Temporary Hiatus
October 23, 2011 Leave a comment
2028blog will be on an indefinite hiatus. Thanks for reading and hopefully we’ll be back soon.
Trouble for Dems in NY and NV
September 14, 2011 Leave a comment
Republican Bob Turner
Yesterday proved to be troublesome for Democrats in two special House elections. In New York, the seat vacated by scandal-plagued Anthony Weiner was filled by Republican Bob Turner. He defeated Democrat David Weprin by a margin of 54%-46%. This is the first time a Republican has won in the NY-9 since 1922 and it spells trouble for Democrats on several levels.
One, it shows the country that upstate New Yorkers are largely no longer upset with Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare. Back in May, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican challenger Jane Corwin in a NY Senate race — many said she won because of New York’s aversion to Paul Ryan’s plan. But now Turner has won in the same area, and I think this means those in NY-9 are not as concerned with Republican plans for entitlements. Two, it exposes a weakness of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s — he campaigned hard for Weprin and was vastly unsuccessful. Is he losing grasp on the state?
This election, and the one in Nevada, might also mean that President Obama is truly lagging in popularity in regions he once carried. The Nevada special election pitted Republican Mark Amodei against Democrat Kate Marshall, with Amodei winning. This election wasn’t as influential because Amodei is replacing another Republican. Overall, Republicans gained one seat in an already Republican-dominated House.
What do you think? Are these two special elections a big deal? Does it begin to spell defeat for Democrats in the 2012 elections? Time will tell.
Comparing ObamaCare and RomneyCare
September 12, 2011 Leave a comment
There’s been a lot of talk (especially with the Republican debates of late) about the similarities between the Affordable Care Act and the Massachusetts health care law. Here is a quick chart comparing the major parts of the two pieces of legislation.
The Past Few Days
September 3, 2011 Leave a comment
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL)
A couple comments on some stuff that happened in the past couple of days. Firstly, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) called President Barack Obama “idiotic” while referring to the president’s upcoming jobs speech to a joint session of Congress. This lack of respect is unbelievable and offensive in my opinion. Rep. Walsh is also being incredibly divisive by refusing to attend the speech, saying “This is a political exercise. This is political theater.” What Walsh is not realizing is that his choice to not attend is not a statement, it is not a noble gesture for the GOP. It is simply divisive, antagonizing and disrespectful. It is essentially drawing attention to the stubbornness of Congress and the lack of unity. Rep. Walsh also said:
The president needs to stop the speeches, get out of his office and away from all the White House academics and start talking to real people out there. They’re the ones who are going to create the jobs, not White House paper-pushers and bureaucrats.
Does he know that the president recently returned from a three day trip through the midwest? The president talked to those “real people out there” for three days, holding town hall meetings and question and answer sessions.
In other news, the White House announced that it would temporarily abandon efforts to reduce smog in the U.S. with new ozone pollution regulations. That, along with the Keystone XL pipeline go-ahead, has left many people wondering where the Obama administration stands on environmental issues going into the next election. I think the decision to abandon the new EPA standards was a poor choice; some reports say the regulations could have prevented about 12,000 premature child deaths a year. The oil pipeline does nothing but strengthen our dependance on oil and disrupts wildlife and farm land across the American midwest. If the president wants to stand for the environment then he should. If he’s not going to, then don’t pretend to.
I Want a Tough Leader
September 1, 2011 2 Comments
2028blog is back for the time being, and here is my first post.
I want my president to be tough. I want my president to be someone who stands up for his or her country on the international scene and does not take no for an answer. Right now I feel like that is not the kind of president we have.
I agree with Barack Obama on almost every dimension of politics, foreign and domestic. There is no doubt about this. I think he truly loves the United States and hopes for it to prosper; one cannot take those who decry Obama’s patriotism seriously. But I do have a problem with the way he conducts his political and diplomatic proceedings.
I’ve been in a state of denial in regard to Obama’s leadership of late. I did not want to concede that he has been performing weakly on the national and international stage. But events in the past few months have lead me to believe that the president is being a wimp, and it’s really killing me.
For example, why were we not intervening in Libya the minute we knew civil rights had been violated? Why are we now not stepping into Syria and ending the violence perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad against his own people? Why is the region of Darfur still dominated by war lords who slaughter innocent Sudanese women and children? If we are going to be a super power then we need to be strong and act like it.
