There is not a lot Congress will do before the summer recess, so the pundits will have to make a “mountain out of a molehill” and continue that theme over the summer. that makes it difficult for political junkies like me to find topics to discuss,so I’m forced to combine several pending issues. And that’s the reason they call it the “Dog Days of Summer.”
I think the defining your opponent period of this presidential campaign is confusing and boring for most. When my wife asked me what all the hoopla was about; I gave her a simple answer of “the Obama campaign set a trap, and Romney fell for it." I then told her that Mr. Romney couldn't run on his expertise of running a business and transitioning that experience to the White House; if he couldn't answer the questions, he's been asked since 1994. His Republican opponents also questioned his business ethnics and have asked for several years of back income tax returns. Mr. Romney was reluctant to do that, so he's stuck in a no man's land. I'm fairly certain that Mitt Romney didn't do anything illegal, but those tax returns may reveal just how rich he really is and how little he paid in taxes. If his 2000 and 2001 income tax returns show that he got paid as a CEO for Bain Capital; it will be one more document where he has to explain the words “retired retroactively."
The Obama campaign attack ads are working despite Karl Rowe's white board showing a Gallup Poll that had Obama ahead by one point before the Bain Capital ads and tied at 47 after the ads were shown. The Obama ran the ads in the battle ground states where polls show that he gained substantially. Mitt Romney couldn't stand the Bain ad heat anymore, so he called a press conference with all the major networks to try to explain his side, but he maintained his arrogance of not releasing his tax returns. That stance is starting to get on the nerves of the leaders of his party. I'm really surprised and pleased with the Obama campaign because, as Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation said “republicans usually go for the juggler and democrats go for the capillaries."
I prefer to stay on the issues where believe it are not; I'm beginning to learn more of how everything is interconnected. I heard some good ideas this weekend having to to do with the SNAP (food stamp) program and farm subsidies. The president of a farm group in Iowa said that they like those on welfare who would rather receive a fair price for their crops or wages rather than government subsides. He said it the big corporate farms are making a lot of money because 26 farms receive direct payments of $1 million each in farm subsidies. Granted, I don't know anything about farming but this man said that he would rather be paid a fair steady price for his corn and soybeans, than for the government supplementing him for the low prices of his crops. He disclosed that the two crop rotation makes his land venerable to harmful insects.He said, “we don't want to outsource, illegal immigration, or pay $10.00 for a head of lettuce; that presents a problem." He also said, "right now we are importing most of our food in order for the big farm corporations to get rich." The agriculture industry cannot survive unless we find a way to keep the prices low with cheap labor.
The panel agreed that we can lower our welfare payments by setting the minimum wage to a livable standard. This bad economy has put 46 million people on the Snap program. Food stamps went from $17 billion to $76 billion during this recession. How much is that? That comes out to be $253 per each member of a household, if you believe that your taxes are earmarked to pay for this expenditure. A representative from the SNAP Program said that 87% of the recipients on food stamps are for the elderly, children, and single moms. There are exceptions to the rule but only about 1% of the pay outs involve fraud to the tune of $760 million.
All those programs are interconnected and managed by well informed lobbyists. When the question came up of restricting the use of food stamps on non sugary items; the sugar lobby shut that down. Some congressman wanted to restrict those on food stamps from buying store bought cakes or sodas. It was quickly brought out that they could legally buy all the ingredients to make the cake. It's a rule that could not be readily enforced, unless you expect full corporations from the grocery stores. Remember once again, when the GOP wants to drastically cut the food stamp program, that money will also be taken away from those government workers who were hired to enforce the rules.
If I could only be more than a " unverified commenter" at VI Cad; I would've had an answer for the letter writers who stated that those of us who voted for President Obama are to blame for our nation’s decline and the other one about Democrats helping those who cannot get a voter ID. The first letter writer did not state his" truth certain" economic policy, the Republicans would have put in that would have assured us of a quick recovery. The second letter writer is a little more ignorant if that's possible. His blind loyalty keeps him from seeing that voter ID and the way it implemented was just a voter suppression ploy. Since 2002, Texas has cast 39 million votes and only 70 and has been investigated for voter fraud. It's easy to see your motive when you're talking about a minuscule percentage of wrongdoing. It's just another case of wanting to finesse the issues.
The GOP might have a peaceful convention now that Ron Paul lost in Nebraska this past weekend. Mitt Romney doesn’t even have to give him a prime-time speaking role since he didn’t get the 5 states he needed to challenge the presumptive nominee.That long-shot attempt at beating Romney has now ended. Republicans,Mitt Romney is your nominee.
