The media still can't get over the recent Vice-Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan. I can understand why -- it was pretty fiery and entertaining, especially when compared to the largely boring exchange between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney. As much as I enjoyed it, and as much as I believe that Biden won the debate, my original argument outlined in my last post still remains: debates don't matter. And, VP debates? They prove to be inconsequential to the actual outcome of the debate. Anyone who says otherwise is seriously fooling themselves.
Still, the debate has many people abuzzing about Biden's performance and Ryan's demeanor. Yes, Biden was pretty aggressive. He laughed and smiled and interrupted Ryan when he was giving his responses. For Democrats and liberals, it was purely cathartic. That's why liberals were going crazy over his performance: a Democrat finally had the balls to say what all Democrats are thinking about Ryan, Romney, and the Republicans. Biden not only used the facts but showed a stunning sense of exuberance and style and obviously made up for Obama's lacklustre performance.
The most interesting part about the debate's aftermath has to be the Republican's take on Biden's performance. They whined about his behaviour, that it was rude and outlandish and not Presidential -- meanwhile, Ryan can blatantly lie over and over again and that somehow makes him presidential. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, this always happen to the losing side: they begin a campaign to tarnish the opposing candidate in order to gain what they feel is their rightful victory. The Obama campaign did this last time, she said, with Obama supporters starting the phrase "testy Mitt." And now, we see the GOP -- a party whose candidates have snapped at moderators or attracts viewers that boo an openly gay soldier or cheer an uninsured man dying -- complaining about rudeness and disrespect.
Incredible.
The VP debates -- like all debates, really -- may be insignificant to the overall race, but as I've said before, they are perfect displays of the type of race we have on our hands. Biden, Ryan's own fact-checker, pushed the facts: that it is better than how it was four years ago, that relations with Israel is stable, that sanctions on Iran are stronger than they ever were, and that the Republicans would totally cripple the lower-class by privatizing Social Security and MediCare. Ryan, on the other hand, continued the inchoate character that plagued him since his convention speech, one of an unbelievable liar.
As Biden said as he turned and looked straight into the camera, "folks, use your common sense."
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
A Debate Abate
I have things to say about the first Presidential Debate held on October 3, 2012.
It was boring, for one, filled with an inordinate amount of political wonkiness that the average American viewer could not comprehend because 1) neither candidates opted to define the fancy terms they were using and 2) the moderator, Jim Lehrer, couldn't get a word in between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney to discuss with viewers what something like the Bowles-Simpson Commission was.
And two, the media has done a really ridiculous job on the debate's coverage. It has always been evident that American media treats the politics as if it's some sort of circus, a fact that's even more stark compared to the passive treatment by journalists of our government on this side of the border. But, this time it just was completely absurd. CNN was running "debate-eve" pre-game shows replete with political pundits and commentators churning out their partisan-based predictions. There was non-stop discussion about the importance and impact of debates on presidential races, a discussion that seems to replicate the illusion of placing two mirrors in front of each other to get endless reflections. It was -- without exaggeration -- a debate about a debate about a debate.
Remember, this is before the debate even started.
When it finally did, we were greeted with a lucklustre affair on both sides, not just one as much as the media likes to point out. Was Obama not as charismatic as he could've been? Yes. Was Obama faced with an abundant amount of opportunities to press Romney about his claims and mistruths? Yes. Totally. But, was Romney presenting the facts? Hardly.
I hate to say that Obama lost the debate so I won't. And, I hate to say that Romney won the debate so I won't either. What I will say is this: in the grander scheme of things, that is, a sprawling election campaign that is over a year old, the debates really don't matter anymore.
I'm not arguing that debates have never mattered since they undoubtedly have. There is the infamous case with Richard Nixon and his sweating upper lip during his debate with John F. Kennedy as an example. Not to mention, George H.W. Bush's response to a citizen about how the recession has been affecting him, personally. These were game-changers -- if I were to use that seemingly innocuous word now.
But now, with the over-saturated media climate we inhabit, debates don't matter anymore. It is mostly the fault of the over-saturated, 24 hour news cycle that constantly presents the viewer with a deluge of information -- some important, some not important -- within each broadcast. It also has to do with the emergence of social-media as a way to get news instantly and to talk about its ramifications on a platform that can reach audiences around the world. And of course, it has to do with the new class of punditocracy telling people what to think when to think.
The debates are also very late in the election cycle, when early voting is already underway and when most voters already know who they want to vote for. Now, are debates a great way in showing the contrast between the two candidates? Of course they are. But, debates aren't the only platform that do this. We've seen these two candidates on the stump, on the trail, and on the screen for over a year. We know them. We know where they agree and we know where they disagree on. All we're waiting for is something momentous to happen that may catapult one candidate to victory.
I have to object to the media's constant speculation as to what dampened Obama's performance. As I've stated before, Obama could've been better. He could've challenged Romney more and he could brought up things like Bain Capital or his "47% remarks." He could've brought up his record as Massachusetts Governor, he could've brought up the record of his running mate Paul Ryan. Yes, he could've done these things. What Obama chose to do instead was present the facts, unreservedly and unabashedly, something that Romney did not do at all.
To wit, here are some of the blatant mistruths in Romney's debate answers:
-First off, he is proposing a $5 trillion dollar tax cut which would include the wealthiest Americans which would then shift the burden onto the middle class. However, he denied this even though you can find it everywhere.
-He decried ObamaCare even though his model in Massachusetts is exactly identical. As Former President Bill Clinton said, "it takes a lot of brass to call someone out on something you did."
-He mentioned that ObamaCare made over $716 billion dollar in cuts when the plan proposed by his running mate would make the exact same cuts. Not to mention, it's always very odd when a Republican is criticizing a Democrat for making cuts to an entitlement program.
