O.K here they are my midterm predictions, First since all politics is local, Louisville gets a new mayor a Republican one Hal Hiner for the first time since who knows when. Andy Barr wins in Lexington, Unfortunately John Yarmith wins his final term in congress, He doesn't run again because the district gets more conservative due to 2011 redistricting and he retires in 2012.
Also the House goes Republican with a net 55 seat gain, Pelosi retires from congress not wanting to be in the minority.
The Senate is 50-50 after this election with West Virgina going democratic along with California to offset the republican surprising victory in Washington state. That leaves Joe Lieberman as the swing vote, he starts out casting his vote with the Democrats eventually switches to the republicans in the summer because of foreign policy and the senate switches eventually probably in the summer of 2011. Republicans gain a vast majority of governorships which helps Republicans in the keep the house for ten years. We will have more bipartisanship which helps the President at least for a while offset the horrid economy but he still loses to Mitt Romney in 2012!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
More of the same
2008 was a frustrating year for Conservatives! So many people were in love with then canidate Obama that it was hard for them to focus on the issues. My Liberal friend kept marveling about how clean a campaign it was and as much as I wanted to counter her the general election campaign he ran was pretty clean(of coarse it did not hurt that the mainstream media had a crush on him the entire campaign but that's another story.
I relized that the rhetoric being used was so inspiring it caused young people that were inexperienced with politics to ignore whatever good sense they had and believe that the president would actually usher in the new kind of politics that he campaigned on
Now, two short years later people are waking up to the fact that politics have not changed and this president lies just like all the the rest The latest example a few weeks ago during a campaign the President alluded to the possibility that foreign money is influencing our elections, What he was referring to was the chamber of Congress which has been very critical of this administration and it's policy's spending money to defeat Democrats. Now any huge organization has overseas affiliates and they do pay dues. However organizations are required to separate the money they receive from overseas from money raised from overseas. These comapany's are not allowed to use any raised from overseas on the election. The President raised the possibility that the Chamber of Congress was acting illegally. When asked to provide proof of this alligation the President's spokesmen said, "Can you prove there not. So it's up to your opponents to disprove a negative! that's the definition of negative campaigning. The president's spokesmen then desperate to regain the high ground said well they should provide a list of who is giving from overseas, that's a debate worth having but can we have the lists from the overseas unions that contribute to you too, after all what's good for the President is good for his opponents too.
The interviewer even said the president's original comments were peanuts and other members of the mainstream media know that the charge of foreign money influencing our elections from the US Chamber of Congress was a baseless charge.
When the President said this some got mad not me upon reflection it made me happy because he proved he's no longer above the frey, no longer just about hope. The President proved in some ways he like every other politician and represents more of the same.
The president may be a good man but his comment represent something that more and more people are realizing his day to day reality no longer lives up to his lofty campaign speeches.
I relized that the rhetoric being used was so inspiring it caused young people that were inexperienced with politics to ignore whatever good sense they had and believe that the president would actually usher in the new kind of politics that he campaigned on
Now, two short years later people are waking up to the fact that politics have not changed and this president lies just like all the the rest The latest example a few weeks ago during a campaign the President alluded to the possibility that foreign money is influencing our elections, What he was referring to was the chamber of Congress which has been very critical of this administration and it's policy's spending money to defeat Democrats. Now any huge organization has overseas affiliates and they do pay dues. However organizations are required to separate the money they receive from overseas from money raised from overseas. These comapany's are not allowed to use any raised from overseas on the election. The President raised the possibility that the Chamber of Congress was acting illegally. When asked to provide proof of this alligation the President's spokesmen said, "Can you prove there not. So it's up to your opponents to disprove a negative! that's the definition of negative campaigning. The president's spokesmen then desperate to regain the high ground said well they should provide a list of who is giving from overseas, that's a debate worth having but can we have the lists from the overseas unions that contribute to you too, after all what's good for the President is good for his opponents too.