36 comments:
Just another reason for being very upset with Washington
"WASHINGTON -- Democrats are mocking Republicans in the House of Representatives for voting to repeal the health care reform law and keep their own enhanced medical care.
When Congress passed the health care law, it required members of Congress to get their insurance on exchanges with the rest of the public. But in voting to repeal that law, Republicans and a handful of Democrats were also voting to go back to the old system where the lawmakers get a sweeter deal than most of the rest of the country."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/health-care-democrats-gop-repeal-vote_n_1675551.html
They should live under the same rules and regulations that we do. If they don't, they are corrupt.
If they had to live with they created;they would keep improving it.
Hope rains eternal. So, Mike, the presidential swearing in possibility gives us a difficult scenario. On what will your new republican president-elect place his hand upon? And to whom will he swear? The process would have been much easier with a Ron Paul election. :( Perhaps we can get Tom Cruise elected on a third ticket.
I agree, Mike.
But Dale
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States Constitution ...:-)
"republicans usually go for the juggler and democrats go for the capillaries."
Now, see, there everyone goes with the generalities again. Republicans are of one mind, as are the demoncrats? No, I don't think so. I just hate it when people get lumped together. Instead of the "juggler", I amost always prefer the trapeze artist. Usually more flexible, and that can come in *ahem* HANDY at times.....
:D
Sugar
Context is everything....These are political operatives who were being mocked not republicans in general ......Republicans have employed operatives like Lee Atwater and Karl Rowe who usually go for the juggler to get their results...In 1992,the Dems got one of their own in James Carville....The Obama evidently are going on full front assault using the Chicago political machine....Obama did not have to unleash the Chicago machine in 2008 because John McCain kept the campaign relatively clean.
Clear as mud?....:-)
Sugar some context
In the 2000 GOP presidential campaign ,Karl Rowe circulated robo calls saying John McCain had a black baby .
John Kerry was real war hero who was swift boated funded by Bob Perry and T. Boone Pickens .
These are examples of going for the juggler.
Obama is going after the Mitt's Bain record.
So far ,this going for the capillaries.
Mike - I guess you didn't get at all what I was going for, which was HUMOR.
My post had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with the JUGLAR, not the juggler. As in vein. As in jugglers perform at the circus. JUGLARS are veins in the neck. Get it? Ergo, the giggle (or so I thought) about the trapeze artist and the :D
So much for my humor. I know, I know don't quit my day (night) job...don't worry, I won't be appearing on a stage near you anytime soon.
Aw. Nevermind. I thought SOMEBODY would get my humor....
An interesting fact: while all (almost) presidents have placed their hand on a bible, one hasn't. It is a practice not a requirement. (John Quincy Adams placed his hand on the "Volume of Laws").
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/18/nation/na-inaug-religion18
What is required: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Didn't Congressman Keith Ellison take his oath using the Koran.
Doesn't really matter because we don't a religious test
Sorry Sugar my fault....Whenever I post a political blog I automatically assume a defensive position ...:-)
OK, I could make a joke about that too, but....think I'll leave well enough alone!
:D
Oh SugarM, I got your humor......
This may scramble up, I will try to fix it if it does. This a copy and paste of email I receive from Rick Santorum yesterday-
Andrew,
Sadly, it seems that President Obama believes that we live in a country where you can change the law simply by giving a speech.
Over the past few weeks, we have seen President Obama's absolute disregard for the Constitution on a variety of issues, from healthcare to immigration to marriage.
The role of President, by design, is quite limited. You actually do need Congress to change laws, at least according to the Constitution.
This past Friday, the President gutted the landmark welfare reform law that I coauthored in 1996. He instructed Health and Human Services (HHS) to remove the work requirement for welfare recipients.
This legislation had been passed by the House and Senate and signed by a President, which is the requirement to change laws, yet he changed this major piece of legislation and ignored the intent of Congress all by simply giving a speech.
Here are some additional abuses by President Obama:
• Earlier this year, he made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the Senate was still in session.
• He had his Justice Department file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws. Arizona was just enforcing the laws that Obama refused to enforce.
• By giving a speech, he announced that he would now follow the DREAM Act, a law Congress has not passed. He instructed his Department of Homeland Security to no longer deport young illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria he set.
• He instructed his Justice Department to stop enforcing DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, a law duly passed by Congress, simply because he did not like the law.
• He instructed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to grant waivers, and establish new budgets and guidelines for implementing Obamacare, without any Congressional oversight.
• He had his Department of Interior illegally place a moratorium on offshore drilling. This was illegal because a federal judge in Louisiana held them in contempt of court for "dismissive conduct" for doing that earlier.
