasn't even his request to put off sequestration for a year, that was troubling, but it would be easy to take that off the table if both sides could simply come to an agreement.
No, what was really troubling was his request to have sole authority to raise the debt ceiling without congress' approval.... forever. Basically, the man talked of a need for a "balanced" approach to solving the fiscal cliff after the election, but he wants to be able to spend perpetually with no more oversight? That kinda takes away all balance and puts all the control into one mans hands. The offer was shocking and frankly, could not be taken seriously.
And so now, here again we find ourselves, less than 30 days out, and rather than stay in Washington and meet with Republicans to talk over the deal, the President went to a rally in Pennsylvania where he implored republicans to accept the deal and not hold the American people "hostage." This is a term he often uses, and remember this is what he did, he went to hold a rally, and demonize the other side... 30 days out.
That got me thinking about how President Bush handled his parties defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections which saw democrats take control of both houses of Congress. President Bush signaled a willingness to work with both sides, and had a considerable amount of praise for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union. When it came to the budget he and the GOP worked with the dems, giving them most of what the wanted and still passing a budget.
That brings us back to today. What would W. do about the fiscal cliff? In the past President Bush accepted his parties defeat in 2006 and he worked across the aisle. He didn't run off to hold rally and he didn't hold rallies against democrats. He was elected to help run the country, and he did. So it is then reasonable to assume he would do the same now. At least that's my observation.
What will President zero do? My guess is more of the same, but unless he takes both the debt raising clause and putting off sequestration, off the table, no deal will be reached and the unfortunate victims of this political miscarriage will be the American People.
-Zach
No, what was really troubling was his request to have sole authority to raise the debt ceiling without congress' approval.... forever. Basically, the man talked of a need for a "balanced" approach to solving the fiscal cliff after the election, but he wants to be able to spend perpetually with no more oversight? That kinda takes away all balance and puts all the control into one mans hands. The offer was shocking and frankly, could not be taken seriously.
And so now, here again we find ourselves, less than 30 days out, and rather than stay in Washington and meet with Republicans to talk over the deal, the President went to a rally in Pennsylvania where he implored republicans to accept the deal and not hold the American people "hostage." This is a term he often uses, and remember this is what he did, he went to hold a rally, and demonize the other side... 30 days out.
That got me thinking about how President Bush handled his parties defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections which saw democrats take control of both houses of Congress. President Bush signaled a willingness to work with both sides, and had a considerable amount of praise for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union. When it came to the budget he and the GOP worked with the dems, giving them most of what the wanted and still passing a budget.
That brings us back to today. What would W. do about the fiscal cliff? In the past President Bush accepted his parties defeat in 2006 and he worked across the aisle. He didn't run off to hold rally and he didn't hold rallies against democrats. He was elected to help run the country, and he did. So it is then reasonable to assume he would do the same now. At least that's my observation.
What will President zero do? My guess is more of the same, but unless he takes both the debt raising clause and putting off sequestration, off the table, no deal will be reached and the unfortunate victims of this political miscarriage will be the American People.
-Zach
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Election 2012: The Aftermath
Well I was obviously way off in my election prediction. In the aftermath a lot of conservatives, including myself are feeling some doubt as to our idea of who are country is anymore. It is a fair question to have when we review the two campaigns. Romney's sought to stay above the fray, championed bipartisanship and gave out plans on how a Romney Presidency would improve the country. Obama's campaign was negative from the start, alleging Romney was a felon, had allowed a woman to die of cancer, hadn't paid taxes in ten years, and in the final moments of the campaign Obama urged his voters to vote for "revenge." Such horrible themes and yet he won re-election easily.
What does that say about our country? For me, I think it says Obama still has broad appeal amongst key demographics including the youth vote, single women, and minorities. Romney unfortunately didn't due enough to blunt this advantage to make the difference and so now we are saddled with the most incompetent President ever for another four years. For us as conservatives, while the loss is huge, our goals must remain the same, to put forward candidates for election and retake the country.
How do we do this? We start with short term goals which are the 2014 elections. Odds are good we can deepen the the Republican majority in these races, as well as possibly take the Senate. The odds are good because those lazy bums who voted for Obama usually don't show up during the mid-terms. We achieve this we will have effective control of the country for the final two years of Obama's administration, and of course then we turn to the Presidential election.
Moving on to long term goals. We absolutely need to find a way to send our economic message to single women and minorities. People agree with our economic policies, but the media and the Democrats have succeeded in painting us into a corner on social issues. These issues are driving single women and minorities away and will cost us future elections. Our way around this isn't to compromise or change on social issues, but to become broader as a party. We need to be welcoming of those who share our economic views, but are liberal on social issues. These republicans will come mostly from northern states such as Mass. and Michigan, but they are our key and bridge to our next generation of voters.
