Mitt’s Missing Massachusetts Management

Tags

barack obama, campaign, campaign strategy, Election, election 2012, governor, Governor of Massachusetts, health care, healthcare, herman cain, job creation, lgbt, LGBT rights, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Governor, masshealth, Mitt, mitt romney, obama, obamacare, politics, presidency, president obama, public service, record, romney, Romney's record, romneycare, tax havens, taxes, unemployment, United States Presidency, women's rights

There’s a huge problem when a candidate for President of the United States does not run on his previous job experience. Case in point: Mitt Romney. It is no secret that Romney has shied away from reminding voters of his experience as Governor of Massachusetts. Oh, but he’s done other things that are more relevant to the current state of affairs? He has instead focused his campaign squarely on his experience as a “job creator” because the ailing economy is the prevailing issue in this election? Even if I were to grant him the idea that he’s playing to his strengths (which he’s not), the problem remains that Romney is decidedly running away from campaigning on the only elected office he ever held.

Like it or not, Romney’s governorship is his only record of elected public service. (No, running the Olympics–singlehandedly, as he’d like us to believe–doesn’t count, sorry.) His tenure as Massachusetts Governor is his only political experience. For those who gripe about Obama’s “lack of experience” going into the Presidency, take a look at Romney. Seriously.

One can’t really blame Romney from not wanting to highlight his Massachusetts experience. The most glaring reason that pundits love to point to is “Romneycare”, aka the Massachusetts Health Plan, aka the so-called “blueprint” for “Obamacare”. But wait…there’s more. Massachusetts was 47^th out of 50 in a list of states for job creation during Romney’s time as Governor. In fact, the state was 37^th in the nation when Romney became Governor, and moved down 10 slots when he left. This certainly runs counter to the “job creation” ethic he’s created for his campaign. There was no recession when he was Governor of Massachusetts. No statewide natural disaster occurred. What could have happened? Oh, right. Mitt Romney CUT jobs. Oops.

The previous point is a particularly important one. Romney bills himself as a “job creator”. His Massachusetts record tells a different story. Perhaps he should not be held accountable for the dismal job numbers in his state. Perhaps he doesn’t have very much control over actual job creation as a governor. The same must be applied to President Obama, then. Romney is unwilling to grant the president the same luxury. Besides, direct actions by Romney impacted the number of jobs created in his state.

Romney is also running on the platform that he doesn’t discriminate against women or LGBT people. A quick look at the bills he passed against protections for both communities and the funding cuts for domestic violence programs for women tells a different story. Oops again.

Moving beyond the issues, there’s a much more fundamental issue. Residents of Massachusetts don’t like him. Yes, it’s a blue state. Maybe he’s fighting an uphill battle. Too bad not even Republicans tend to view his Governorship favorably.

Lest we credit Romney for acting strategically in an important political race, I must once again be the bearer of bad news. Romney has not been elected by the public for any other position IN HIS LIFE. Even if his record at Bain Capital was all sunshine and rainbows (which, again, it’s not), would you really want to elect a Herman Cain type to be President of the United States? Yes, we all agree Mr. 999 has been a successful businessman–but he is a joke as president. What’s Romney’s advantage? That he has political experience (however slight) and that maybe he can pronounce the word “Uzbekistan”. Maybe. It’s not a tax haven, so who knows?

The point is that Mitt Romney’s governorship is the only yardstick with which we, the American people, have to measure him politically. He can’t run from his record. He has definitely tried (shredding records as he was leaving office, dodging questions in interviews), but the fact remains. This period of his life as Governor of Massachusetts is important. Romney cannot just pretend this part of his career did not exist. It’s not as if it will just go away if he never talks about it. He is running for what is ostensibly the most powerful job in the world. His only quasi-comparable experience in governing was as Massachusetts Governor. As much as he may want to sanitize it, or leave entire parts out, Romney’s record—in its entirety—should be scrutinized.

A City Upon a Hill

Tags

Allegory of the Cave, barack obama, biden, bill maher, bullying, City Upon a Hill, darkness, democrats, diplomacy, economy, email, example, fundraising, gay marriage, gay rights, joe biden, John Lauber, Lauber, light, Maher, Maurice Freehill, media, media coverage, mitt romney, move on, moveon.org, news, obama, Plato, politics, president obama, progress, republicans, respect, romney, same sex marriage, school, social media, society, The Washington Post, vice president biden, William Winthrop, youth

The last few days have been abuzz with stories related to homosexuality, or as Bill Maher would put it, “it’s been a big week in gay”.  Since every pundit is putting his or her spin on the most recent news–and it is a pivotal moment–I’d like to offer my analysis.  To sum things up: Vice President Biden said in a televised interview that he fully supported same sex marriage, the media went crazy because President Obama had not shared that stance publicly, 3 days (and way too much media dithering later),  Obama echoed Biden’s stance.  A lot of people were excited (and some people used the issue to bolster socially conservative bona fides), but as we all know, since even important stories have shelf lives in the nanoseconds, a Romney story eclipsed the Obama story.  In high school, Romney apparently held down a boy with the help of his friends, and forcibly cut his hair.  This would be a horrible thing to do no matter what the circumstances, but the story takes on another dimension: the boy had dyed his hair blond, was presumed to be gay, and came out later in life.  Whether Mitt Romney engaged in a hate crime (according to legal definitions) against John Lauber or not, he did bully a fellow student and human being.  Some of the media coverage and the response to this story has been almost as upsetting as the story itself.  I’ll get to that.

Let’s begin with Joe Biden’s “gaffe”.  Why is it a gaffe?  Because he was honest and came out ahead of the president?  Biden spoke his mind.  He was not offensive.  It’s not even like he threw a whole party or something.  He answered an interview question honestly, didn’t dodge it like many other politicians would have (and will continue to do), and demonstrated the courage of his conviction.

If his statement “made Obama look bad”, the only person Obama or his staff can really blame is the president himself.  Obama certainly could have come out fully and forcefully for same sex marriage sooner, especially if, as he claims, he had reached this conclusion before Biden’s public moment.  Attaching the term “gaffe” to every phrase that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth doesn’t work.  If Biden pushed Obama–even inadvertently–good.  Obama has been conciliatory, overly compromising, and too passive on a number of issues: climate change, the debt negotiations, supporting 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases in an effort to appease Republicans,  passing another round of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, health care reform, banking reform, anyone?

It’s been said that Obama staffers are upset because Obama had a huge rollout planned.  K, well, you snooze, you lose.  A bigger issue, though: way to play politics with people’s lives.  Oh, the administration was waiting for an opportune moment?  Well, waiting until an election year at all is probably not the most opportune moment–unless they’re blatantly pandering.

Oh, well.  Obama has a very strong record on LGBT rights including not supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, strengthening rights for domestic partners and protections for the LGBT community, spearheading the effort and corralling the necessary votes to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and more.  Obama declared his support for same sex marriage in an interview, and while lingering questions remain about political pressure and whether his language was “strong enough”, it was a monumental civil rights moment.  The first sitting president in history used his bully pulpit to influence the country.  All’s well that ends well, right?  Not quite.