-And lastly, and this is important, Obama has done things that have started to put the American economy back on track. America is better off now than they were four years ago. The jobs report released on Friday only bolsters this claim as unemployment is now at its lowest level.
However, everyone still presses on saying the Romney won the debate decisively and that we've entered into a whole different ball game or horse race or another poorly attributed sports metaphor.
Debates only prove a sad reality: that you don't have to be right to win.
It was boring, for one, filled with an inordinate amount of political wonkiness that the average American viewer could not comprehend because 1) neither candidates opted to define the fancy terms they were using and 2) the moderator, Jim Lehrer, couldn't get a word in between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney to discuss with viewers what something like the Bowles-Simpson Commission was.
And two, the media has done a really ridiculous job on the debate's coverage. It has always been evident that American media treats the politics as if it's some sort of circus, a fact that's even more stark compared to the passive treatment by journalists of our government on this side of the border. But, this time it just was completely absurd. CNN was running "debate-eve" pre-game shows replete with political pundits and commentators churning out their partisan-based predictions. There was non-stop discussion about the importance and impact of debates on presidential races, a discussion that seems to replicate the illusion of placing two mirrors in front of each other to get endless reflections. It was -- without exaggeration -- a debate about a debate about a debate.
Remember, this is before the debate even started.
When it finally did, we were greeted with a lucklustre affair on both sides, not just one as much as the media likes to point out. Was Obama not as charismatic as he could've been? Yes. Was Obama faced with an abundant amount of opportunities to press Romney about his claims and mistruths? Yes. Totally. But, was Romney presenting the facts? Hardly.
I hate to say that Obama lost the debate so I won't. And, I hate to say that Romney won the debate so I won't either. What I will say is this: in the grander scheme of things, that is, a sprawling election campaign that is over a year old, the debates really don't matter anymore.
I'm not arguing that debates have never mattered since they undoubtedly have. There is the infamous case with Richard Nixon and his sweating upper lip during his debate with John F. Kennedy as an example. Not to mention, George H.W. Bush's response to a citizen about how the recession has been affecting him, personally. These were game-changers -- if I were to use that seemingly innocuous word now.
But now, with the over-saturated media climate we inhabit, debates don't matter anymore. It is mostly the fault of the over-saturated, 24 hour news cycle that constantly presents the viewer with a deluge of information -- some important, some not important -- within each broadcast. It also has to do with the emergence of social-media as a way to get news instantly and to talk about its ramifications on a platform that can reach audiences around the world. And of course, it has to do with the new class of punditocracy telling people what to think when to think.
The debates are also very late in the election cycle, when early voting is already underway and when most voters already know who they want to vote for. Now, are debates a great way in showing the contrast between the two candidates? Of course they are. But, debates aren't the only platform that do this. We've seen these two candidates on the stump, on the trail, and on the screen for over a year. We know them. We know where they agree and we know where they disagree on. All we're waiting for is something momentous to happen that may catapult one candidate to victory.
I have to object to the media's constant speculation as to what dampened Obama's performance. As I've stated before, Obama could've been better. He could've challenged Romney more and he could brought up things like Bain Capital or his "47% remarks." He could've brought up his record as Massachusetts Governor, he could've brought up the record of his running mate Paul Ryan. Yes, he could've done these things. What Obama chose to do instead was present the facts, unreservedly and unabashedly, something that Romney did not do at all.
To wit, here are some of the blatant mistruths in Romney's debate answers:
-First off, he is proposing a $5 trillion dollar tax cut which would include the wealthiest Americans which would then shift the burden onto the middle class. However, he denied this even though you can find it everywhere.
-He decried ObamaCare even though his model in Massachusetts is exactly identical. As Former President Bill Clinton said, "it takes a lot of brass to call someone out on something you did."
-He mentioned that ObamaCare made over $716 billion dollar in cuts when the plan proposed by his running mate would make the exact same cuts. Not to mention, it's always very odd when a Republican is criticizing a Democrat for making cuts to an entitlement program.
-And lastly, and this is important, Obama has done things that have started to put the American economy back on track. America is better off now than they were four years ago. The jobs report released on Friday only bolsters this claim as unemployment is now at its lowest level.
However, everyone still presses on saying the Romney won the debate decisively and that we've entered into a whole different ball game or horse race or another poorly attributed sports metaphor.
Debates only prove a sad reality: that you don't have to be right to win.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Feminist-In-Chief: Obama, Empowering Women, and the DNC
To be blunt, the Democrats put on a successful convention, one better than the Republicans on most regards. Note when I say "most" because, to be fair, speeches given at the Republican convention were actually pretty good. As I pointed out in my post about the RNC, Ann Romney gave a truly moving speech about her husband and likewise Chris Christie gave a fiery address that prompted presidential buzz. But, speeches at the RNC were marred with inconsistencies and blatant lies. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention were not, at least not at the level the RNC was. In fact, not only were the speeches brilliant and rousing, but they were also substantive and focused on the main goal: convincing the American public that President Barack Obama deserves a second term.
The Jobs Report which was released Friday is, I think, the most fitting conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The report shows exactly how much progress the Obama Administration made and will surely resonate more with Americans than a speech or tribute video. In August, the US economy added 96,000 jobs meaning that August is the 30th month of consecutive job growth. That's not bad considering the Republicans won't collaborate with Obama under any circumstances. That's not bad considering that the GOP shot down the Jobs Act last year which was estimated to create over 2 million jobs. However, 96,000 jobs are not enough to make a significant dent on the unemployment rate. That would take approximately 250,000 jobs to do that. But, the jobs report does prove that the Obama Administration does not hate the private sector since, according to Think Progress, 103,000 jobs were created. It also shows that Obama still has a long way to go to convince the American people that the economy will revive itself. The Jobs Report is not abysmal since it actually is an improvement from the US economy exactly 4 years ago, when it collapsed dramatically due to the stock market crash and the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. If anything, the Jobs Report is sobering to the Obama campaign and the Democrats amid the post-convention frenzy.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
This is why.