The interviewer even said the president's original comments were peanuts and other members of the mainstream media know that the charge of foreign money influencing our elections from the US Chamber of Congress was a baseless charge.
When the President said this some got mad not me upon reflection it made me happy because he proved he's no longer above the frey, no longer just about hope. The President proved in some ways he like every other politician and represents more of the same.
The president may be a good man but his comment represent something that more and more people are realizing his day to day reality no longer lives up to his lofty campaign speeches.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tea party thoughts
Politics is an art not a science but it does have some scientific principles that everyone agrees with one is when you lose you must either weight for the other side to mess up or your side has to get more voters.
What happens in wave elections is the Party in power does enough to make people mad that the American public comes out passionately to support the party out of power. It happened it 2008 people that had never voted or rarely vote voted for the new President with the funny name It also happened in 2006 and 2004 because a new majority disliked President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. In 2004 new people voted for President Bush because they approved of his handling of the War on Terror and disliked the democratic platform on the social issues of the day such as gay marriage and Partial birth Abortion. People vote when they are frustrated and angry about the country.
The tea party started started do to anger over the bailout of the banks something that started in the Bush administration and had nothing what so ever with race. It continued with the bailout of Gm and Chrysler. The Tea Party then came to a full boil over the Health Care reform because they felt that the President was ignoring the will of the people.
Now I'm no expert but wasn't that the same way most Liberals felt about President Bush in 2008. Now to be fair some people in the Tea party are bigoted against the President because of his race, is that the reason for the tea party, No way because the same people that were against Bill Clinton's Health Care plan were and are against this current incarnation. Nobody suggested racism as the primary reason for opposition in 1994. Why mention it now Well we know why the President is black, and it's easier for people to demagogue the opposition by calling it names then to actually engage in dialogue about the issue. To his credit the President isn't doing this but his friends are and that by it's very nature is also racist.
Are there some racists in the tea Party yes is that the majority of tea party sentiment, no because the Tea Party is frustrated at all government excesses and not just those committed by the current President. Are there bad people in every organization yes, but that doesn't mean that the tea party itself is bad because it causes people to think about the Constitution and the excess of government as a whole. That like it or not is what political activism is all about!
What happens in wave elections is the Party in power does enough to make people mad that the American public comes out passionately to support the party out of power. It happened it 2008 people that had never voted or rarely vote voted for the new President with the funny name It also happened in 2006 and 2004 because a new majority disliked President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. In 2004 new people voted for President Bush because they approved of his handling of the War on Terror and disliked the democratic platform on the social issues of the day such as gay marriage and Partial birth Abortion. People vote when they are frustrated and angry about the country.
The tea party started started do to anger over the bailout of the banks something that started in the Bush administration and had nothing what so ever with race. It continued with the bailout of Gm and Chrysler. The Tea Party then came to a full boil over the Health Care reform because they felt that the President was ignoring the will of the people.
Now I'm no expert but wasn't that the same way most Liberals felt about President Bush in 2008. Now to be fair some people in the Tea party are bigoted against the President because of his race, is that the reason for the tea party, No way because the same people that were against Bill Clinton's Health Care plan were and are against this current incarnation. Nobody suggested racism as the primary reason for opposition in 1994. Why mention it now Well we know why the President is black, and it's easier for people to demagogue the opposition by calling it names then to actually engage in dialogue about the issue. To his credit the President isn't doing this but his friends are and that by it's very nature is also racist.
Are there some racists in the tea Party yes is that the majority of tea party sentiment, no because the Tea Party is frustrated at all government excesses and not just those committed by the current President. Are there bad people in every organization yes, but that doesn't mean that the tea party itself is bad because it causes people to think about the Constitution and the excess of government as a whole. That like it or not is what political activism is all about!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
It's the Iman, Stupid!