The story about Mitt Romney and John Lauber came to light around the same time.  5 witnesses testified to The Washington Post that they were deeply ashamed of the incident, regretted it, and directly fingered Romney as the ringleader.  They claimed that Lauber screamed and cried as he was immobilized.  In the words of one witness, he “was terrified” and “it was an assault”.  Romney claims to not remember the incident and offered the same asshole not-apology apology that people offer when they are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions or when they think the accuser is just too sensitive, i.e., the one with the problem.  He chuckled, claimed he played pranks and engaged in “youthful hijinks”, and that if he did offensive things, he’s sorry if people interpreted them that way.  He also said this was 48 years ago, and let’s focus on the economy, pretty please, because as even Republican strategists have claimed, keeping the focus solely on the economy is the only way he has a shot at winning.

I received an email from moveon.org that aimed to capitalize on the Romney incident.  The language used absolutely exploited John Lauber in order to raise money for Democrats.  It shifted the focus from the bullying incident to making fun of Romney (because an eye for an eye is always the way to go), and it used the Lauber story as a draw.  It glossed over why the situation was terrible, and instead pushed shameless partisan self-promotion.  The email was entitled “Dark Incident”.  This email was a dark incident.  Way to be unprofessional.  The email sensationalized events and then brought in irrelevant information.  The organization does not need to do that.  The story speaks for itself.  Way to stay classy, Move On.

To say society is in flux would be trite.  Society is always in flux.  We should all take a page from Vice President Biden’s book and take personal responsibility, while diplomatically stating our personal opinions.  Shooting each other down and out-nastying each other just turns people off.  The last thing we need is more disillusionment with the only system we have to protect us and to promote our rights as citizens.  It’s easier to sit in the dark of the allegorical cave, and throw stones at each other, playing it safe.  In the immortal words of Maurice Freehill, “Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?”  And if politicians choose to invoke William Winthrop’s iconic “City Upon a Hill”, (which they are prone to do), then they should strive to live up to this ideal.  We all should.

Voluntary Blindness

Tags

abortion, America, American Embassy, American government, anarchy, asylum, barack obama, BBC, Beijing, censorship, chaos, Chen, Chen Guangcheng, china, Chinese Communist Party, Chinese government, clinton, cnn, communication, cyber, dignity, dissident, economic, economics, feminism, freedom, Geithner, globalization, Guangcheng, Hillary Clinton, human rights, international, international law, international relations, LA Times, liberty, morality, news, obama, One Child policy, outreach, politics, president obama, protection, protest, rights, Secretary of State, social media, sterilization, Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, twitter, united states, United States Embassy, Weibo, women, women's rights, world

The recent dramatic escape of blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng has shone a light on the cruelty of the practices used to employ China’s infamous “One Child” policy, and the desperation and barbary a government with unchecked power can utilize in the face of an ever daunting problem such as population control. Chen Guangcheng puts a face on China’s human rights problem. The activist and self-taught lawyer was jailed for four years for publicly protesting the forced abortions and sterilization of women in his country. (Read about these practices here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/world/asia/china-forced-abortions/index.html) He was then transferred to house arrest, where he remained for 19 months prior to his incredible escape to the American Embassy over 300 miles away. Over the course of his imprisonment under house arrest, he had decried the abuse he and his family suffered at the hands of guards. He recalled an instance in which guards broke into his house and held his wife inside of a comforter for hours while they mercilessly kicked and punched her before doing the same to him

Chinese officials are ashamed. They know how things like this look to the outside world, and they know how their restive population will react. This is why they censor. Widespread and immediate censorship was practiced in relation to Chen, especially after news of his escape spread on Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter. “Ashamed” might be the wrong word. They just don’t want a public relations disaster on their hands. They needn’t worry, though. United States officials have not significantly responded to any of this, and now, a week after Chen’s asylum-seeking mission to the U.S. Embassy, he has been surrendered (aka “brought of his own volition”) to a Beijing hospital, where Chinese officials have made no attempt to conceal the fact that they’re very angry with him and the attention he’s caused.

International Relations 101 is that the international system is anarchic. The actions of individuals within this system couldn’t be farther from the truth. Individuals, just as the nation-states they comprise, act in rational self interest within the system–to an extent. By its very nature, the system of nation-states that dot the earth necessitates cooperation. This is becoming more evident every day, as an increasingly globalized world proves that no country is a (proverbial) island–unless that country is North Korea, and it isn’t actually isolated; despite its constant claims of “juche”, the country is held up by the aforementioned human rights abuser, China.

I mention all of this because I see Earth’s population as a single entity: that of human society. International law, for all of its failings, exists for a reason. This is to exert order on an otherwise “anarchic”/chaotic world and to set standards for the behavior of members in the society. Apologists fearful of stepping on toes will employ the ethic of moral relativism, claiming cultural imperialism and the like, frightened of offending a subculture within world society, and therefore not reaping the individual benefits for their home country. Case in point: The United States’ unwillingness to intervene in a very obvious instance of a human rights abuse by China. Journalists reported that President Obama remained “tight lipped” on the issue of Chen Guangcheng’s detention, daring escape, and limbo-like existence as he took refuge in the American Embassy in Beijing. The American Embassy! Could there be a clearer appeal to aid from the United States?! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a former advocate of Chen Guangcheng, remained silent on the issue, even as she arrived in Beijing for an economic summit with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. In fact, both parties–the U.S. and China–deliberately informed the world that the summit would not focus on Cheng, that the triviality of his plight should not get in the way of larger economic issues. You know, issues of global significance, unlike the issue of human rights. Read more here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/china-clinton-visit/index.html

President Obama offered up this single comment on the situation: “Every time we talk to China, the issue of human rights comes up”, he claimed. Does it? Perhaps. Or, perhaps, the idea that America owes China money (an issue which isn’t quite that simple and America could actually use to its advantage) has cowed America, and made it China’s bitch. Not very diplomatic? Looking the other way while a country tortures its people while the first country loves to proclaim its “shining beacon on a hill” status every chance it gets, is much less diplomatic. It is shameful, disturbing, but, perhaps, worst of all, it is unflinchingly hypocritical. Some countries–those with less strategic importance, perhaps–are punished, while China is given a gold star. Even if American representatives don’t approve of China’s treatment of its citizens (citizens of the world, fellow human beings), they issue their tacit approval by not speaking out on such matters. There are a select few people in positions of power whose voices carry a disproportionate amount of weight, yet they choose to remain silent because silence is easier and more convenient than standing up for human dignity when it counts.