The Convention did a great job of emphasizing the highlights of Obama's mandate and did an even better job of dispelling common myths propagated last week at the RNC. A number of speakers directly quoted speeches made in the week before in Tampa and then told the audience the truth. The truth being that the GM plant Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was talking about actually closed in 2008 under Bush. The truth being that the Affordable Care Act cuts money away from corporations to cut fraud in the health care system, not remove solvency from MediCare as much as the Republicans like to tout. The truth being that Obama has created more private sector jobs than the GOP would like to admit. The truth being that Obama cannot solely be blamed for the economic calamity that is occurring in America but the work he has done as rectification has been impressive. The truth being that it doesn't take just 4 years to get America back on track, something that Obama himself said in his 2009 inauguration speech.
What the convention did most of all was to undergird the campaign with more optimism. The attacks on Ryan and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were present, of course. They have to be. But, the overall direction of the campaign was more focused on supporting the President and Vice President opposed to attacking the other side. Unlike his opponent, Obama refrained from criticizing Romney by name. A wise move as most people have chided the Obama campaign time and time again for being largely negative.
But, of course, no political convention could be complete if there wasn't some speculation about potential presidential candidates for 2016. For the Democrats, they have a sizable playing field: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick are some of the most prominent and qualified. However, instead of giving narcissistic speeches for the campaign in coming years, they gave gracious speeches that were autobiographical in tone but supportive for Obama in heart. Unlike Christie, the keynoter for the RNC, whose speech rife with 2016 hints.
Although, that doesn't mean that the Democratic National Convention wasn't tact since it reaped the benefits from the oversights made in the RNC. For instance, the DNC are now unequivocally the party of gay rights. According to the Democrats, it's not about sexual orientation anymore. It's about "who you love," thereby spreading a much more positive issue that would render the topic of same-sex marriage as hard to refute. The Democrats seized and pounced on the opportunity to mention veterans and the troops fighting in Afghanistan, something that the Republicans didn't do at all. A military mom, Jill Biden gave a pleasant speech about her son in combat. Michelle Obama, whose speech was phenomenal, was introduced by a military mom as tribute to Obama and Biden's work for military families. Tammy Duckworth is now a Democratic Senatorial candidate who is placing military and veteran issues on the table.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
Indeed, we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of American life — whether it’s the salary you earn or the health decisions you make.
After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.
My first piece of advice is this: Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.
No woman’s signature graced the original document — although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers.
So think about what that means to a young Latina girl when she sees a Cabinet secretary that looks like her. (Applause.) Think about what it means to a young girl in Iowa when she sees a presidential candidate who looks like her. Think about what it means to a young girl walking in Harlem right down the street when she sees a U.N. ambassador who looks like her. Do not underestimate the power of your example.Those are just some of the things Obama said in his speech at Barnard. Now, for his speech at last week's Democratic Convention:
We believe the little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States, and it’s in our power to give her that chance.
If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void ... [like] Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves.
The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter, she gives me hope.Romney didn't have anything like this in his speech nor did any other speaker talk so candidly about advancing the rights of women. But, as Republicans are quick to point out, issues like women's rights "don't matter" since they're not as "important" as the economy. Well, the Republicans are not in the position to comment on the economy since they are, in fact, the party responsible for the calamity. Moreover, to dismiss women's issues is to dismiss issues that directly affect half of the US population. To say that prosperity only depends on finances is completely myopic and negligent. No longer do we live in a time where women's issues are contained in a box only to be opened when the debate is heated. Now, we live in a time where women's issues are everyone's issues.
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Grand Old Party
So, the end is nigh for the Republican National Convention. Today, they wrapped things up at the historic 40th nomination of the Republican presidential candidate and say goodbye to Tampa, Florida, hilariously nicknamed "The Big Guava." Exactly 2,286 delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates were present at the convention, mostly throwing their support behind the-now official Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. However, it wasn't a Republican convention without some thunder-stealing from the Ron Paul contingent, who voiced their dissatisfaction at the RNC for cancelling Paul's speech. A telling example of their vocal frustration was a sign fight between a Paul supporter and a Romney supporter during the roll call of the States.
But, back to the actual convention. The first day was impulsively thrown awash due to fears of then-Tropical Storm Isaac disrupting the convention and causing the previously mentioned cancellation of Paul's speech. Other speakers were likewise cut from the itinerary, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and reality TV star/entrepreneur/Birther Donald Trump.
The rest of the convention followed the structure of encompassing themes, most notably the Day 2 theme of "We Built It." This theme is in direct reference to remarks made by President Barack Obama, which many cite were taken out of context by the GOP. This theme, above others, is especially telling and problematic and unfortunately will be the theme everyone will remember the most once this political circus is over. By using this theme, the GOP are trying to convince everyone that they are the party of builders, builders like Mitt Romney. According to his wife Ann, he built his business, Bain Capital, and built it all by himself. Most of the convention, in fact, focused on Romney's role in Bain Capital and his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. There was but mere mentions of his tenure as Massachusetts Governor -- which was pretty disastrous.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech on Day 2, which was the keynote address. To put it bluntly: it had 2016 all over it. According to various news reports (I first heard it at CNN), Christie mentioned the word "I" 37 times and "Mitt Romney" 7 times. Lots of people hailed the speech as being a show-stomper, a spectacle, and pure, vintage Christie. But, there are a lot more critics then admirers. Christie's speech was overblown, pompous, and narcissistic. His speech did not sell Romney even in the slightest and was probably written to advance his own political career and standing within the Republican Party.