Another long term goal will be putting women and minorities up for President next time around. Tops on this list would be Marco Rubio, who by this time will have had a full term in the Senate under his belt. A secondary option may be Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico. She gave a good speech at the RNC, but I don't know much else about her to make a comment. A third option was Chris Christie, but his warm embrace of Obama following Hurricane Sandy I think will cost him his national aspirations. A shame, I don't blame him for his praise, that hurricane was a huge disaster for New Jersey, but plenty within the party won't see it that way.
Back to the point, if the GOP puts up Rubio or Martinez, it forces the media and minorities across the country to reconsider their views of the GOP as a "whites only" club. Once they get past that and consider the economic message I believe more will come to our side, but it will take time.... a lot of time.
-Zach
What does that say about our country? For me, I think it says Obama still has broad appeal amongst key demographics including the youth vote, single women, and minorities. Romney unfortunately didn't due enough to blunt this advantage to make the difference and so now we are saddled with the most incompetent President ever for another four years. For us as conservatives, while the loss is huge, our goals must remain the same, to put forward candidates for election and retake the country.
How do we do this? We start with short term goals which are the 2014 elections. Odds are good we can deepen the the Republican majority in these races, as well as possibly take the Senate. The odds are good because those lazy bums who voted for Obama usually don't show up during the mid-terms. We achieve this we will have effective control of the country for the final two years of Obama's administration, and of course then we turn to the Presidential election.
Moving on to long term goals. We absolutely need to find a way to send our economic message to single women and minorities. People agree with our economic policies, but the media and the Democrats have succeeded in painting us into a corner on social issues. These issues are driving single women and minorities away and will cost us future elections. Our way around this isn't to compromise or change on social issues, but to become broader as a party. We need to be welcoming of those who share our economic views, but are liberal on social issues. These republicans will come mostly from northern states such as Mass. and Michigan, but they are our key and bridge to our next generation of voters.
Another long term goal will be putting women and minorities up for President next time around. Tops on this list would be Marco Rubio, who by this time will have had a full term in the Senate under his belt. A secondary option may be Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico. She gave a good speech at the RNC, but I don't know much else about her to make a comment. A third option was Chris Christie, but his warm embrace of Obama following Hurricane Sandy I think will cost him his national aspirations. A shame, I don't blame him for his praise, that hurricane was a huge disaster for New Jersey, but plenty within the party won't see it that way.
Back to the point, if the GOP puts up Rubio or Martinez, it forces the media and minorities across the country to reconsider their views of the GOP as a "whites only" club. Once they get past that and consider the economic message I believe more will come to our side, but it will take time.... a lot of time.
-Zach
Sunday, November 4, 2012
This Tuesday, a Clear Choice in a Close Election
It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I'm backing Mitt Romney for President. It should come as a surprise how close the election actually is. President Obama has only been in office for four years and has somehow managed to double our debt in that time, while at the same time presiding over an economy that saw 43 consecutive months of 8% unemployment or higher. The amount the government spends on welfare and food stamps have both doubled, and when Obama speaks of the next four years he generally says, do more of the same and just tax the wealthy "a little more."
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
Monday, October 22, 2012
Foreign Policy Debate - Does It Matter?
It did in the 2004 election when Iraq was the main concern for the country and
hung heavy around the neck of President Bush. Entering his second term many
figured it would remain the top issue as the global war on terrorism dragged on
eventually leading to President Bush's decision to send in surge troops to
Iraq.
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Monday, October 8, 2012
So.... about the upcoming VP Debate
Four years ago after Sarah Palin became the VP choice there
was a media firestorm which lasted throughout the election cycle. It added a huge pressure atmosphere as Palin
and then Senator Joe Biden showed up for the debate. Adding to the debate were gaffs and supposed guffaws
made by Palin during interviews with the media.
All eyes were on her. As the
debate concluded Biden came across looking poised, gave his responses in a
clear and concise manor, contrasting Palin who while she did not perform poorly,
did not perform as well as Biden, IMHO.
Four years later Biden finds himself entering another VP debate which will be closely watched, but this time partially because of the many gaffs Joe has had himself over the past few months. Addressing a grouping of largely black supporters in Virginia, Biden told the crowd "They (Republicans) want to unchain Wall Street... They're gonna put y'all back in chains." Just a few weeks ago Biden had another gaff when he railed against the current Republican ticket stating they would raise taxes on a middle class which has been "buried for the last four years."
Whether or not his "chains" comments were meant to
be solely about Wall Street, the audience in which he made the comments made it
a very poor choice of words. Similarly
his "buried" comment which may have been echoed by Mitt Romney
purposely in the last debate, have hurt the Obama campaign.
And so, entering the VP debate on Wednesday, people will be watching and wondering if Biden is going to step on his toes again and offer a devastating gaff which Republicans will use to their advantage. The person he'll be facing will not be Sarah Palin with her "folksy" way of talking the media hated last time. His opponent this time around will be Paul Ryan, a very good public speaker who has endeared himself to independents in Wisconsin, and given this public platform, will likely endear himself to more independents nationwide.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)