What will Chen Guangcheng’s fate be? What does the future portend for the millions of women who have been forced to undergo painful, sometimes life-threatening abortions and forced sterilizations? What about the women and girls who daily exist as members of a society in which they are told they are unwanted, if they are lucky enough not to have been killed at birth or abandoned? A society of 1.35 billion people–females and males alike–is scarred by the destruction wrought by the Chinese Communist Party. A worry of the Party is the disproportionate number of boys to girls born in the country: 118 boys to 100 girls, the only country in the world with a significantly higher proportion of boys than girls. A telling statistic, but why does the Party mention it? It is worried about the “many unhappy bachelors” of China’s future. This type if statement is emblematic of the prevailing view in China of men as substantially more important than women. Some efforts have been made to curb violence and cruelty against women, particularly women carrying a second child or a female child, but these efforts are half-assed at best, and not uniformly enforced. This is why figures like Chen Guangcheng emerge. Courageous individuals attempt to protect their fellow human beings because the government–whose first duty is to protect its people–has failed them. Worse yet, it is the perpetrator of violence against its own. Other countries Iike the United States have a moral obligation to try to aid these suffering people, fellow citizens of our global society. The United States could certainly facilitate protection for Chen and his daughter, mother, and wife. US State Department officials reported that Chen did not seek asylum in the United States, but it has been widely reported that he was coerced into leaving the U.S. Embassy because his family’s life was threatened.

Articles on Chen’s coercion to leave the U.S. Embassy and the reaction of Chinese officials:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17920910#TWEET136101

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/05/chen-guangcheng-coerced-to-leave-embassy-dissidents-say.html

Instead of attempting to secure the safety of Chen Guangcheng and his family, and using this situation as a springboard from which to discuss the brutality of China’s One Child policy and its crackdown on dissidents, U.S. officials chose not to help. A single blind man has seen more than powerful sighted people who have averted their eyes.

Dangerous Excess Against the XX

Tags

abortion, abstinence, affordable care act, american economy, Ann Coulter, ann romney, biden, congress, conservative, contraception, democratic, democrats, domestic violence, economy, education, equal pay, equal rights, female, females, feminisim, freedom, girls, glenn grothman, government aid, governor walker, grothman, health care, healthcare, house, immigrants, immigration, interest group, joe biden, labor, legislation, lgbt, liberal, mitt romney, money, mothers, native american, obama, paul ryan, paul ryan budget, phyllis schlafly, politics, president obama, progressive, republican, republicans, rights, romney, ryan budget, salary, scott walker, senate, single mothers, unions, united states, vawa, vice president biden, violence, violence against women act, walker, war on women, wisconsin, women, women's rights, work, xx, xx chromosome

With all of the recent “War on Women” rhetoric, I’d like to sound off on this subject.  “Polls show Obama ahead with women by 19 points”.  “Romney is trailing with female voters”.  “Women have historically voted more for Democrats”.  “The real way to appeal to female voters is…”  Stop.  Women are human beings.  Depersonalizing the existence of more than half of the population is a sure way to alienate a group so seemingly important to politicians.  You’d think their strategists would realize this.

I’m not part of a monolithic voting bloc, and I’m not an interest group.  President Obama made this very “not an interest group” point at his recent summit on American women and girls.  Sure, he was pandering, but at least he actually has such a summit.  This was not the first time the summit convened.  It is not merely an election year tactic. 

Yes, I’m voting for President Barack Obama.  I’m sincerely hoping he gets reelected—not because I think of myself as a female voter, and women’s issues are at the top of the list for me.  Quite the contrary.  I wouldn’t have even been thinking about so called “women’s issues” very much had it not been for the recent onslaught against women’s rights.  I’m talking beyond issues of birth control, which, itself, is an unbelievably backward thing to even be bringing up this campaign cycle.  I’m talking about things such as fair pay for women, protection of health benefits, a sense of self worth and privacy, dignity, and pride in oneself.

President Obama is taking advantage of the current political climate in which a great deal of Republicans have been toxic to women.  I’m aware that he hopes to score political points, but I’m not terribly cynical as I accept the fact that such political point scoring on his part might be necessary in order to get reelected.  If he’s talking about actual accomplishments—concrete steps toward advancing and protecting the rights of women—I’m ok with the president reminding the public, and garnering the recognition.

The president has lauded the fact that the first bill he signed into law after being elected was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  When I heard about this initially, at the beginning of Obama’s first term, I was extremely surprised that such an act was not already in place.  The president’s signing of this bill, the contents of which protect a woman seeking retribution for unfair pay even after her employer has paid her less than her male colleagues for years, is a big deal.  Contrast this with the recent undoing of Wisconsin’s fair pay law by Governor Walk All Over Workers (Governor Walker).  Walker has a history of abusing his power and fervently attacking workers and unions in the short time he has been governor.  Now that he is set to be recalled, he has kicked into overdrive, much like the especially active 111^th Congress in late 2010 during the “lame duck” session.  The “quiet” action he took on women’s pay is one of several bills the governor has recently passed in such a fashion.  The New York Daily News elaborates: “The wage bill was one of several items Walker, a controversial union-defying GOPer, signed off on this month.  Other pieces of legislation included barring abortion coverage through health insurance exchanges, mandating doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions, and requiring sex ed teachers to stress abstinence.”

Add to this the recent comments by  Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman, claiming that women don’t need to be paid equally to men and that more money was more important to a man because his ego is very important and he might want to be the breadwinner.  In a recent article, The newspaper explains, “Under the old law, employees who win discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.  The GOP bill bars anyone from collecting such funds in employment discrimination suits.

Democrats argue the bill negatively affects women who suffer discrimination in the workplace.

According to the recent Shriver Report, women are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families — but continue to make 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned.”

The entire article can be found here: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326804_1_wage-gap-wage-bill-discrimination

Grothman thinks “workplace bias” is bullshit.  Not only is this terribly ignorant and out of step with modernity; it is unbelievably offensive.

Speaking of the shockingly offensive, the Violence Against Women Act is up for a reauthorization vote in Congress.  This should be a no-brainer.  It should not be a partisan vote, and it hasn’t been a partisan vote in the past.  It is worth noting that Vice President Biden is responsible for the original Violence Against Women Act.  This particular piece of legislation is facing significant opposition for the first time.  Whether this is some subtle way of trying to score points against the president’s reelection bid (because it is Biden’s legislation) at the expense of women or for some other nefarious reason, it is a disgusting display of disregard for their fellow human beings.  The Violence Against Women Act protects women in particularly vulnerable positions, and for a party that claims to be so chivalrous and value “the fairer sex”, you’d think Republicans would do all that’s in their power to reauthorize such a bill.      

 According to an article in The Huffington Post,  “Since the Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent.  The legislation was aimed at improving the response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.  Yet according to national statistics, more than three women are, on average, murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.” 

Terrible, right?  Strengthening protections for women through a reauthorization of this bill should be a bipartisan effort, right?  Wrong.  The article goes on to say “Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, object not to the act as a whole, but to new protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.”