The third day was the big day for VP Pick Paul Ryan, who delivered a rousing speech that needed to be sorely fact-checked. I mean, the blatant lies and mistruths Ryan told in his speech were astronomical. Fact-checking websites and sources were going haywire with all the misleading claims Ryan made in one speech. Here are some of the most significant:
-Ryan claimed that Obama is responsible for a GM plant closing in Jainesville, Wisconsin. That plant closed in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.
-Decrying Obama for voting against the Bowles-Simpson commission when Ryan himself voted against it, too.
-Blaming Obama for the downgrading of the United States which was ultimately caused by the Republicans' stonewalling to raise the debt ceiling. Ryan, being a Republican Congressman, is partly to blame.
-Chiding Obama for the MediCare cuts that would add 8 years of solvency to the program when he himself is proposing the same cuts in his plan.
-Calling Obamacare "government-controlled health care."
-Criticizing the President for the stimulus package (which was actually successful) despite the fact that he accepted stimulus money to support his district.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention too on Wednesday night. In fact, she probably gave the best speech of the night since Ryan failed to capture the same excitement as Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin did 4 years ago. However, there were still major problems in her speech. She failed to address the wars the Bush Administration (the one she was a part of) started. And, failed to mention how Obama has ended and is currently ending both of the wars. An interesting thing to note is her message about America being the land of immigrants which was in direct contrast to the remarks made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made shortly before.* Rice was successful and many were abuzzing about the possibility of Rice running in 2016 or were mourning the fact that she wasn't the VP pick despite her capabilities.
Finally, tonight marked the close of the convention with Romney formally accepting the nomination for President of the United States. People associated with the Romney family (and the Romney church) gave truly touching anecdotes about how Romney consoled and helped them in their times of need. Olympic athletes came on stage to express how Romney's contributions to the 2002 Olympics were significant moments in their lives. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush gave a speech pleading for educational reform, where parents and students have "a choice." What was most telling about Bush's speech were his tributes to his grandfather, father, and brother, all of which had careers in public service, the latter two being Presidents. Bush said that "I love my brother" and that Obama should stop blaming him for the wrong turn of the economy. Furthermore, Bush said that his brother "kept the country safe." Both of those comments were completely incredulous. The Bush Tax Cuts, which had a big hand in causing America's downturn, still affects the American people even in 2012. Starting two wars also has tremendous cost (duh) which were never put on the books until now. Senator Marco Rubio gave a blistering speech about America being the "land of opportunity," where "dreams are impossible everywhere but America." But, before I get to discuss Romney's speech, I simply must talk about Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the mystery speaker. If you didn't catch it, you really should view it. It was spectacularly bad. Eastwood staged a mock interview with Obama, replete with a chair to which Eastwood would face and talk to. To put it simply, it was just weird. And, this is a problem from the Romney campaign. Odds are, more people will talk about Eastwood's bizarre behaviour then they will about Romney's speech.
Now, Romney's speech was replete with misleading claims and half-truths, just like his running mate. Romney didn't show that much exuberance, charisma, or candor to convince the average American person that he's right for the top job. And to emphasize my point, Romney failed to do this because the average American was probably too busy watching the TLC show, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." The only policies Romney provided are his 5-point economic plan which would allegedly "create 12 million jobs." However, Romney only gave the bullet points and didn't go into depth as to how exactly he would do that. He said he would make America energy independent again, but how? Presumably by drilling, of course. But, since America has exacerbated their oil wells, they'll probably have to settle for "tough oil" which lies miles below sea surface and was how the BP oil spill was caused. Romney said that he wants to give parents "a choice" for where their children study and learn. What does he mean by "choice," since we know he isn't pro-choice? Essentially, this means dismantling the public education system in America and replacing it with more private schools. Romney said he would protect the sanctity of life and honour the institution of marriage. Both Republican codes for no abortions, not even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and no recognition for same-sex marriages. For a complete dissection of Romney's speech, check out ThinkProgress's wonderful live-blog.
The Republican Convention could have had potential in giving Romney that sorely needed boost he's been pining for. They had great opportunities, especially this evening with the personal speeches. But, they lost it completely. The attention is now diverted away from Romney and his humanity to Eastwood and his incoherence. The Republicans are claiming that they are the party that can lead and restore America's greatness again. Well, if they can't even pull together a 4--no--3-day convention, then what chance does America have?
I'll close with a quote from the incomparable Paul Begala: "Seems like Republicans are as good at staging conventions then they are at winning wars."
*Information can be found here.
**In fact, there were many contradictions in the Republican National Convention in regards to rhetoric. Ann Romney stressed that she wanted to talk to the public about "love" whereas Christie stated that "we choose respect over love." Perhaps they did this on purpose to keep in line with the Romney flip-flopping tradition.
But, back to the actual convention. The first day was impulsively thrown awash due to fears of then-Tropical Storm Isaac disrupting the convention and causing the previously mentioned cancellation of Paul's speech. Other speakers were likewise cut from the itinerary, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and reality TV star/entrepreneur/Birther Donald Trump.
The rest of the convention followed the structure of encompassing themes, most notably the Day 2 theme of "We Built It." This theme is in direct reference to remarks made by President Barack Obama, which many cite were taken out of context by the GOP. This theme, above others, is especially telling and problematic and unfortunately will be the theme everyone will remember the most once this political circus is over. By using this theme, the GOP are trying to convince everyone that they are the party of builders, builders like Mitt Romney. According to his wife Ann, he built his business, Bain Capital, and built it all by himself. Most of the convention, in fact, focused on Romney's role in Bain Capital and his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. There was but mere mentions of his tenure as Massachusetts Governor -- which was pretty disastrous.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech on Day 2, which was the keynote address. To put it bluntly: it had 2016 all over it. According to various news reports (I first heard it at CNN), Christie mentioned the word "I" 37 times and "Mitt Romney" 7 times. Lots of people hailed the speech as being a show-stomper, a spectacle, and pure, vintage Christie. But, there are a lot more critics then admirers. Christie's speech was overblown, pompous, and narcissistic. His speech did not sell Romney even in the slightest and was probably written to advance his own political career and standing within the Republican Party.