• His Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented one job-killing policy after another, without Congressional approval.
Standing with you,
Rick Santorum
Tophat
Fund raising letters are written in a way to stir up the juices with words or phrases that aren't exactly true...Example,Obama immigration measures were a lot better than his predecessor,SCOTUS sided with the administration by striking down 3 of Arizona's laws and one is on shaky grounds....DOMA will eventually be ruled unconstitutional,so the justice department decided it would not waste money defending the law in court.
These issues have been discussed but if you would like,I would be happy to answer every point in a blog.
When a donkey goes into a "defensive position", what does that entail? Oh, the burning of the mind's eyes.(
Mike you must pay attention to Ricky's fund raising letter. He is now "our" parties' heir to the Romney throne. In the same thought, who will be the D's favorite son in four years? Perhaps August's convention key note speaker?
Dale
My initial avatar was a donkey kicking with its hind legs-- in a continuous motion...The VA posters complained and in a rare moment of compassion; I gave in and replaced it with the one I have now.. I have no control over a vivid imagination..:-)
You think Rick Santorum is the heir apparent? Coming in second to Romney is not a monumental achievement.
The democrats have Hillary Clinton (if she wants it) the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, the governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley, and Joe Biden.
I think New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will be a GOP frontrunner in four years followed by Jed Bush. Both might be keynote speakers. You've got to figure Romney's veep choice (Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty) in the mix.
Oh, Rand Paul will run but like his dad, he won’t get nominated.
BTW stay tuned I will answer Rick’s fundraising letter.
When I was posting at the VA, I was always looking for political statements I disagreed with, not because I had any illusions that I could change the mind of the one who made the statement but to give the readers another angle. Many times it amounted to correcting myths.
I believe this fund raising letter from Rick Santorum is not meant to be a pro Romney one but it's a reminder to the base that the goal is defeating Obama and it doesn't really matter if Romney is elected president. It's the same rational used to defend Sarah Palin as the vice president.
Instead of writing a blog I will answer the letter in a series of posts, that way we can discuss each individual point that was made.
"It truly frightens me to think what'll happen if Mitt Romney is the nominee,"
Rick Santorum
I do not know why Tophat chose to share Rick Santorum's fundraising letter but obviously he thought it was relevant..Perhaps to show how evil and dangerous President Obama is?
Rick Santorum said:
This past Friday, the President gutted the landmark welfare reform law that I coauthored in 1996. He instructed Health and Human Services (HHS) to remove the work requirement for welfare recipients.
This is so over the top because Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform was not gutted. The old law provided block grants to the states which had a 60 month lifetime cap. We are in the year 2012 not the 1990s boom years where it was easier to move from welfare to work. Today the HHS is trying to grant some waivers to the states to come up with their own work requirements. Example, why can't a single mom babysitting another single mom's children while the mother is seeking work or education be considered employment for the purpose of staying on the program?
Rick Santorum said:
Earlier this year, he made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the Senate was still in session.
That part is true but here is the context:
"Senate Republicans say that it was in session – very much by design. Aware that Obama might use his recess appointment power; Republicans copied a strategy Senate Democrats developed at the end of the Bush era: They forced the majority party to accept an arrangement under which the Senate was in “pro forma session” at least once every four days. Nothing happened during these pro forma sessions: They lasted just a few moments each. But the effect was to prevent a formal, official recess. (By tradition and past interpretations, a recess doesn’t become official until it’s lasted more than three days.
The White House and its allies say these sessions were not real sessions, at least in the constitutional sense, because the Senate was not prepared to do any governing while they were quickly gaveling in and gaveling out. They note that the motion (by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden) to have these pro forma sessions said explicitly that there would be “no business conducted.” If, for example, the White House had sent nominations to the Senate during these periods, administration officials and their supporters say, it would not have acted upon it. Here is how one senior administration official put it to me:
Our view is that they can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't say, on the one hand, we are not in recess for the purposes of the recess appointments clause and, on the other hand, we are in recess for every other purpose. ... And if the Senate doesn't want the President to make recess appointments, as he is entitled to do, the Senate can prevent that by staying in session and being available to provide advice and consent on his nominees.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/99279/obama-cordray-nlrb-recess-appointment-session-constitutionality
And we will continue with Rick Santorum's letter..Part II:
Rick Santorum said:
He had his Justice Department file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws. Arizona was just enforcing the laws that Obama refused to enforce.