This is not to say that President Obama does not care about the rights of other countries or that he wishes to ignore his role as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. I think he is a great man with a great vision for the country. He simply needs to step up and take the reins. On the domestic scene, the president completely surrendered to Republicans on the issue of the debt ceiling. He let them have their way when it came to cuts and budget balancing. Why did he not fight for Democratic values? Why did he cave so readily to Republican demands?
Yesterday the president requested an appearance in front of a joint session of Congress to discuss the economic crisis and how he plans to create jobs and rebuild the economy. House Speaker John Boehner said that Congress would not be back from recess to hear the president by next Wednesday, and he countered that Obama deliver his address the next day. President Obama capitulated and agreed to the Thursday request by Boehner. This is not how it should have worked. This economy is in the trash and Obama should have said You know what Speaker Boehner? How about you tell the Congress to get their asses back to Washington a day early so they can hear their president speak. How’s that sound?
This is what I want. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry seems to fit the mold of a tough president. He heralds himself as a go-getter, ready to take on Washington and lead America into a new age of power and victory. But I also want my leader to be smart. Sure, Perry may be “tough as nails” and may be licensed to carry a concealed weapon, but he doesn’t have the intellect I think is essential in a president. President Obama does, he just needs to become tougher as a leader. Words don’t always work. Hope doesn’t always lead a country. Let’s get tough on issues and be the super power we really are.
2028blog on Hiatus
June 3, 2011 Leave a comment
Due to my summer job, 2028blog will be on hiatus from now until August. But don’t worry, we’ll be back in the fall! Keep spreading 2028blog to your friends and family, and don’t forget to comment and discuss.
The Embarrassment That Is Paul LePage
June 2, 2011 Leave a comment
Maine Governor Paul LePage (R)
Paul LePage is an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment to the citizens of Maine, an embarrassment to the 39% of voters who cast a ballot for him, and an embarrassment to the national Republican party. So far, not so good.
Governor LePage’s approval rating shows how Mainers feel about him; in March it stood at 43%; in early May, 39%; and just last week, 31%. The man is tanking as we speak, and for good reasons.
First, LePage told campaign supporters that were he to be elected, “[they could] expect to see newspaper headlines stating, ‘LePage Tells Obama to Go to Hell.’” Then he told the Maine NAACP to “kiss [his] butt.” What a classy move, and it’s exactly how I want my governor to be remembered by the nation! But that’s not all: in February 2011, LePage spoke on a local TV news program saying he hoped to repeal the Maine ban of Bisphenol A (a dangerous chemical used in plastic bottles, etc.) because “There hasn’t been any science that identifies that there is a problem” and added: “The only thing that I’ve heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards….and we don’t want that.”
Paul LePage proved himself to be a panderer and nepotist when he appointed his 22-year-old daughter as assistant to his chief of staff — a position with an annual salary of approximately $41,000, and employee benefits worth an additional $15,000. While residing in the governor’s mansion, the Blaine House, she also receives a housing benefit with an estimated value of $10,000 per year.
This man is a joke! I cannot believe the things he is saying and doing. All I know is his comments and actions are not fit for a head of state. There is a reason why 61% of the state did not vote for him.
LePage continually shows that he is not an effective governor and is essentially ruining hard work done by previous Maine governors to make the state as great as it is. He supports the school voucher system (which undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the public school system), is an advocate for opening up the northern Maine wilderness (a valuable tourism asset) to development, and wishes to make it much harder for citizens to enroll in Maine’s Medicaid program (MaineCare).
LePage’s “tax cut” plan is laughable at best. Maine families earning $20,526 to $35,269 in 2013 will see an average tax break of $70 – for the year. Maine families earning $356,608 or more in 2013 will see an average tax break of $2,905. How does that make any sense?
Just last week the governor supported a bill, LD 1376, brought forth by Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers. This bill would make same day voter registration illegal in Maine. For me, someone who is a staunch proponent of voting rights, this bill is an infringement upon civil rights and a move toward voter disenfranchisement. It will do nothing but hinder Mainers from voting! And I bet I know why he’s doing it: young people register late and often on the same day. And young people register Democratic most of the time.