The third day was the big day for VP Pick Paul Ryan, who delivered a rousing speech that needed to be sorely fact-checked. I mean, the blatant lies and mistruths Ryan told in his speech were astronomical. Fact-checking websites and sources were going haywire with all the misleading claims Ryan made in one speech. Here are some of the most significant:
-Ryan claimed that Obama is responsible for a GM plant closing in Jainesville, Wisconsin. That plant closed in 2007, when George W. Bush was president.
-Decrying Obama for voting against the Bowles-Simpson commission when Ryan himself voted against it, too.
-Blaming Obama for the downgrading of the United States which was ultimately caused by the Republicans' stonewalling to raise the debt ceiling. Ryan, being a Republican Congressman, is partly to blame.
-Chiding Obama for the MediCare cuts that would add 8 years of solvency to the program when he himself is proposing the same cuts in his plan.
-Calling Obamacare "government-controlled health care."
-Criticizing the President for the stimulus package (which was actually successful) despite the fact that he accepted stimulus money to support his district.
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention too on Wednesday night. In fact, she probably gave the best speech of the night since Ryan failed to capture the same excitement as Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin did 4 years ago. However, there were still major problems in her speech. She failed to address the wars the Bush Administration (the one she was a part of) started. And, failed to mention how Obama has ended and is currently ending both of the wars. An interesting thing to note is her message about America being the land of immigrants which was in direct contrast to the remarks made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made shortly before.* Rice was successful and many were abuzzing about the possibility of Rice running in 2016 or were mourning the fact that she wasn't the VP pick despite her capabilities.
Finally, tonight marked the close of the convention with Romney formally accepting the nomination for President of the United States. People associated with the Romney family (and the Romney church) gave truly touching anecdotes about how Romney consoled and helped them in their times of need. Olympic athletes came on stage to express how Romney's contributions to the 2002 Olympics were significant moments in their lives. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush gave a speech pleading for educational reform, where parents and students have "a choice." What was most telling about Bush's speech were his tributes to his grandfather, father, and brother, all of which had careers in public service, the latter two being Presidents. Bush said that "I love my brother" and that Obama should stop blaming him for the wrong turn of the economy. Furthermore, Bush said that his brother "kept the country safe." Both of those comments were completely incredulous. The Bush Tax Cuts, which had a big hand in causing America's downturn, still affects the American people even in 2012. Starting two wars also has tremendous cost (duh) which were never put on the books until now. Senator Marco Rubio gave a blistering speech about America being the "land of opportunity," where "dreams are impossible everywhere but America." But, before I get to discuss Romney's speech, I simply must talk about Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the mystery speaker. If you didn't catch it, you really should view it. It was spectacularly bad. Eastwood staged a mock interview with Obama, replete with a chair to which Eastwood would face and talk to. To put it simply, it was just weird. And, this is a problem from the Romney campaign. Odds are, more people will talk about Eastwood's bizarre behaviour then they will about Romney's speech.
Now, Romney's speech was replete with misleading claims and half-truths, just like his running mate. Romney didn't show that much exuberance, charisma, or candor to convince the average American person that he's right for the top job. And to emphasize my point, Romney failed to do this because the average American was probably too busy watching the TLC show, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." The only policies Romney provided are his 5-point economic plan which would allegedly "create 12 million jobs." However, Romney only gave the bullet points and didn't go into depth as to how exactly he would do that. He said he would make America energy independent again, but how? Presumably by drilling, of course. But, since America has exacerbated their oil wells, they'll probably have to settle for "tough oil" which lies miles below sea surface and was how the BP oil spill was caused. Romney said that he wants to give parents "a choice" for where their children study and learn. What does he mean by "choice," since we know he isn't pro-choice? Essentially, this means dismantling the public education system in America and replacing it with more private schools. Romney said he would protect the sanctity of life and honour the institution of marriage. Both Republican codes for no abortions, not even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and no recognition for same-sex marriages. For a complete dissection of Romney's speech, check out ThinkProgress's wonderful live-blog.
The Republican Convention could have had potential in giving Romney that sorely needed boost he's been pining for. They had great opportunities, especially this evening with the personal speeches. But, they lost it completely. The attention is now diverted away from Romney and his humanity to Eastwood and his incoherence. The Republicans are claiming that they are the party that can lead and restore America's greatness again. Well, if they can't even pull together a 4--no--3-day convention, then what chance does America have?
I'll close with a quote from the incomparable Paul Begala: "Seems like Republicans are as good at staging conventions then they are at winning wars."
*Information can be found here.
**In fact, there were many contradictions in the Republican National Convention in regards to rhetoric. Ann Romney stressed that she wanted to talk to the public about "love" whereas Christie stated that "we choose respect over love." Perhaps they did this on purpose to keep in line with the Romney flip-flopping tradition.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Destroying Things Is Much Easier Than Making Them
Current affairs magazines are probably the most widely-sought after publications for lengthy political commentary and interesting viewpoints from engaging and familiar columnists. One of the most interesting -- and probably the most palatable -- features of the magazine happens to be the magazine cover. Throughout this election season, there have been great magazine covers depicting the race as a physical aggression between foes. Popular magazines such as The Atlantic and Newsweek have given their own interpretation of the blood-thirsty competition that is the Presidential Election.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
This year, both Newsweek and The Atlantic took the political race, either the Republican primaries or the general election, and turned it into a vicious battle between enemies and translated it onto their covers. In a way, this is perfect.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Chain Game
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden remarked that the GOP will soon usher the American people back in chains during a rally in Virginia. The exact words Biden used to convey this idea to a mostly African-American audience was, "Unchain Wall Street. They're gonna put y'all back in chains." Now, if you haven't see the video, it's available here.
