Me, Myself, and the Voices in My Head

A place to ramble and maybe make some sense about a thing or two.

Archive for the tag “mitt romney”

A brief review/rant of last night’s debate

I have lots and lots to do today, so this one is going to be quick.  I watched the Republican Debate last night and found myself again frustrated by what I heard and saw.  So, since I’m busy, this is going to be a quick synopsis of what I saw and remember from the show.

The four candidates were introduced by CNN in an almost WWE “wrasslin'” style as each was given a nickname and funky background music.  They all came out onstage and stood for the National Anthem.  Politicians need to learn where their heart is — most of them were covering their spleen with their right hand.

Questions were posed and Frothy Mix (Santorum) and Mittens (Romney) sat and argued like small children trying to one-up each other.  Newt (Gingrich) looks as if he’s put on a few pounds and the way he sat in his chair holding his right hand made me wonder if he was constantly checking his pulse or if he was just trying to control himself from smacking Mittens for all of his inane comments.  DocRon (Paul) sat at the other end of the stage and was often ignored but did make sure that when he was asked to give a “quick response” by the moderator that he said, “No, not a quick response.  I get one minute like they do!”

Frothy Mix kept falling into the “John Kerry Trap” of  saying that he “voted for something before he opposed it” which the other candidates, with the exception of DocRon, seemed to not notice.  DocRon, however, did jump on it.  He also made a comment about not believing something that Frothy Mix said was “real.”  Frothy Mix tried to interrupt by showing his hand and arm to DocRon and saying, “Sorry!  I’m definitely real!” to which DocRon simply replied, “Congratulations.”

Mittens kept trying to remind everyone about how he was affiliated with the Olympics but never could get the right words out.  He said he was “in the Olympics,” not that he served on the Olympic Committee.  If he was “in” the Olympics, then in what sport did he compete?  And, in my own opinion, who gives a crap that he worked on the Olympic Committee.  True, he uses it as a way to prove that he’s the most qualified to run the country economically, but that’s with a budget of billions which only people like he and his friends have, not the type of budgets with which we “regular people” are familiar.

Newt made a great statement that everyone is comparing what they’re going to do with what the current government is doing and pointed out that the current government is the problem.  Like, duh!!  If the others didn’t already know that, then they don’t need to be up there.

DocRon was patient as he was mostly ignored throughout the night and did defend himself and his ideas when he could.  However, I do believe that he often got some of the biggest applause and was the only person who, as everyone tried to make sure to mention as many of the Bill of Rights amendments as they could, mentioned the Second Amendment.  And I agree with him that if someone has entered the country illegally and is trespassing on your property, you should be able to call the police and have them arrested (and they can be referred to the proper immigration authorities).  Why not?  If I can report citizens for trespassing, why do illegal immigrants get a free pass?

At the end of the debate, I really got upset when they were asked their final question and only two of them answered it.  Newt and DocRon actually answered the question.  They passed my first rule of having a debate.  When it was Mittens’ turn and he started his campaign speech, the moderator stopped him and asked him to answer the question.  Mittens countered with, “You get to ask the questions you want; I get to give the answers I want.”  Frothy Mix took the same approach and both stayed “on-message” and wouldn’t answer the question directly.

So, if I had to choose someone at this moment, it would be either DocRon or Newt.  Newt actually isn’t “presidential” in my eyes, but he at least can answer a direct question!  Same for DocRon.  You might be stunned at what you hear but he’s not going to mince words or go off on his “message” instead of addressing the issue.

They said last night this could be the last Republican Debate — I seriously doubt it.  Everyone’s in-it-to-win-it and no one is going home until they mathematically can’t win.  And some are trying to get enough delegates so they get a prime-time slot during the Republican National Convention, which worries many in the RNC.

I just hope that the next debate is better than this one was and that questions can actually be answered directly.  And if they don’t, I still think dropping them through the floor or squirting them with water like you do your dog or cat that won’t behave would be fine.

Advertisements

Political rant for the day (prospects for more are good).

I’ve been trying to stay out of the political fray in this blog because I know there are TONS of bloggers who are better at it (and many who are not), more popular, and people like a variety of subjects to read.  But today, I’ve just had it.  I’ve had it with the media and the talking heads of the national and local news stations yammering about certain topics while completely ignoring others and I’m tired of it.  Not just tired; sick and tired.  And everyone knows that’s the worst tired to be.  So, for today, I’m gonna rant ’cause it’s my blog and I’ll rant if I want.