For those interested in reading the entire article, it can be found here.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-senate-vote_n_1429327.html

I could go on and on about Mitt Romney’s record on saying that poor women must have the “dignity of work”—meaning work outside the home—if they are to qualify for state aid, which is understandable, but less understandable when he and every other Republican, it seems, have  advocated cutting childcare and education programs like Head Start.  Most women do not have the luxury of raising children without working outside the home (unlike his wife, who has the “hardest job there is”, apparently), especially single mothers, and for the poorest women, outside work is increasingly difficult if they do not receive adequate government aid.  The much-celebrated Paul Ryan budget plan deals a disproportionately heavy blow to women as well.

From frighteningly restrictive abortion laws (such as the recent law that says that life begins two weeks after a woman’s period), women’s basic rights to their own bodies and their ability to make decisions are being trampled in the name of some warped, overbearing ideology.  President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not aimed specifically toward women, but in many ways it advances women’s rights.  Nothing in this bill, not even the apparently terrifying contraception language, is as overarching as many recently proposed (and passed) bills limiting women’s rights.

While I do not want to be defined by my gender, I feel a duty to inform those who share it a bit about what is happening in America.  Every individual is free to vote for whomever she or he wants to, but I don’t understand how any woman who isn’t Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly could ever—in good conscience—vote for a Republican this cycle.  If someone finds me a Republican who bucks this trend, I would be very happy.

My Guide to the 2012 Republican Presidential Campaign Spin

Tags

2012, barack obama, caucuses, communication, defense, democratic, economics, education, Election, environmentalism, gay rights, gingrich, health care, healthcare, immigration, iran, mitt romney, nancy pelosi, newt gingrich, north korea, obamacare, paul, politics, president obama, primaries, reagan, religious freedom, republican, rhetoric, rick santorum, romney, Ron Paul, ronald reagan, santorum, sharia law, spin, women

For all the talk of Republican missteps and unelectable candidates, Republicans do have something the Democrats don’t have—an incredible spin machine. Sometimes these euphemisms are highly effective, as in the case of “Obamacare”, a rebranding so succinct that even Democrats prefer to use it instead of the lumbering Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or “the president’s health care plan”. Other terms are so ambitious they fool only the most ignorant sycophants. Either way, the Frank Luntzes of the world have done much to shape this election season. I decided that in the spirit of (the first) Super Tuesday of 2012 that I would write out a guide to Republican spin this election season.

Guide to Republican Spin in the 2012 Presidential Campaign

Agenda: any conniving plan by any of the opposition, particularly the president; see “socialist agenda”

Anti-American: engaging in any task seen as antithetical to a very specific view of what is typically American, e.g., speaking out against unfettered capitalism, reaching out to other countries using diplomacy instead of bombs, asserting that less money should go to the Defense Department budget, wanting to address inequality by raising tax rates for the wealthiest citizens

Axis of Evil: former Speaker of the House and current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Barack Obama

Bipartisanship: a disgusting, anachronistic term for the bygone days of actually working with Democrats on legislation; see “compromise”

Bleeding Heart Liberal: a name given to any person who believes in compassion for his or her fellow citizens and recognizes that we all live in a society in which cooperation is key; also, someone who doesn’t believe in eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency or doesn’t hunt animals for fun

Border Security: one of the most important things that Republicans talk about, especially at debates in southern states when they are pandering to Sheriff Joe Arpaio types; a byword for keeping the Mexicans and other Latino and Latina undesirables out (even though the border with Canada is much larger and more porous and even though many immigrants initially enter the United States legally on planes and don’t cross the Mexican border)

China: evil, North Korea: eviler, Iran: evilest

Class Warfare: the realistic recognition that not everyone is a millionaire (or a billionaire) in America and not everyone is happy with the lack of social mobility and the growing inequality in America and the dissatisfaction at a dimming American dream; the 99% vs. 1% “Occupy” ethic; an attack on Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ (by way of Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s) assertion that “there are no “haves” or “have nots” in this country; just “haves” and soon to haves” ”; an empty statement thrown around by Republicans when they have no real economic plan

Corporations: see “people” (a la the Federal Election Commission vs. Citizens United Supreme Court decision)

Climate Change: possibly the only accurate euphemism for what was overwhelmingly known as “global warming”, used by Frank Luntz to minimize the fear behind “global warming”; however, warming is not the only climactic effect; usually used in a derogatory sense by Republicans who either refuse to accept the reality of climate change or think it’s not anthropogenic in origin

Death Tax: a particularly morbid and inaccurate way to describe the Estate Tax

Democracy: for the few here in the United States (see “plutocracy”, “oligarchy”, and “crony capitalism”), but forced on those abroad–only those we deem worthy based on strategic interests, however; undercut by the enforcement of voter I.D. laws and redistricting/ “gerrymandering”

Education: the prevailing view is that the Department of Education should be abolished; creationism should be taught and environmentalism definitely shouldn’t be taught, yet every American is supposed to score higher on math and–yes, science, hahaha–than every student in the rest of the world

Energy: “Drill, baby, drill!” The only acceptable form of energy is oil. We must kill all the wildlife in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. (What is this concept of “conservation”? That’s for “pussies” like Teddy Roosevelt.) Alternative energy and renewable resources are for elitists like Al Gore who are destroying America. And even if the Keystone XL Pipeline is slated to actually kill jobs, who cares? It sounds good. Sometimes, coal and natural gas are touted too if the candidate is campaigning in a state like Pennsylvania or West Virginia or is Rick Santorum.

Entitlement Society: This term applies to anyone who uses any kind of paid government service from social security to unemployment to Medicare to Medicaid to Head Start (and others). But what about taking advantage of tax breaks, you ask? Silly, those don’t count.

Food Stamp President: Newt Gingrich’s pet name for President Obama so given because more Americans have relied on food stamps during the recession, which happened to take place during Barack Obama’s first term; contains racist and classist undertones

Illegal Alien: the name for those pesky immigrants who are taking all of our jobs

Ivory Tower Elites: yet another pejorative for anyone who has gone to college; often used to refer to President Obama by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, both of whom are highly educated and the archetype of Washington elites and the former, who was a college professor

Job Creators: anyone wealthy enough to be threatened by the reinstatement of taxes before the Bush tax cuts; wealthy Americans; The logic follows that of former President Ronald Reagan’s theory of “trickle down” economics, which never works; a bullshit title

“Massachusetts Moderate”: Newt Gingrich’s alliterative name for Mitt Romney

Momentum: a make believe concept conjured up by political pundits who attempt to put the science in political science and also to fill in the endless hours spent on back to back coverage with no other real news thrown in

National Security: a concept that has been in existence since before the first city-states but that suddenly became disproportionately important under the Bush administration after September 11th; archetype of the bloated bureaucracy many Republicans love to rail about; a catch all excuse for any action in which ethics might be questioned, e.g., “(Insert issue here) is a matter of national security.”