Soon after, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who is African-American, said that Biden's comments were offensive since he used the word 'y'all,' commonly used in Ebonics therefore referring to strictly the African-Americans, and by evoking slavery with the use of 'chains.' Republicans have decried Biden for this remark, demanding an apology at this instant. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum hilariously gave his own take on State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the transcript from this week's show in which Santorum breaks down Biden's comments:
First, isn't Santorum the same person who said he didn't want to make black people's lives better? So, Santorum is easily the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. Second, Santorum cited the overall tone of the election campaign this year. While I admit it is pretty nasty, it is nasty on both sides -- not just President Barack Obama's campaign and not just Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A shining example of Romney's equal guilt in souring the campaign would be his completely false attack on Obama claiming he will end the work requirement for welfare. Moreover, Romney has said that Obama's heart is "full of hate." Now, that's as nasty as they come. And lastly, Biden did not play the race card.
Biden here referred to the GOP's plan to "unshackle" the free market and businesses everywhere in America. What Biden was implying was that the exact opposite will happen to ordinary Americans if Romney becomes President: that Americans will be shackled, that they will be restricted, and that they will be in chains.*
The popular Republican talking point on this issue -- or any issue when race becomes involved in the rhetoric of a Democratic politician -- was that if it was a Republican making this issue, the Democrats would be equally as livid and would demand the same apology. But, the thing is, when the Republicans make comments about race, there is a reason to believe that they are, in fact, racist or discriminatory. And that's because actions speak louder than words.
To wit, here are some of the things that Republicans plan to do either vis-a-vis the party's representatives in congress or the platforms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
-Suppressing votes by making picture identification mandatory which would affect the African-American population in certain swing states like Florida thereby reducing Obama's chances to win.
- Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's proposal to gut Food Stamps which assist close to 22% of African-Americans
- Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act pejoratively called 'Obamacare' which would severely affect the Black community as close to 50% of the uninsured are African-American or Latino.
- Ryan and Romney's plan to end Medicare thereby exacerbating medical costs for Black seniors which, according to an article in The Grio, could be "deadly."**
And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how the Republicans' policy negatively affect the African-American community.
So, when Democrats -- who oppose all of these proposals, by the way -- make a comment that people construe as "racial," it's not, in fact, racist because their policy easily undergird their beliefs in equality among all races. But, when Republicans make the same comment, it's easier to believe that they want to oppress minorities and make it harder for them academically and financially. And that is because actions, like policy, speak louder than words.
*To be honest, when I first heard Biden's comments, I thought he was referencing the famous lines written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Given with the Republican's platform to debilitate the working and middle class by their outrageous proposals to gut Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans thereby shifting the costs onto ordinary Americans all while under the guise of preserving "liberty" and "freedom," you couldn't blame me for making this assumption.
**Information to compile this concise list can be found here, here, here, and here.
Soon after, former Democratic Governor of Virginia Doug Wilder, who is African-American, said that Biden's comments were offensive since he used the word 'y'all,' commonly used in Ebonics therefore referring to strictly the African-Americans, and by evoking slavery with the use of 'chains.' Republicans have decried Biden for this remark, demanding an apology at this instant. Former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum hilariously gave his own take on State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday. Here is an excerpt from the transcript from this week's show in which Santorum breaks down Biden's comments:
RICK SANTORUM: It's one thing to go out and attack Governor Romney's record. Fair game, go for it. But to go out and do what he's doing as far as dividing this country, and he is. And it's class warfare at its worst, and then you saw Vice President Biden, you know, play the race card in Virginia. This...
[JIM] ACOSTA: Did he play the race card?
SANTORUM: There's no -- y'all? I mean, y'all is y'all. And when you are in a group, I have been in groups like that, and you know, it is very easy when you are in a group of people that, you know, when you are in a south or in up in different areas of the country and different groups of people, and you develop an affinity with the group that you are speaking in front of, that is what president -- Vice President Obama was doing. He was trying to develop that affinity and he did so in a very horrendous way. And he should apologize for it, but it is exactly the tone of this campaign. Governor Romney is like any other candidate, you want to go after my record, you want to go after things I've said and done, fine. That's not what he's -- that's not the complaint of the Romney campaign. The complaint -- the legitimate complaint is that President Obama is dividing this country to try to win this election.I have to take issue with a number of things Santorum is saying here.
First, isn't Santorum the same person who said he didn't want to make black people's lives better? So, Santorum is easily the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. Second, Santorum cited the overall tone of the election campaign this year. While I admit it is pretty nasty, it is nasty on both sides -- not just President Barack Obama's campaign and not just Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. A shining example of Romney's equal guilt in souring the campaign would be his completely false attack on Obama claiming he will end the work requirement for welfare. Moreover, Romney has said that Obama's heart is "full of hate." Now, that's as nasty as they come. And lastly, Biden did not play the race card.
Biden here referred to the GOP's plan to "unshackle" the free market and businesses everywhere in America. What Biden was implying was that the exact opposite will happen to ordinary Americans if Romney becomes President: that Americans will be shackled, that they will be restricted, and that they will be in chains.*
The popular Republican talking point on this issue -- or any issue when race becomes involved in the rhetoric of a Democratic politician -- was that if it was a Republican making this issue, the Democrats would be equally as livid and would demand the same apology. But, the thing is, when the Republicans make comments about race, there is a reason to believe that they are, in fact, racist or discriminatory. And that's because actions speak louder than words.