The Atty. General did file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona because we can't have 50 immigration laws and there's no better place than the Supreme Court to settle that issue. The Supreme Court sided with the government on 75% of the lawsuit and the controversial “papers please" is hanging on the thread because one abuse will say and the remaining issue back to the Supreme Court. Illegal immigration is down partly because of economy and these administrations aggressive policies. You don't have to believe me just go to the Homeland Security website. It could be said that the Arizona was trying to fill those brand new private prisons; perhaps quid pro quo.
Rick Santorum said:
By giving a speech, he announced that he would now follow the DREAM Act, a law Congress has not passed. He instructed his Department of Homeland Security to no longer deport young illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria he set.
This what he actually said" While announcing the new policy, President Obama called DREAM-eligible students, or DREAMers, Americans "in every single way but one: on paper."
"This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix," Obama said. "This is a temporary, stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to … patriotic young people.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-06-15/obama-immigration/55613364/1
The president has every right to use "Prosecutorial Discretion" in enforcing immigration policies.
Part III
Rick santorum said:
• He instructed his Justice Department to stop enforcing DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, a law duly passed by Congress, simply because he did not like the law.
"Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html
• He instructed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to grant waivers, and establish new budgets and guidelines for implementing Obamacare, without any Congressional oversight.
I am not sure what's he's talking about..I need specific examples.
• He had his Department of Interior illegally place a moratorium on offshore drilling. This was illegal because a federal judge in Louisiana held them in contempt of court for "dismissive conduct" for doing that earlier.
"After the ruling by Feldman, his investments and stocks were analyzed, showing that in 2009 he held stocks of companies that would be affected by his ruling. Judge Feldman insists that he found out about these holdings on June 21, and contacted his broker to sell them on the morning of June 22. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Under federal law, federal judges are prohibited from deciding cases in which they have financial interests in the parties or the outcome of the case. They are also prohibited from deciding cases in which there is the appearance of a conflict." [8] Because of the questions surrounding the status of his financial holdings, environmental groups have asked that Feldman recuse himself from the case and suspend his ruling. [9]
Feldman announced that he will not recuse himself from the case, saying, "The motion for disqualification is without merit."
[
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Martin_Feldman
After the worst environmental disaster in our country's history; I believe it was appropriate for the government to stop offshore deep well drilling until the oil companies could prove it was safe to continue.
• His Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented one job-killing policy after another, without Congressional approval.
Without any specific cases of "job-killing policies" and it's just another talking point in and to sacrifice clean air and water for profits.
Santorum keeps talking about congressional approval.as if they would willing give it to him for the good of this country..I believe it's the job of the president to keep the train on the tracks and if Congress wants to reassert it's powers,then do so not whine about presidential abuses of power.
I take Ricky as the 2016 Republican based on 36 years of Republican Presidential experience. Each has run as a Republican Grassroot Populist and governed as a moderate democrat. (Exception RR)
2012 - Mitt is nominee. Ricky r/u2008 - McCain nominee lost. Mitt r/u
2004 - George Jr
2000 - George Jr nominee. McCain r/u
1996 - Bob Dole nominee lost
1992 - George Sr nominee lost
1988 - George Sr - Bob Dole ru
1984 - Ronald Reagan
1980 - Ronald Reagan nominee George Sr r/u and vp
1976 - Jerry Ford nominee lost. Ron Reagan r/u
36 years of republican retreads (excluding RR), pretty convincing. BTW - each ran on a "reduce the size of government" campaign. Remind me again where the federal government has shrunk?
dale
I'm not disagreeing with your stats but it is my opinion that those facts will be irrelevant in 2016.
Besides the GOP votes for the candidate of their choice,so if you are complaining,it should be at the GOP voters not the party..IMO..:-)
You are for smaller government but you have to remember it takes 218 votes in the House of Representatives and 60 in the senate.... just to get a bill to the desk of the president .
And I said I don't concentrate on the size of government ; I just want efficient government.
I would like to recommend to those and who are on the health care fence (not you dale) to read today's brilliant letter by Kim Trebesch. It's one of the best I've read concerning Texas healthcare.
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2012/jul/16/vp_ltr_trebesch_071312_182328/
Sorry guys, this was not a fund raising letter.
It went out to all members of Patriot Voices. We are already dues paying members. I have no need to review our email list, but I am certain there are people included who are not currently members.
Rick and Karen Santorum are an integral part of Patriot Voices, a driving forces, if you will.
We are a family based group, our core mission is to return the Fed government back to what our Constitution provided.
All organizations need money to operate, we are no different in this regard.
Mike, I posted it simply to state we feel strongly that the President has taken unauthorized steps. I will not argue that he is not the first President to have stretch the Constitution to fit an agenda. GWB set the boundary to an extremely unacceptable level.
I remain a Republican with no candidate to support.