Obamacare: a favorite term used by the Tea Party to encapsulate all that is wrong with President Obama; a derogatory name for the Health Care Reform Act which was signed into law by President Obama in 2009; synonymous with “government overreach” and “illegal mandates”; has somehow made the idea of providing more affordable health care to U.S. citizens on par with a crime against humanity; deemed a “monstrosity” by any Republican running for office who actually expects to win in the current political climate

Primary-palooza: I made this one up. It’s a term to describe a. the entire day or days leading up to a primary/primaries or a caucus/caucuses b. from about May or June 2011 until November 2012 (is the vast majority of all news shown and the major story talked about on nearly every news source)

“Pro-Life”: synonymous with “anti-abortion”; curious self-identifier for people who believe in the rights of fetuses, but not necessarily in preventative health care for children and adults, believe in the death penalty, believe in killing “our enemies” at any cost, and do not even consider the lives of animals, which may result in them engaging in such wonderful endeavors as shooting endangered wolf species from helicopters

Reagan Democrat: I’m guessing these are disaffected Democratic voters who voted for Ronald Reagan in either 1980 or 1984 or both? Do these people actually exist? Maybe they’re like unicorns. I’m guessing most of these Democrats would vote for Ron Paul, anyway, who really doesn’t claim a strong affiliation with Ronald Reagan at all.

“Real” America/Americans: Sarah Palin’s favorite phrase for far flung, sparsely populated areas of America like Wasilla, Alaska; an assertion that some places, especially such places as New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Vermont, Hawaii, and almost the entire East Coast, are where the fake (?) or lesser Americans live

References to San Francisco and that Gay Coddler “Princess Nancy” Pelosi: When a Republican wants to talk about destructive “liberalism”, he or she invokes the name of that hedonistic hell known as San Francisco. The Congresswoman for San Francisco happens to be Nancy Pelosi (or “Princess Nancy” as Herman Cain so lovingly called her)—double points.

Religious Freedom: a real thing, though, sadly not used properly; now used to prevent health coverage including contraception; often invoked by Santorum and Gingrich, who claim that Catholics have become an oppressed minority in the United States (never mind the tax-free status of the Church and the fact that Romney is the one who actually suffers from religious prejudice)

“Sanctity of Marriage”: no same sex couples because they are a threat to religious convictions/indoctrination about the holiness of matrimony between a man and a woman as their god intended

Self Reflection: I’m just kidding. Most Republicans don’t understand this concept.

Sharia Law: Muslim religious law; Republicans are terrified that these laws will gain traction in the United States and usurp the Constitution

Slut: a woman; one of the names Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke that was not actually repudiated by any Republicans

Socialism: (comes in the varieties of European style, communism, Nazi [which really makes no sense], and Saul Alinksky-esque); a style of governing that recognizes the rights of not only those who own corporations or make millions of dollars off of investments and recognizes the existence of a thing called poverty

Swing State: This is used to refer to a state that does not necessarily vote for either Democrats or Republicans in a predictable pattern, not a red state or blue state, aka a “purple state” such as Ohio; now, seemingly every state

Tyranny: a hyperbolic term used to describe any governmental power whatsoever; no longer applicable if said Republican is in power

Voter I.D. Laws: ostensibly put in place to prevent “voter fraud” except that voter fraud is so incredibly rare that everyone knows this is a smokescreen intended to disenfranchise voters who vote overwhelmingly Democratic such as the disabled, the elderly, Hispanic voters, black voters, and young voters

A Screaming Syria

Tags

2012, America, arab, arab spring, arabic, assad, bahrain, bashar al assad, china, democrats, egypt, Election, election 2012, fareed zakaria, gingrich, hama, homs, intervention, iran, Libya, money, obama, politics, president obama, republicans, resolution, rocky anderson, Ron Paul, Russia, social media, Syria, syrian protests, syrian revolution, syrian uprising, tunisia, twitter, UN, united nations, united states

A massacre of genocidal proportions is currently happening in Syria.  The number of people dying daily is equivalent to the average number of deaths due to the war in Afghanistan every month.  In the last few weeks, the number of people killed has surpassed 200 every day.  The death toll has spiked recently, but the number of Syrians who have died since last March (when uprisings began) is estimated at well over 7,000.  To put this in perspective, fewer than 5,000 members of the U.S. military died in Iraq during a nearly nine year war.  Tens of thousands of Syrian civilians have been imprisoned.  Torture is commonplace and countless videos of children being mutilated and murdered in the streets have appeared.  Those injured are avoiding hospitals for fear of being tortured or killed by the oppressive, bloodthirsty regime.  Doctors have suffered similar fates merely for treated the wounded.  Makeshift clinics have appeared where courageous Syrians just try to treat those who have been indiscriminately shot by merciless snipers or whose houses have been blown apart by mortar fire.

  A little background first: Syrian citizens began protesting peacefully for greater democratic rights and freedoms in January 2011 at the same time that protestors took to Tahrir Square in Egypt.  In fact, the first public protest was held on January 26, a day after the January 25^th protest movement began in Egypt.  The protests strengthened and became sustained in March 2011 after major protests occurred in the city of Daraa.  The protests quickly spread throughout the country.  As part of the Arab Spring, the large-scale regional protest movement occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa, the Syrian movement grew.  While dictator Bashar al Assad’s Ba’athist government offered minor concessions to the protestors (such as lifting emergency rule which had been in place for 48 years), no real reform was offered.  (If the Ba’athist Party sounds familiar, it is because Saddam Hussein was a Ba’athist, albeit an Iraqi one.)  Assad’s troops began killing protestors, blaming the protests on “armed gangs”, calling his fellow citizens thugs and terrorists.  As the death toll mounted, international journalists were not allowed into Syria.  Members of the Syrian military who refused to fire on protestors were executed.  Still, some members defected, and the Free Syrian Army was formed to fight off the growing violence.  Like the rebels in Libya, the Free Syrian Army has claimed that it has control over several cities and is aiming to overtake Damascus, the capital.  As the country devolved into chaos, the military began to kill all manner of civilians, even those who weren’t even protesting. 

News reports have claimed that the country is on the precipice of civil war.  The city of Homs is a prime example of the sectarian violence that has erupted during this conflict.  Assad and his inner circle (i.e., those that have the power in Syria) are part of a Muslim sect called the Alawites.  The Alawites comprise a small minority (approximately 15%) of Syria’s entire population.  The city of Homs, where much of the violence and murder has been concentrated, has large populations of Sunni Muslims who have historically been oppressed by the Alawites in Syria.  The Sunni areas of the city have been decimated while other areas (predominantly Alawite Shiite populated areas) of the city have been left alone, presumably to curry favor with the non-Sunni population.