To wit, here are some of the things that Republicans plan to do either vis-a-vis the party's representatives in congress or the platforms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
-Suppressing votes by making picture identification mandatory which would affect the African-American population in certain swing states like Florida thereby reducing Obama's chances to win.
- Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's proposal to gut Food Stamps which assist close to 22% of African-Americans
- Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act pejoratively called 'Obamacare' which would severely affect the Black community as close to 50% of the uninsured are African-American or Latino.
- Ryan and Romney's plan to end Medicare thereby exacerbating medical costs for Black seniors which, according to an article in The Grio, could be "deadly."**
And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how the Republicans' policy negatively affect the African-American community.
So, when Democrats -- who oppose all of these proposals, by the way -- make a comment that people construe as "racial," it's not, in fact, racist because their policy easily undergird their beliefs in equality among all races. But, when Republicans make the same comment, it's easier to believe that they want to oppress minorities and make it harder for them academically and financially. And that is because actions, like policy, speak louder than words.
*To be honest, when I first heard Biden's comments, I thought he was referencing the famous lines written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Given with the Republican's platform to debilitate the working and middle class by their outrageous proposals to gut Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans thereby shifting the costs onto ordinary Americans all while under the guise of preserving "liberty" and "freedom," you couldn't blame me for making this assumption.
**Information to compile this concise list can be found here, here, here, and here.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Akin to Disgust
Republican Representative Todd Akin said some pretty heinous comments over the weekend regarding rape. I mean, they were downright false and insulting to women everywhere. For those of you unaware, here are all the things wrong with Todd Akin's comments:
1. The female body does not secrete a substance or withhold fertilization or somehow stop eggs from producing when faced with rape.
2. Akin said in cases of "legitimate rape." Then, what constitutes as illegitimate rape? When she actually becomes pregnant, according to Akin's pretzel logic? When she is drugged? When she is unconscious? When she is a minor?
3. That abortion should not be granted to rape victims, period. Although, this is pretty much the common sentiment among the GOP, including Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
4. That Akin is a man who thinks he knows better than women as to the decisions she should make when faced with the awful trauma of rape.
I could go on and on about how Akin is just fundamentally wrong.* I could also elucidate on the Republican agenda on abortion and reproductive rights. But, instead, I want to focus on Akin's response to this whole debacle which is his decision to stay in the race for the Senate seat in Missouri against incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. She is, in fact, fighting for him to stay despite members of his own party -- like Republican National Committee President Reince Priebus -- to drop out. This is a shrewd move by her, but a logical one. By fighting for Akin to stay in, she ultimately wins. Voters are then confronted by the choice of the incumbent -- who usually has a greater chance of winning anyways -- and a crazy Republican who believes in different forms of rape. McCaskill wins and she continues to help President Barack Obama and the Democrats.
I'm siding with McCaskill, here. He should stay in. When he apologized for his comments, he merely apologized for the words he said not for the position he holds. So, of course, if Akin truly believes in these ideas of "legitimate rape" and the female body's ability to stop fertilization when raped, he should still be in and let voters decide what they want. And, if voters in Missouri decide they want to cast their ballot for Akin over McCaskill, then that would prove two things:
1. That Akin is emblematic of the mainstream Republican party and that there are no more moderate Republicans left in the fold since people are now demanding for the extreme and vitriolic.
And 2. That America is in serious, serious trouble.
*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.
*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
We're Not Going to Take It Anymore
The American election has taken a nasty turn, focusing on personal attacks, harsh -- and sometimes inaccurate -- advertisements decrying the other candidate. What was once a campaign of 'Hope' and 'Change' now is something else entirely for President Barack Obama. However, is Obama's new direction necessarily a bad thing?
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Since 2000, when Al Gore ran for President, the Democrats have been the soft party, not boasting any of their achievements nor emphasizing the flaws of their opponents, the Republicans. A good example of this was when the Affordable Care Act first got passed in 2010 and there was speculation among liberals as to whether or not the Democrats will boast and pride over this accomplishment. One instance in which liberals did boast was the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to which critics say that Obama "spiked the football." They've also been the party who just passively took false attacks without a second thought (eg. accusing John Kerry of being a war-dodger during the Vietnam War and all of the heinous attacks on Obama accusing him of being, to wit: a Muslim, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a fascist, un-American, un-Christian, and the Anti-Christ).
As previously mentioned, both campaigns have placed the negative attacks at the forefront of the election so far. Recently, an Obama SuperPAC released an ad showing a widowed husband, mourning the loss of his wife, whose illness was exacerbated by lack of health insurance after the husband got laid off from his job. Now, why did he get laid off? Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his company Bain Capital took over the business he worked for and forced the company into bankruptcy, with sizeable profits going to Romney's pocket. Critics said that the ad implies that Romney killed the man's wife.
The criticism around this ad is mostly absurd. First, the ad was not released by Obama or his campaign, but a SuperPAC whose money gives those running the PAC agency to say whatever they want. Obama did not say "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" at the end. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose campaign released an egregious advertisement stating that Obama would end work requirements for welfare and would oppose the "Welfare to Work" program in the United States. This is just plain false. Second, the advertisement isn't on TV and those on Obama's campaign, including Chief Strategist David Axelrod, don't think that the Romney killed the man's wife. And, that's because he didn't. What the ad does show is the kind of vulture capitalism that goes on in America -- that large corporations seize small, faltering businesses all to make a buck at the expense of others. That's it. Lastly -- and this is my biggest criticism -- this ad and other attack ads from the Obama campaign or SuperPACs do not even come close to the criticism hurled at Obama during this campaign, the 2008 campaign, and everything in between. For once, the Democrats are not going to "curl up in the fetus position and take it" anymore, as famously said by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
The Democrats are finally playing tit for tat. And, I salute them for it.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Give me an R!