The mosque near ground zero controversy is a tough one for me because I realize that if public sentiment guides the law then this nation that is already balkenized can cancel out a religious domination, all practicing Catholics and Baptists need to realize what a bad precedent it would be to allow pressure from a local comminity to prevent the building of a house of worship or mosque. The problem in not with the mosque itself but the iman who has made comments saying,"it was United States policy that created Osama Bin Laden". To make matters worse to recognize that Hammas is a terrorist organisazion. I believe his these comments underly a basis extremism and contempt for the this Republic. If he really wants to bring faiths together then he should tour the United States explaining how Al Queada is incompatable with the true meaning of Islam. For goodness sake why not build the Mosque somewhere else in deference to those directly efeected by 9/11. To build the Mosque near ground zero seems like spite. There are no shinto shrines in close proximity to Pearl Harbour. Unless of course the Mosque is being built as a sign of cultural dominence over the west?!!?
I thought that by the calling off of the buring of the Koran that perhaps a repectfull dialog could ensue that would lead to the Mosque not being built. This however remains to be seen. The right to build the Mosque is not in question. The only quarrel is its location and hurtful memories it may cause. That combined with the Extremist views of this Iman make the building of this Mosque incredibly unwise.
The mosque near ground zero controversy is a tough one for me because I realize that if public sentiment guides the law then this nation that is already balkenized can cancel out a religious domination, all practicing Catholics and Baptists need to realize what a bad precedent it would be to allow pressure from a local comminity to prevent the building of a house of worship or mosque. The problem in not with the mosque itself but the iman who has made comments saying,"it was United States policy that created Osama Bin Laden". To make matters worse to recognize that Hammas is a terrorist organisazion. I believe his these comments underly a basis extremism and contempt for the this Republic. If he really wants to bring faiths together then he should tour the United States explaining how Al Queada is incompatable with the true meaning of Islam. For goodness sake why not build the Mosque somewhere else in deference to those directly efeected by 9/11. To build the Mosque near ground zero seems like spite. There are no shinto shrines in close proximity to Pearl Harbour. Unless of course the Mosque is being built as a sign of cultural dominence over the west?!!?
I thought that by the calling off of the buring of the Koran that perhaps a repectfull dialog could ensue that would lead to the Mosque not being built. This however remains to be seen. The right to build the Mosque is not in question. The only quarrel is its location and hurtful memories it may cause. That combined with the Extremist views of this Iman make the building of this Mosque incredibly unwise.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
responce to the comment
First of all some clean up from last column I will try to keep it as factually based as possible, I am all for having a national debate on Civil Unions that would probably lead to my side losing. If one ones to strengthen civil unions in the Entire country then let a Presidential candidate discuss that By the way the Majority of states that do have civil union laws do make them similar to marriage in an effort to please the Gay Lesbian transgender lobby In many states especially liberal ones these votes are called basically every benefit other then actually calling the union marriage. Again national standards are set at the ballot box except for outright bigotry are up to the people and there Representatives in congress. Gay marriage/ relationships don't meet that standard unless they are being denied a public right. If you feel they are that's fine but do it though the public process not through the courts. If Civil Unions can fix the few benefits that Gays don't get then address it there without trying to force it upon the American public. The only time the courts should social engineer is when they have an interest to do so. If Gays were being put in jail up or stigmatized by government and the law then the court would have a point but leading society is not something the court should do. Society will see when it's wrong eventually if homosexuality is on par with society then let the consensus of the people catch up. Race can not be helped sexuality can and therefore is a behavior and so there is not a compelling state interest for the Court to declare it unconstituntal gay Sodomy will never reach that standerd unless they actually do find the so-called gay gene. Marriage is a state issue that's why we have different ages for marriage in different states right now are those also un-constitutional as well, are all laws based on morality up for debate. Is that a debate you won't to have, or is it better to fix the civil union law and make it more beneficial, or scrap the law and disregard 5000 years of society!