The previous paragraphs only begin to scratch the surface, and if you’re still with me, thank you.  What I’d really like to address is the question of what the world is doing in response to what is happening in Syria.  After the humanitarian intervention in Libya, and the West’s positive reaction to the Arab Spring, it is understandable that the people of Syria are hoping for help.  The United States and other countries, along with entities such as the European Union, have leveled sanctions against the Syrian government and Syrian oil companies.  The United States and several other countries have criticized the Syrian government’s response to the protests within its borders and President Obama eventually called for Bashar al Assad to step down as leader of Syria.  None of these actions made much of a difference, and the next step was an “observation mission” by members of the Arab League inside of Syria.  Despite overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that civilians were, indeed, being killed, the Arab League mission has failed to say anything significant.  (It is important to note that this mission was compromised from the outset, however, as it was headed by one of the key people in power in Sudan during the Darfur genocide, who has been accused of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.)  The most recent major step was a vote on a binding resolution—a watered down resolution, but a resolution, nonetheless—denouncing the violence in Syria and calling for an immediate ceasefire.  With 15 states voting at the United Nations, China and Russia vetoed the resolution, to the horror and disappointment of desperate Syrians.

There hasn’t been much debate about the Syrian situation.  The world has largely turned a blind eye to Syria.  Susan Rice, the current United States ambassador to the U.N. (and negotiator on Syria), is the same person who notoriously worried about the political impact of calling the Rwandan genocide a “genocide” back in 1994 when Bill Clinton was president.  I don’t have particularly high hopes for American steadfastness on Syrian action with her at the helm.  There is very little political will to even discuss military action or even humanitarian intervention of any kind in Syria during an election year in the United States.  It is said that President Obama will play up his accomplishment of ending the official war in Iraq and of winding down the war in Afghanistan in hopes of being reelected in November.  Many Democrats are opposed to war on moral grounds and many Republicans have either taken up the Tea Party “too much spending!” mantle or the Ron Paul isolationist model.  Yet, the U.S. handling of humanitarian intervention in Libya is praised…

With no ground troops, an effective no fly zone put in place, a quick engagement aided by a multilateral force, and a positive result for about a billion dollars, which the United States expects to be paid back, most view the Libyan mission as a success.  There are, of course, those who opposed the Libyan intervention like Rocky Anderson (a politician I really want to like, save for his ideas that saving Libyans was the wrong thing to do) and, again, Ron Paul.  On a similar note, Fareed Zakaria (another person I like very much most of the time), lauded the credentials of the Arab League on its handling of Libya, yet said nothing about its failure and cowardice in its handling of the situation in Syria.  If so many people believed that intervening in Libya was the right thing to do, why not do it again in Syria?  I know.  I’ve heard the arguments.  Syria has a more powerful, more cohesive army.  We shouldn’t spend the money.  We’re not sure who to arm and how.  There is no significant base for the rebels like there was in Libya with Benghazi.  Yes, it is a different situation.  But the basic facts remain the same.  Civilians are being murdered in numbers that are too large to be ignored.  We have no excuse.  We can see and hear what’s going on.  Even if the media would rather cover the Republican primaries and caucuses at the expense of showing much other real news, the Syrian situation still exists.

One of the only prominent politicians to speak out on Syria is presidential candidate Newt Gingrich—and he is not talking about helping Syrians for the right reasons.  He has called for arming the civilians so that they will kill Assad, who is an ally of Iran, and of course, we (meaning the United States) aren’t very happy with Iran.  So, basically, in his roundabout, manipulative, narcissistic way, Gingrich has turned what should be the moral thing into a self-serving, American interests first, pandering ploy.  Nice one, Newt.  He proceeded to explain how “weapons aren’t hard to get in that part of the world” which strikes me as a pretty nasty, condescending thing to say.  Oh, Newt, ever the jingoist.  Ever the opportunist.  Still, he is one of the only ones to even suggest aid in any form to suffering Syrians.

I noticed something very interesting.  Twitter is almost silent on the subject of Syria.  There are no trending topics on Syria or the Syrian Revolution.  No #syrianuprising or catchy nicknames like “Jasmine Revolution” (which was the name given to the revolution in Tunisia which started in December 2010).  I first paid real attention to Twitter during the Green Revolution in Iran in the summer of 2009.  Twitter was abuzz with tweets about the Iranian protestors.  About a year and a half later, the Arab Spring erupted.  Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya dominated Twitter, and prominent bloggers and tweeters from the ground in these Arab countries reached a level of fame they never would have had it not been for the uprisings in their respective countries.  Even the protests in smaller countries such as Bahrain had their impact on the Twittersphere.  This is in direct contrast to the fact that more people have joined Twitter in the last year.  Why so little on Syria?  I searched, and found some tweets written in Arabic, but even these were not occurring in a constant stream.  I saw almost no trace of support from the outside world.  Even on the few English tweets out of Syria, very little support was offered back to these people.  I interacted with someone in Syria, in the midst of all of the destruction, someone who has had to bury a brother, an uncle, and a neighbor in the last few weeks, who is desperate just to be heard.  I told him that there are Americans that do care.  I asked what we, as Americans, or what I, as an individual, could do.  He said that I can raise awareness.  He asked me to contact my representatives in Congress and let them know what is happening.  He doesn’t want the Syrians to go unnoticed, to be ignored by the world.  They are screaming out, and everyone is covering their ears.

This is my attempt at raising awareness.  I will not stop with this single blog post, but it’s a small thing I can do.  Hopefully, the more people know, the more they will try to impact the Syrian situation and help the people there.  They are human beings just like us and deserve basic human rights.  Just as we do, they deserve safety and protection and a chance at the pursuit of happiness.  If you read this, please tell everyone you can what is going on.  Please say something.  Please try to prevent more people from dying.  Let us not let this continue as a genocide in which we look back and see how little the world really did while a corrupt government did all it could to hang onto power.  Bashar al Assad’s father killed 20,000 people in the city of Hama 30 years ago in a matter of days.  There is no reason this couldn’t happen again.  Don’t let it.

In Defense of Mitt Romney (Sort of)

Tags

2012, America, american economy, americans, barack obama, campaign, Cenk Uygur, cnn, comments, comments made, conservative, conservatives, democrat, democrats, economics, economy, Election, future, inequality, liberal, liberals, media, middle class, mitt romney, money, obama, politics, poor, president, president obama, primary, prosperity, republican, republicans, romney, talking points, very poor, wealth, wealth inequality

To say that Mitt Romney is getting a lot of flak for a comment he made yesterday concerning the “very poor” is an understatement. Liberals have seized on this statement as the latest in a series of ever-worsening gaffes, gleeful that Romney is doing all the work for them as he paints himself as the “out of touch multimillionaire” and an unelectable candidate against President Obama during a time when public opinion is against America’s Rich Uncle Pennybagses. (At least Mr. Pennybags made his money buying properties. There is no mention of laying off workers, and I’m sure even he would scoff at a 13.9% tax rate.) Even conservatives have jumped ship on this comment, embarrassed that their candidate of choice has fumbled so definitively. After being given multiple opportunities to clarify his statement, he didn’t backpedal. This is the new Mitt Romney, flip flopper characterizations be damned!