This morning, at 8:45 a.m., in a small, dreary town in Virginia, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney finally announced what nobody was really excited for -- well, except for Republicans who actually like Mitt Romney, but that's a small number at best. He announced his Vice President candidate, his second half of the Republican ticket, his number 2.
Names from different factions of the Republican Party flew around: Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, Rob Portman, and even Condoleeza Rice. But, of course, the ultimate decision for Romney and co. was to pick someone with gravitas, with impact, and with candor. Someone who would energize the base, excite the Tea Party, and help Romney defeat President Barack Obama come November.
Apparently, the GOP thought this person was none other than Paul Ryan.
Don't get me wrong, Paul Ryan is an interesting choice. He's 42 -- the same age as Mitt Romney's eldest son. He has a sterling record from the Conservative base (to contextualize this issue, he was elected as "Biggest Brown-Nose" by his high school class in 1988). Most importantly, his budget plan has catapulted Ryan as a major star in the GOP, someone to definitely keep an eye on. Now, Romney's support of the Ryan plan -- which is a complete gutting of Medicare, debilitating the poorest Americans, compounded with the biggest tax cuts for the richest Americans -- is even more salient, since it now becomes the Romney Plan.
If it wasn't already obvious before, Romney's VP choice shows he is not concerned about the very poor.
Below is a short reading list of what you need to know about Paul Ryan, including a notable, longread profile on him in The New Yorker by all-around awesome writer Ryan Lizza.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all Ryan Lizza's profile on Paul Ryan. This is probably the definitive account of Ryan's career and influence on the GOP out there.
http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/ Another longread in New York Magazine about Paul Ryan and his status as a GOP superstar.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-labor-unions-wisconsin Mother Jones here speculates on whether or not Ryan is a "secret union lover," a claim I wouldn't be totally surprised over, frankly.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-adult-budget Another interesting piece in Mother Jones about Ryan's budget plan and its "reverse-Robin Hood" tactic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/michael-tomasky-on-romney-s-stunning-terrible-choice-of-ryan-for-vp.html An article in the Daily Beast as to why Ryan's selection for VP may be the extra edge for the Obama campaign. I agree with the premise that Ryan's presence on the campaign could seriously inhibit any popularity for Romney considering that the Obama campaign will flesh out his budget proposal as much as humanly possible.
http://prospect.org/article/paul-ryan-obamas-dream-opponent And, another article in The American Prospect explaining all the benefits the Obama campaign can reap from Romney's VP selection.
For now, we'll have to wait and see what Ryan's inclusion into the Presidential fold may mean for both Romney and Obama. Who knows? He may shock everyone and give an impressive and strong debate performance as well as smooth interviews.
But, based on Ryan's and Romney's announcement speech, to which Romney mistakenly referred to Ryan as "the next President," it doesn't seem too likely.
Since the beginning of the summer, there has been much speculation as to who this could be, mostly because it was hard thinking of people who would mesh well with Mitt Romney. Moreover, the Republican Party seemed to handle the Veepstakes a little more seriously this time around and allowed for careful and thorough vetting. There was no way that the GOP were going to make another Palin blunder.
Names from different factions of the Republican Party flew around: Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, Rob Portman, and even Condoleeza Rice. But, of course, the ultimate decision for Romney and co. was to pick someone with gravitas, with impact, and with candor. Someone who would energize the base, excite the Tea Party, and help Romney defeat President Barack Obama come November.
Apparently, the GOP thought this person was none other than Paul Ryan.
Don't get me wrong, Paul Ryan is an interesting choice. He's 42 -- the same age as Mitt Romney's eldest son. He has a sterling record from the Conservative base (to contextualize this issue, he was elected as "Biggest Brown-Nose" by his high school class in 1988). Most importantly, his budget plan has catapulted Ryan as a major star in the GOP, someone to definitely keep an eye on. Now, Romney's support of the Ryan plan -- which is a complete gutting of Medicare, debilitating the poorest Americans, compounded with the biggest tax cuts for the richest Americans -- is even more salient, since it now becomes the Romney Plan.
If it wasn't already obvious before, Romney's VP choice shows he is not concerned about the very poor.
Below is a short reading list of what you need to know about Paul Ryan, including a notable, longread profile on him in The New Yorker by all-around awesome writer Ryan Lizza.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all Ryan Lizza's profile on Paul Ryan. This is probably the definitive account of Ryan's career and influence on the GOP out there.
http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/ Another longread in New York Magazine about Paul Ryan and his status as a GOP superstar.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-labor-unions-wisconsin Mother Jones here speculates on whether or not Ryan is a "secret union lover," a claim I wouldn't be totally surprised over, frankly.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/paul-ryan-adult-budget Another interesting piece in Mother Jones about Ryan's budget plan and its "reverse-Robin Hood" tactic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/michael-tomasky-on-romney-s-stunning-terrible-choice-of-ryan-for-vp.html An article in the Daily Beast as to why Ryan's selection for VP may be the extra edge for the Obama campaign. I agree with the premise that Ryan's presence on the campaign could seriously inhibit any popularity for Romney considering that the Obama campaign will flesh out his budget proposal as much as humanly possible.
http://prospect.org/article/paul-ryan-obamas-dream-opponent And, another article in The American Prospect explaining all the benefits the Obama campaign can reap from Romney's VP selection.
For now, we'll have to wait and see what Ryan's inclusion into the Presidential fold may mean for both Romney and Obama. Who knows? He may shock everyone and give an impressive and strong debate performance as well as smooth interviews.
But, based on Ryan's and Romney's announcement speech, to which Romney mistakenly referred to Ryan as "the next President," it doesn't seem too likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)