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Twisted justice is no justice for anyone
The promblem with the Gay marrige Ruling inside from my roigloous is it was based on te Equal Protection Clause which arrises from the Civil war and civil rights era. There was somthing back then that I could do as a white man if I was born then that tha a black men coukd not marry a white women, as a white man now I have the same rights as a homosexual he can marry one women I can marry one women therefore strickly speaking there is a no specal treatment being given to me that he does not have I have the option of marrying one women so does he.
That was not the case wih sslavery and racscim.
The secound and best reason that the judge is wroung is in reality there is no benift that gays and lesibans will be denied in Californa that straight people do not have. I recognize that even though I disagree with sodimy and yes that's what it is the goverment can not police or disqualify too people's acts so there is no reason why they can't be given the benifits of reguluar married couples and there's not reason to think that they would be denied that in California. If they are given all the finanal benifits of marrige then what exactly do they get from so called marrige, the acceptctance of the church perhaps. Can you name for me one right that is not currently being given to someone with a civil union that is not given to a stright couple, besises the word marrige and the morility that denotes. If you can then fix it sranthen the civil unions.
Back in the day the reason why people got married is to have children that is the reason why gay marrige will always be inferior to straght marrige, and that is the reason why goverment should favor it otherwise it should remain neutral yes there are people that choise not to have children after all the exception. Familys and procreattion are conerstone of cilivation and that's not religion speaking that's fact we gave tax credits to couples couples that have children we recognize the roll that men and women have in procreation. That's the same reason that most single people should not adopt because children do best when they have the male persptictive and the female persptictive. The very idea that homosexuals are akin to black there are thousands of former homosexuals that have beaten the condition which makes it for some a choice. Marrige is a decision that is left up to the states unless a class is singled out because of somthing they can not change. Homosexuality is a sickness that God can change, I know because I've met a person that uesd to be gay that is no longer. Gays derserve to live there lives free of dervision and they should live how they want but to forse socity to sanction reletionships based soly on the lustful sex is wroung. I say again there's nothing a gay couple can get though marrige that they can't get though civil unions besides acceptace from soxicty. That takes cultural change not from a judge but from people's hearts. Untill the gay community realises that sex is not a civil right unless you are being deniyed somthing tangeble like a job or houseing, because they will never have a majority in this country let alone universal exceptance in this country if all laws are subject to poblic judical review then we really do live in somthing like a judical tyranny. Christ wanted us to sacrifice for others satisfing sexual needs very rarely a sacrifisal act. If Cgristain conservatives were treating people without God's love you would have a point but two people making love without the possibilty of children and too ofen because of frustration because of socity is not somthing Jeusus would endorce. We are not saying that gays are going to hell we are not saying that gays should be persucuted but doun't say that our marriges are a Godly as ours not now not ever anyone who wants recognition because of there sex life is wroung both from a religous perspctive and a secular one
That was not the case wih sslavery and racscim.
The secound and best reason that the judge is wroung is in reality there is no benift that gays and lesibans will be denied in Californa that straight people do not have. I recognize that even though I disagree with sodimy and yes that's what it is the goverment can not police or disqualify too people's acts so there is no reason why they can't be given the benifits of reguluar married couples and there's not reason to think that they would be denied that in California. If they are given all the finanal benifits of marrige then what exactly do they get from so called marrige, the acceptctance of the church perhaps. Can you name for me one right that is not currently being given to someone with a civil union that is not given to a stright couple, besises the word marrige and the morility that denotes. If you can then fix it sranthen the civil unions.