I’d like to say a bit in Mitt Romney’s defense. This may come off more as an offense against the media than a defense of Romney, but I do feel like he’s getting unfairly beaten up over this statement, as well as some others made regarding interpretations of his wealth. If we are to criticize the candidate on anything he said, it shouldn’t be the fact that he said “I don’t care about the very poor” (or “the very rich”, as he qualified) or the fact that he said “We will hear about the plight of the poor from the Democrat Party”. (The fact that the perfectly polished Romney said Democrat, not Democratic, is probably a sign that he was tired and stressed, and maybe we should realize that no candidate is actually perfect.)

To be sure, Romney’s statement was meant to emphasize his apparent commitment to the middle class in America. (This particular pandering might not actually be sincere, but for the sake of argument, let’s take Romney at his word.) This focus on the middle class is a popular stance for a presidential candidate to make, and is, in fact, the same one that President Obama has been making since 2007. While Obama’s policies—both in theory and in execution have done much more for America’s poor than any of the Republican candidates have ever pledged to do—Obama is still a mainly middle class-focused president. And why not? The middle class is how you win elections. It is politically expedient to aim your rhetoric toward those who believe in social mobility and who largely see themselves as having the desire and the ability to improve their station in life. One of the most enduring tenets of history is that revolutions are made by the middle class, not sustained by the peasantry or the lower classes. I’ve taken a lot of history classes; take that, Newt Gingrich! Basically, while the middle class is undeniably shrinking, it still consists of the majority of Americans and remains the largest voting bloc of the electorate. By all economic estimates, a thriving middle class is necessary to restore the country’s economy.

So there’s nothing wrong with speaking to the needs of the middle class. I think the issue at hand is that people are disturbed by Romney’s stated focus on the middle class seemingly at the exclusion—or to the detriment of—the “very poor”. He said that those who fall into this category have a social safety net, and if the safety net has holes in it, he will work to fix them. On its face, there is nothing wrong with this statement either. The real problem comes when one reads into this statement in context. Romney claimed that his statement was taken out of context. If you listen to all he says, and consider that the context, you are not really understanding the full scope. Republicans—Romney included—have made it their unequivocally stated goal to cut social programs for the poor and remove or tremendously weaken the social safety net, claiming that the United States government has bred an “entitlement society”. The kind of Ayn Rand, individualistic, I don’t give a shit about other people and I don’t live in a society where I’ve actually ever relied on anyone and I ignore the fact that there is undeniable historical evidence that cooperation equals prosperity, thinking is further qualified by the idea that “with the mounting debt, we can’t afford to spend this kind of money”. Translated into simple English without the spin, the Republican candidates are willing to kill poor people and doom them to suffering. Maybe that sounds like fear mongering, but it’s absolutely true.

Problem number one: Mitt Romney is disingenuous when he claims that he will fix the social safety net. Also, how about trying to help people out of poverty? Romney cares much more about his corporate donors and bigwig buddies than the poor. No one should be fooling themselves. But we knew all this before this statement, so the gasps and outrage are surprising. Suddenly everyone realizes?

Problem number two: Romney stated that 90-95% of American people are middle class. He had stated on a previous occasion that 80-90% of people are middle class. Neither of these figures is correct. This is why people get upset when Romney includes himself in these figures and when he jokes that he, too, is unemployed. Romney seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what middle class means. Taking this further, if he truly sees himself as middle class, then he has no idea how the vast majority of the country’s population lives. Those figures should have been the real focus of criticism, not the semi-tactless statements he made.

Problem number three: Liberals are hurt that Romney likened the poverty issue to a Democratic issue. While the “plight of the poor” should definitely not be a partisan issue, this is not the point. Hearing Cenk Uygur rail on about how he, as a Democrat, shouldn’t be marginalized and “this guy” (Romney) is ridiculous just makes him—and other media representatives like him—seem self absorbed and immature.

Who doesn’t love a talking point? The media has survived on them since at least last May, when the Republican candidates started taking the 2012 presidential race seriously. The problem with this is that the focus becomes things like Romney’s $10,000 bet moment, not actual analysis of any of the candidates’ policy proposals. I personally don’t think the $10,000 bet was that big of a deal. We know Romney’s rich. We know he wouldn’t actually bet. He’s said plenty of other incendiary things that actually have potential for application, things that would hurt the poor—and anyone who couldn’t afford a $10,000 bet—far more than that debate moment. I get it, though: All of these moments are heuristics used to judge a candidate’s “character”, and we should know who we’re voting for. How about we don’t hound Romney relentlessly for every slightly awkward statement he makes, and instead, hold him—as well as every other candidate—to account for their actual positions and demand concrete plans from our potential leaders? Then, feel free to tear them apart. At least that would be productive.

Slimy Newt, the Latest Flavor of the Week

Tags

2012, al gore, barack obama, bill clinton, cain, climate change, clinton, congress, dean, debate, democrat, donald trump, gingrich, global warming, herman cain, house, house of representatives, howard dean, huntsman, iowa, jon huntsman, media, mitt romney, nancy pelosi, nasa, newt gingrich, obama, pelosi, policy, politics, president, president obama, presidential debate, primaries, primary, republican, romney, speaker, speaker of the house, trump, white house

Newt Gingrich is the latest Republican presidential candidate to beat. Aside from the fact that he’s “not Mitt Romney”, I don’t understand what about him appeals to potential voters. He’s not particularly charismatic or charming—in fact, he’s downright condescending. He doesn’t have impeccable conservative credentials. He doesn’t even have catchy soundbites.

While I’m certainly not a Newt Gingrich fan, I don’t agree with the reasons why he’s being attacked. “Personal baggage” is how pundits have put his personal transgressions as well as what are seen as his media missteps. There is plenty to disagree with Gingrich on politically (whether you’re a prospective primary voter or you’re a progressive like me who’s taken an interest in the candidates because if Obama were to lose you’d want it to be someone who is at least potentially palatable as president). If, however, the focus is to be on Gingrich’s personality flaws, I’d like to focus on issues that should be of much greater importance to voters than Gingrich’s multiple marriages, the affair he had while his previous wife had cancer, his hypocrisy during the skewering of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, or—worst of all in the eyes of conservative pundits—Gingrich’s “Al Gore sponsored” commercial about using alternative energy to power America because of the devastating effects of climate change with none other than that she-devil Nancy Pelosi (gasp).

A quick word on the Pelosi/Gingrich commercial: Whether you personally like Nancy Pelosi or not, the reason both politicians were in the commercial was not accidental. At the time of the commercial (beginning in 2007), Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House. A not so subtle parallel was to be drawn. This commercial was supposed to be post-partisan. It was a step forward. Both Pelosi and Gingrich admitted that they may not agree on everything, but they agreed on renewable energy for the country they both served. How refreshing. Remember the days when members of Congress could actually agree on things and cross party lines? Yeah, I don’t really either. This commercial, however, was a glimmer of that long lost time. Now, after being dragged through the mud for appearing in a commercial with Herman Cain’s “Princess Nancy” about that liberal myth meant to bankrupt America by the hippie commies known as climate change (double gasp), Gingrich has back pedaled on his participation in the commercial and with the organization behind it.