That's OK, Tophat thanks for sharing.
I don't think it starts at the presidential level and we can take the way back to when Reagan funneled money for Iranian missile sales to aid anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.
Congress has been derelict in its duties for years... The battles between the three branches of government are not unique. I've been saying for years the Congress needs to step up to the plate and perform their duties. It's a battle between lobbyist and donors.
I don't believe Rick Santorum or any other politician is above circumventing the constitution and most of them approved of torture and are for a constitutional to ban gay marriage.
Judicial Activism is when a judge rules against your beliefs..:-)
Don't take that literally; that applies to all.
Thanks for the letter, it made me do some homework...:-)
And just a quick off-topic shoutout:
Thanks, Kyle! ;)
OK, now back to your regularly scheduled bipartisan bickering.
Besides, I have a date with a trapeze artist....can't be late!
Tophat, that makes two Republicans. Statistics are just that. But, the sheeple of the Republican Party are just as prone to listen to the establishments soundbites as are Sheepocrats. Mike, until we all start to look at what is happening areound us, we have nothing and no one to blame but ourselves. For example, Victoria is a small fish bowl. But a group decided to make a change in the direction of local politics. For right now, the local body politics is drifting toward the average joe. A few Victorian's made a difference in Victoria. All it takes are a few more shepherds to change the US. Efficient is the catch word. Removing favoritism is the direction. Creating true equality is the goal. Can any of us disagree with this?
Dale.
Allow me to expand on your status.
Nixon 1960 runup Goldwater. Bob Dole was the runner up of the first Bush in 1988. Republicans always pick the heir apparent in the next election. Democrats pick their candidates in chaos (JFK Obama, or Wilson) or on stupid terms ( Kerry, Mondale or Stevenson).
I don't know that Rick Santorum has his eye on 2016 election. Hopefully he will, but at this point in time-- he has other things on his agenda.
We did know that we did not have near enough money to win this election. Sadly... that is about all it takes to gain the presidency.
I can not, do not speak for him or Karen. This may come as a shock but he doesn't stop by the house for advice and guidance. The reverse is closer to truth- he understands things inside the loop in DC that I am otherwise clueless.
His letter regarding the President is based on actual events.
We all know that circumstances can be viewed as political verbiage- and twisted to fit a story.
Be that as it may- the facts in his letter are still quite correct.
If Romney (by some measure of voodoo) wins the election- actions of the President will still be scrutinized by Patriot Voices; our mission remains.
Dale
". All it takes are a few more shepherds to change the US. Efficient is the catch word. Removing favoritism is the direction. Creating true equality is the goal. Can any of us disagree with this?"
I can disagree, not with your words,but with the assumption that we are willing or knowledgeable enough to do anything about it.We are too polarized ,so the definition of equality has many meanings.....Tophat mentioned money which is at the root at the problem but the grassroots efforts are not concerned enough to jam their representative's phone to urge them to come up with a solution. ..They did for the bailout,health care reform,and what they thought was amnesty....Priorities.
Tophat
It's good to hear that scrutiny is the goal.I am not against that..We should have more groups with that agenda.
It is my opinion that the president gets too much blame or credit....I think he has the authority to challenge the states and vice versa and he was proved right by SCOTUS,so after scrutinizing Santorum's words,I do not find them to be correct...It was partisan rhetoric but we differ and that's OK with me.
Again,I enjoyed reading your post.
Dale
Many times it doesn't matter who either party puts up because the odds against their party winning is out of their hands because of the circumstances.
After the 2007-08 financial crash I can't name one republican who could have beat any democrat the people nominated....It was the same for Reagan against Mondale and Carter....Mondale lost 49 staes,yikes! That proves my therory,the Dems would have lost even if they ran Superman that year.
It's very hard to beat an incumbent president and if we had a great economy, Mitt Romney would be down by a lot..Romney beat a weak field and the GOP thought he was the most electable....I am still puzzled as to why the big GOP guns decided not to run.
Big J, thank you for filling in my blank memory.
Tophat, you are so correct about money and the sheeple which are beckoned by the pipers money.
Mike, we, politically you and I are not that far off philosophically. The ends are pretty close. It is just the means. A year ago I could never say I agreed with anything you said. Today, that is different. (Please do not let my R friends know this.) Perhaps we will work on that discussion a little more time and then we go on the road around the country. We could entertain and educate mixed audiences of R/D Conservatives/ Liberals. Maybe then, we would learn we have a lot in common and together we can start a new Political Party. Perhaps it could be named the Part of We? AS in "We the People say...."
That's nice dale and I will keep it a secret...:-)
Post a Comment