Back in the day the reason why people got married is to have children that is the reason why gay marrige will always be inferior to straght marrige, and that is the reason why goverment should favor it otherwise it should remain neutral yes there are people that choise not to have children after all the exception. Familys and procreattion are conerstone of cilivation and that's not religion speaking that's fact we gave tax credits to couples couples that have children we recognize the roll that men and women have in procreation. That's the same reason that most single people should not adopt because children do best when they have the male persptictive and the female persptictive. The very idea that homosexuals are akin to black there are thousands of former homosexuals that have beaten the condition which makes it for some a choice. Marrige is a decision that is left up to the states unless a class is singled out because of somthing they can not change. Homosexuality is a sickness that God can change, I know because I've met a person that uesd to be gay that is no longer. Gays derserve to live there lives free of dervision and they should live how they want but to forse socity to sanction reletionships based soly on the lustful sex is wroung. I say again there's nothing a gay couple can get though marrige that they can't get though civil unions besides acceptace from soxicty. That takes cultural change not from a judge but from people's hearts. Untill the gay community realises that sex is not a civil right unless you are being deniyed somthing tangeble like a job or houseing, because they will never have a majority in this country let alone universal exceptance in this country if all laws are subject to poblic judical review then we really do live in somthing like a judical tyranny. Christ wanted us to sacrifice for others satisfing sexual needs very rarely a sacrifisal act. If Cgristain conservatives were treating people without God's love you would have a point but two people making love without the possibilty of children and too ofen because of frustration because of socity is not somthing Jeusus would endorce. We are not saying that gays are going to hell we are not saying that gays should be persucuted but doun't say that our marriges are a Godly as ours not now not ever anyone who wants recognition because of there sex life is wroung both from a religous perspctive and a secular one
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
two wroungs...
There are two types of racist's in this country people that hate other people bassed on the color of there skin and people usually past victims of racism that can't get beyond race.
The Administration faced both of those cases in recent weeks and reacted to them badly.
In Nov. 2008 the New black Panthers sought to intimidate pole workers that might actully cheack if felons were eligible, wearing there garb and standing outside the polls one brandishing a club. There are only two reasons for this either intimidate white voters or as I mentioned before distract pole workers from doing there job. This is obviously a threat to democracy no one has the right to intimidate anyone into not voting even poll workers. The Attorney General showing the same cowardice on race that he lectures the American people on choose not to prosecute.
Conservatives and most Americans I believed were shocked that this example of reverse fascism was allowed to stand in this country. Consequently we have the case of Shelly Sherod who at a NAACP meeting expressed an unwillingness to help a white farmer who was talking douwn to her. The White House most likely said o.k here's an example of how this Adminastration can show that were not reverse racists. One problem Mrs. Sharrod recounted how her actions were wrong and she no longer felt that way she also did help the white farmer who now regards her as a friend. While liberals in the media are currently going crazy about how Conservatives hipped the story.(they have a point we Conservatives must do better at not jumping to conclusions on stories on race) they ignore that the justice Department lack of response to the New Black Story most likely caused the overreaction to Mrs, Sharrod comments which when taken in context are actually touching.
The Administration faced both of those cases in recent weeks and reacted to them badly.
In Nov. 2008 the New black Panthers sought to intimidate pole workers that might actully cheack if felons were eligible, wearing there garb and standing outside the polls one brandishing a club. There are only two reasons for this either intimidate white voters or as I mentioned before distract pole workers from doing there job. This is obviously a threat to democracy no one has the right to intimidate anyone into not voting even poll workers. The Attorney General showing the same cowardice on race that he lectures the American people on choose not to prosecute.
Conservatives and most Americans I believed were shocked that this example of reverse fascism was allowed to stand in this country. Consequently we have the case of Shelly Sherod who at a NAACP meeting expressed an unwillingness to help a white farmer who was talking douwn to her. The White House most likely said o.k here's an example of how this Adminastration can show that were not reverse racists. One problem Mrs. Sharrod recounted how her actions were wrong and she no longer felt that way she also did help the white farmer who now regards her as a friend. While liberals in the media are currently going crazy about how Conservatives hipped the story.(they have a point we Conservatives must do better at not jumping to conclusions on stories on race) they ignore that the justice Department lack of response to the New Black Story most likely caused the overreaction to Mrs, Sharrod comments which when taken in context are actually touching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)