What happened to principles? What happened to leadership? Taking allegedly unpopular positions because you know they would benefit the country and the world—as opposed to cow towing to the extremes of the party—is true leadership. This is the kind of thing I want to see, and it should be the kind of thing that Republicans want to see, as well. And since when did believing in science become a disqualifier for attaining the nation’s highest office? Jon Huntsman, who is a definite conservative on the traditional issues that matter to Republicans, has been labeled a moderate in no small part because of his open support for evolution and for his belief in anthropogenic climate change. Especially in an election where the true differences between Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be on the economic front, punishing a candidate—whether it be Huntsman or Gingrich—for supporting “Al Gore’s agenda” is ridiculous and shameful.

Newt is sleazy. He is an immense political opportunist. He is arrogant, self-serving, and snarky. In a word, he is not presidential. He wants Americans to look at his record. A standout point from said record was the way he conducted business while in the House of Representatives. Before ascending to the Speakership, he fed his popularity by giving passionate speeches to the chamber. These speeches were televised on C-Span, a method Gingrich purposely employed in an effort to use broadcast media to his advantage. These impassioned speeches seemed to defy opposition. So good was he that he captivated the esteemed room. The only problem was that he was being entirely disingenuous to both the audience and the other House members. Gingrich purposely gave long, secret, after-hours speeches to empty House chambers in the late 1980s. He did this so that his ideas would not be opposed, and he would come off seeming like some kind of invincible genius. This Karl Rove-esque trick is no longer allowed to occur in Congress. It was cheating. You can read about Gingrich’s sneaky tactic here: http://books.google.com/books?id=NmCL26aE00wC&pg=PA169&dq=%2Bgingrich+%2Bcspan+%2Bafterhours&hl=en&ei=NFTdTs3GBcf30gGV7pzSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ

Watch Newt Gingrich in any debate and you will see how he responds to his fellow candidates. I had the special pleasure of seeing him debate Howard Dean at a George Washington University event a few months before he formally declared his candidacy. He oozes disregard and condescension. Republicans love to call Barack Obama an elitist. Newt Gingrich is the elitist archetype.

As if these aren’t turnoffs enough, Gingrich’s cozying up to Donald Trump is downright sickening. It’s shameless opportunism. Seeking out Trump’s endorsement and courting Trump on both his recent trip to Manhattan and lauding Trump’s debate makes Gingrich look desperate and low.

Gingrich’s smugness knows no bounds. His “look at me” ethic and his constant declarations of “I’m going to be the nominee” belie insecurity shrouded in arrogance.

One thing I like about Newt Gingrich is that he is the only candidate to come out publicly in support of NASA. It seemed like he would be for increasing funding to NASA, and at the most recent Republican debate in Iowa (Saturday, December 10, 2011), Gingrich responded to a Romney jab by saying that he remembered growing up during a time when children could dream about being astronauts. He declared that he was unapologetic about wanting to encourage science and math and promoting missions to the moon and Mars. He seemed stronger on this issue than Obama.

I’m not a one issue voter, though, and it’s times like these that I have to remind myself that Gingrich wants poor kids to work janitorial jobs in schools and doesn’t believe in financial aid payments for college. One can’t forget his stance on not taxing the “job creators” and his complete denigration of Palestinians (which is a whole other issue that I could spend hours writing).

Obama’s Complicity in the Legalization of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption: Neigh, Nay, Nay

Tags

ban, bill, congress, consumption, democrat, disappointment, horse, horse meat, horses, house, humane society, inhumane, obama, obstructionist, politics, president, president obama, republican, senate, slaughter, spending, spending bill

Those who feel the Obama presidency has been a disappointment can all point to a specific moment or specific piece of legislation as thatdefining point that the larger than life candidate did not live up to their expectations when assuming office.  These issues range from Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay (still open) to his promise to fight for comprehensive climate change regulation (an issue that atonce took the back burner, and now, even talk of energy from renewable resources is all but dead after the Solyndra scandal) to Obama not coming out more strongly for gay rights.  There are a myriad of other issues which Obama has compromised on. Watering down health care legislation and extending the Bush Era tax cuts, anyone?  But what about pulling an entire 180, a Mitt Romney if you will?  Political flip flopping is always a hot topic, but especially so in the year leading up to a national election.  Obama’s signing of a bill to allow horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the United States—a law that will allow people to eat horsemeat–is one such example.  This decision by Obama (to enact legislation which is the absolute reverse of what he said in his campaign rhetoric) is my main Obama disappointment moment.  Through disappointment to disappointment I slugged it out with him, an unfailing advocate for a president I believed in.  I argued that compromise was necessary, that no one is perfect, that he was trying to stay above the fray and his attempts at bipartisanship were idealistic and naive, but their aim was commendable.  This “quiet signing” of the horse meat bill is, however, the nadir of Obama’s presidency to me.  No, I won’t take as much of a hardline stance on Obama’s ordering of the killing of Anwar Al Awlaki (the American citizen turned terrorist), but I will stand up for innocent animals who should be allowed to live in peace and not be exploited for profit and killed because of some people’s cruel desire to eat them.   Yes, this is an issue of ethics.

More information on the bill Obama signed can be found here: http://www.louisville.com/content/obama-administration-oks-horse-meat-americans-opinion-arena:

While I am certainly an advocate for preventing the slaughter of any animal, it is not only my fellow animal rights advocates who feel that horse slaughter is particularly inhumane.  Many who claim not to be vegans or vegetarians find the practice of killing horses for their meat abhorrent. Horses are intelligent, majestic, docile creatures who have been an integral part of the American landscape since before the first English colonists settled here.  Horses form special bonds with humans not unlike other domesticated pets.  Would you eat your dog or cat?  There is no necessity to kill horses.  No argument from scarcity can be made as food in the United States is abundant.  For those  who claim that many of today’s horses are neglected and that they are being slaughtered in other places with fewer regulations (like Canada and Mexico) today anyway, I ask why more isn’t being done to ensure the proper treatment of these horses?  The answer should not be to kill them for profit.  Must everything be exploited and destroyed?  The answer is no.  Slaughtering horses for human consumption is a cruel betrayal to these animals and enables a culture that thrives on suffering.

There have been several bills proposed in both the House and the Senate over the past few years that prevent the sale, distribution (and related actions), and slaughter for human consumption of horses and burros.  The most recent bill was proposed in September 2011 and the last action taken on this bill was in October 2011.  The bill can seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2966:

The bill that was signed by President Obama on November 18 was not a bill that explicitly stated anything about horse consumption or horse slaughter in its title.  The language that lifts the ban on horse slaughter was included in a large, multi-piece spending bill The Huffington Post describes as “designed to keep the government afloat” through the end of the year.  Sneaky indeed.

It is encouraging that groups from The Humane Society to passionate citizens will fight the implications of the legislation, but I still feel betrayed by Obama.  It is bad enough that we are in a place where spending bills must be passed for a month at a time and that the president has not taken a harder line with obstructionist House Republicans, in particular, but this move is something I cannot overlook.