First order of business in this rant — there were two caucuses and a primary this week.  Just two days ago on this past Tuesday for those who didn’t know.  They were held in the states of Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, respectively.  Rick Santorum won the majority of votes in all three contests.  However, Mitt Romney, days before the Missouri primary, said that Missourians were having a “beauty contest” instead of a primary because their votes “wouldn’t count.”  Hmmm….clever way Mitt to get people to not turn-out to complete their civic duty and participate in a right given to them by the government in a state where you weren’t very popular.

For those who kept saying the Republican Party was wasting millions of dollars in having a Primary that “wouldn’t count” and that it was incredibly irresponsible on the part of Missouri to allow it — let’s look at the law.  The State of Missouri has a law that sets the date of the primary and for 2012 it was set, by that law, for February 7th.  The law was enacted when other states had moved their primary dates forward and Missouri wanted its primary to still be “relevant” in picking the candidates for president, regardless of political party.  The Republican National Committee (RNC) set the rules that required all states with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to wait until March 6th to have their “contests” or risk losing half of the delegates for their state when it comes time for the RNC Convention later this year.  That rule was enacted after Missouri and other states had changed their primary laws.  Because the law is on the books in Missouri, the State legislature attempted to pass a resolution to move the date so that the primary would be in “compliance with the RNC” and that they wouldn’t have to risk losing delegates.  Whether you believe the statements that the Missouri Legislature just didn’t act in time or that the Governor (a Democrat) helped to block the change of date in order to cause the problem, the fact remains that a change couldn’t be passed and the State of Missouri was required by law to hold the primary last Tuesday.

So, of course all of the Republican candidates who weren’t going to have a great showing in Missouri decided to make fun of the predicament the people of the Show-Me-State were in or, in the case of Newt Gingrich, didn’t appear on the ballot at all.  What people are conveniently forgetting is that the primary wasn’t only for Republicans.  Democratic candidates and even a Libertarian candidate appeared on their respective party’s ballots in Missouri.  Even Republican candidates who have long since cancelled their campaigns appeared and some even got votes!  Everyone just assumes that President Obama will receive the nomination again for the Democratic Party, but technically the votes cast by any Democrats towards the choosing of a candidate would count since the Democratic National Committee (DNC) didn’t make any changes to their rules/regulations regarding primary dates.  So the delegates selected by the primary in Missouri for the Democrats will count.  Only the Republicans have to assemble again on March 17th in a caucus to select the delegates for the RNC Convention.  And, any registered voter in the state who declares themself to be a Republican can participate in the caucus — so even though the popular vote was for Santorum, the caucus vote could change.

But to say that “Missourians’ votes didn’t count” is just wrong.  The people of Missouri who went to vote weren’t there just for a presidential nominating primary.  Many cities, towns, counties, and municipalities had issues on the ballot that needed votes.  Many, regardless of their political affiliation, went to vote on some controversial issues.  Those votes most certainly counted.  The decisions they made that day on those amendments and/or referendums impact the lives of Missourians very much and those who were dissuaded from voting by presidential candidates saying that their votes “wouldn’t count” were completely misled.  And they were misled by the people who want to be the next leader of the country!  How despicable is that?  It’s like waving a flag that says, “Yes!  You can trust me because I’m an honest leader but only when it suits me and I really don’t feel the need to waste my time on you!”  Any candidate who would directly or indirectly try to influence a registered voter to NOT vote should NOT be allowed to be a candidate for president (in my opinion, for whatever that’s worth).

The second order of business in this rant is my complete frustration and disgust with the media, especially the national media, to continue their blackout of Dr. Ron Paul’s candidacy.  And don’t act like you’ve not noticed it — even major networks like CNN have admitted that they’ve been purposefully non-reporting anything about his campaign.  Just watch the debates — who gets pushed to the side of the group and not asked very many questions?  And it’s incredibly stupid for the media to do that (1) when there are questions for which Dr. Paul is more than competent to answer (medical issues come to mind) and (2) when the public is watching closely to see just how biased the network really is.  And regardless if you’re a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or any other party affiliation, you should be demanding that they treat Dr. Paul with the same courtesy they do the other candidates.  Last night I was watching the NBC Nightly News and it was said, loud and clear, that there were three Republican candidates.  Who dropped out??  Romney?  Santorum?  Gingrich?  If they’re saying that there are only three Republicans left in the fight, then it had to be one of them because Ron Paul has said he’ll stay until it’s “mathematically impossible” for him to win enough delegates and that time certainly hasn’t come yet.

Is this a campaign speech in favor of Ron Paul?  Not necessarily.  I have the candidate in mind that I would like to win.  I’m incredibly glad to see many of the candidates drop-out of the race and feel some of them took way too long to do so.  However, I certainly know that if I were running for office that I would want to have the same coverage that the other candidates receive.  I’m not saying that every single candidate should get 24/7 news feeds and you can usually tell who is and who isn’t really in the race for the long-haul and committed to actually getting elected.  If I didn’t have enough money to put as many commercials on television as the other candidates, that would be my issue and I’d have to really work hard on fundraising.  But to give a speech somewhere or participate in a televised debate and be basically ignored while the media fawns all over the “big name” (i.e. “big money”) candidates is just not fair.  And to be completely omitted by a national news program when you’re (1) still on the ballot, (2) still campaigning, (3) haven’t stopped your campaign, and (4) are the number-one recipient of campaign contributions from active duty service members and their families is offensive.

Children are taught in school that anyone (who is a native-born citizen of the United States over the age of 35 and has lived in the US for over 14 years) can grow up to become the president.  The media is teaching them otherwise.  And since the American people are becoming more and more “educated” by mass media and turning into sheep that follow only what the famous and wealthy have to say, I guess I shouldn’t say I’m surprised at this turn of events.  It still ticks me off royally, but I shouldn’t be surprised.  What I am doing, though, is educating my children in their political rights and making sure that both (only one is eligible to vote at the moment, though) understand that it is a civic duty; it is a right given as part of their citizenship in this nation; and that if they decide they don’t want to or don’t care about voting, then they really have no right to complain when things don’t go their way.

My political editorial – Come back to reality, Mittens!!

Okay….it’s Wednesday and I was going to blog about my therapy session today.  We talked about some things I’ve posted on my blog, some responses I’ve received, and other issues in my life.  It was a nice, typical session.  My therapist was just surprised that I wasn’t there as early before my appointment as usual and thought I was going to skip-out today.  I told her that I’d gotten on a rant and had to finish a post.  She asked if it was here on my blog and I told her it was on my Facebook page.  But, under the circumstances, it belongs here too.

Those who’ve been reading my posts for the past month know that I’ve been trying to stay out of the political fray.  Politics and religion.  Two topics on which I have very strong opinions that many in my family and circle(s) of friends disagree.  That’s why I don’t bring them up.  But today, a statement was made that is being argued and will be for a LONG time to come.  Or, at least until the speaker figures out that he’s made a complete idiot out of himself with it and goes away (my opinion).

I’m sure you’ve already heard, but today on CNN, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney — who just the night before won the Florida Primary — said that he’s not concerned about poor people.  Well, not exactly.  He said he’s not concerned about the “very poor.”  Even that’s under debate.  Here’s part of the transcript:

“By the way, I’m in this race because I care about Americans.  I’m not concerned about the very poor.  We have a safety net there.  If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.  I’m not concerned about the very rich.  They’re doing just fine.  I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.  I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

Okay…so let me sort of dissect this statement.  He’s not concerned about the “very poor” because they have a “safety net.”  He’s not concerned about the “very rich” because they’re “doing just fine.”  And he suggests that 90-95 percent of Americans are struggling right now.  What I’ve not been able to determine from his statement is this — when do the “poor” become “very poor” and the “very rich” become just “moderately comfortable” in his mind?

I’ve been “poor.”  I’ve been “very poor.”  I’ve been “very poor where you have to decide whether you and your child can eat or just him so you can pay your electric bill.”  I’ve been “very poor to the point where you apply for help but you’re told you’re not ‘poor enough’ for it even though you don’t have two nickels to rub together.”  I grew up poorer than my family would like to admit, I’m sure.  And, sadly, I know that with the state of the economy and the outlook for the future, my kids probably won’t have much to inherit from me and their success will be completely dependent upon them and the choices they make.  No huge nest egg waiting around for them like good-ol’ Mitt had.

But, just to show that I’m not trying to make a soundbite into a rant, let’s read the rest of the transcript from what was said next by Soledad O’Brien as she tried to let him reword his response:

O’Brien: “All right.  I know I said ‘last question,’ but I’ve got to ask you:  You just said, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net.’  And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd.’  Can you explain that?”

Romney:  “Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad.  I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.  The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat(ic) Party, the plight of the poor.  And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor.  And we have a safety net to help those that are very poor.

“But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans.  My campaign — you can choose where to focus.  You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus; you can focus on the very poor — that’s not my focus.  My focus is on middle-income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college.

“These are the people who have been most badly hurt during the Obama years.  We have a very ample safety net.  And we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it.  But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers.  We have programs to help the poor.  But the middle-income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now, and they need someone who can help get this economy going for them.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa there!  Let’s back this train up and look at some of what he’s said — and let’s do it from the perspective of someone who’s been there.  Me.

“My focus is on middle-income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college.”  Well, Mitt, in my life I have family members who are retired and living on Social Security.  They’re always complaining about how it doesn’t help make ends meet and how poor they are, so that doesn’t sound like “middle-income” to me.  Also, my friends who have been looking for work (many for very extended periods of time) would probably not categorize their familial budgets within the “middle-income” range since they don’t have an income because they are looking for work!  And those with kids in college — if it weren’t for Eldest Son’s Paternal Grandfather who retired as a professor from the university Eldest Son is currently attending, he probably wouldn’t be attending that college right now.  Why, you ask?  Because even though Husband works for the government and I work intermittently for the government (for now), we don’t qualify to be “middle-income” and can’t afford the tuition, even with Pell Grant assistance.  That’s why Youngest Son is already making plans to attend a college where he’ll have to work his way through to pay the tuition because he knows by the time he graduates high school that anyone will be lucky if they can send their child to college.

“But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers.”  I will agree that those programs do exist.  I will agree that there are people using those programs at this time.  I will also agree that there are many who would rather lose a limb than have to sign-up for those programs but would be homeless and starving without them.  I’ve had to use food stamps.  I’m not proud of it — but I made sure that as soon as I didn’t need them I got off of the program.  When I was pregnant with Youngest Son, I was begged by a County Health official to sign-up for WIC (Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program) and food stamps — not because I didn’t make enough (I actually made too much) but because they needed the numbers to keep their program going because too many women refused to enroll for what they thought was “charity” instead of a program designed to help them through their pregnancy and to ensure their child had a good start in life.

Then came the time when Husband wasn’t working and I was very ill.  Neither of us had any income and our savings had been depleted drastically.  We needed help but we didn’t want to ask for it.  However, we swallowed our pride and went to the government office to apply for food stamps so we could be sure there would be something to eat.  They asked to see our prior year’s taxes.  The year before, I had worked for several months and made an average amount in salary.  Husband wasn’t working and was staying home to homeschool Youngest Son while also serving in the National Guard.  After looking at our paperwork, we were told that even though we had absolutely no income at the time and our savings was severely depleted (read: gone), we did not qualify because I had worked the year before and all of that money should be available now.  Forget that there are bills to pay between when I earned it and the moment I was sitting in that chair — I had made money in the past and regardless of my inability to work due to severe illness, we weren’t eligible for assistance.  As a matter of fact, the lady “assisting” us asked why we were wasting her time.  According to her and her little chart on her desk, we were “middle-income” enough.

Mitt seems to forget that the majority of the “middle-income” voters he’s referring to are only a paycheck away from being “very poor” and are pretty furious right about now.  He also forgets that the “very poor” vote just as much as the “very rich” do.  Yes, believe it or not — many of the “very poor” are bussed to polling centers by *gasp* Democratic candidates and their staffers, encouraged all the while to “Vote for Our Candidate” while being offered free coffee, donuts, or whatever it is that gets them on the bus.  Many people agree with that practice and many others disagree with it.  However, if you look in “very poor” areas of our largest cities, you’ll find that a LOT of votes are cast!  Meanwhile, in the “middle-income” areas, a lot of them who actually are “middle-income” or “moderately comfortable” aren’t voting as much.  Many are too busy trying to work long hours at one or more jobs and perhaps can’t get time-off to go vote.  Others are incredibly disenfranchised with the political system as a whole (wonder what caused that??) and don’t care anymore.  And the apathy they have regarding whether or not to vote spills out into their community and their children’s beliefs on whether or not it’s worth bothering to vote when there’s something good on TV.

You’d think someone who touts how intelligent he is and how he’s so good at creating (and taking away) jobs and knowing what the American public is thinking and how they’ll vote would have figured that out.

I’d suggest that Mitt stay out of the “very poor” neighborhoods ’cause many of the “poor” would be more than willing to show how rich they really are — in their values, their pride, and possibly with a good-ol’ fashioned butt-kickin’!

What he needs is someone to whap him upside the back of his head every time he makes a stupid remark like that.  He still isn’t worth my vote, but at least he might be more interesting to watch.

Post Navigation