Governor LePage is also a strong proponent for fully defunding the Maine Public Broadcasting Network, a nonpartisan news and culture radio network. Does he realize how stupid that is? Public radio is essential to rural families — a good deal of Maine is made up of rural and farming communities. On the topic of same sex marriage, LePage is against making it legal, and said the following about transgender students in grades K-12:
I do not understand how people, at least sane people, would want to allow transgender in our primary schools and our high schools.
What a derogatory and bigoted statement. He went further to say that the Maine Human Rights Act needs to be reformed in regard to the provision on citizen sexual orientation:
I think it’s absolutely insane, I think it’s gone too far and we have to push back. As governor, I would never allow that to be signed into law.
The bottom line is, this man is a national embarrassment. He makes Republicans across the country look bad and makes Maine look pathetic for electing him. I haven’t even covered all his misdoings — and there are more to come for sure.
On the Distribution of Wealth (or GPA…)
May 24, 2011 7 Comments
I’m sure many of you have seen this YouTube video by ExposingLeftists.com which shows Exposing Leftists workers asking college students if they would sign a petition to redistribute GPA scores to other students who are at risk of not passing. The video’s subtitles say that Democrats are pushing higher tax rates on the top earners in America, and that this tax and subsequent redistribution is unfair and unjust. In order to prove their point, they want to redistribute GPA scores, asserting that this is a fair analogy. Although I see the point of their argument, I really don’t think the analogy is a good one.
First of all, for the most part everyone has an equal shot at a good GPA. This isn’t to say that the quality of education is the same, but that due to our immense public education system almost everyone has a fair chance at earning high grades. Once you get to school it is up to the student to decide how hard he or she is going to work. If they mess up and slack off, it’s their fault. If they work hard and do well, earning a high GPA, it is because of their diligence and perseverance. Redistributing GPAs is unfair because those who have them certainly earned them, and those who don’t most likely were lazy or apathetic. It’s not the same as income.
Not everyone has an equal chance at earning a high income — there are so many more extraneous factors relating to income than for GPA. Some people can’t work because of the economic situation in their region, or because they were fired due to discrimination. These are just two simple examples. Employment is not like schooling — there is no “public jobs” like there is “public school.” Every student in America has the chance to earn a good GPA in a public school; not every citizen in America has the same shot at earning a high income. Therefore, the income SHOULD be distributed and SHOULD be taxed higher, because not everyone has that chance to earn a lot of money.
This is why it IS fair to redistribute wealth and is NOT fair to redistribute grades. You can’t redistribute GPA to poorly performing students because the overwhelming chance is that they were just too lazy to earn their own good grades. It is much more fair to deal out wealth because those who need it most likely didn’t have a good opportunity to earn a high income. The differences between GPA and income are that GPA isn’t inherited, GPA disparity doesn’t lead to crime, and GPA isn’t taxed. The analogy by ExposingLeftists.com is intriguing and well thought out, but it’s not a good one. GPA and income are not comparable in this situation.
The 2012 GOP Field — Thusfar
May 22, 2011 4 Comments
Potential 2012 GOP candidates. Pictured, from left to right, are Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty.
As of today, the 2012 Republicans who have officially declared their candidacy for president are Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty (who announced this afternoon via YouTube). We are waiting for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and John Huntsman to announce a yes or no, but Romney is almost definitely going to run. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are still maybes, but they have declined to indicate their position. Unfortunately for Republicans, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels decided not to run yesterday, signaling the loss of another strong potential candidate (the other being Mike Huckabee).
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is off to an especially poor start, having to extinguish campaign fires left and right. First he criticizes Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Medicare plan, then POLITICO discovers that Gingrich ran up quite a tab at Tiffany’s Jewelers a few years back after claiming to be a strong fiscal conservative. Not the ideal beginning to what Gingrich claims will be the “most consequential election since the 1860 race that elected Abraham Lincoln to the White House.” I really don’t think Gingrich stands a chance at winning the primary, or even winning a single state. His extramarital affairs coupled with his shouldering the blame for the 1994 government shutdown both work against him in tremendous ways. Don’t expect Newt to make much of a showing come primary time. But who knows, anything could happen.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is and forever will be the Libertarian Ronald Reagan. He is not afraid in the least to spit out radical reform ideas (abolish the Federal Reserve, allow gold and silver to be used as true currency) and he seems to run every four years. There is no doubt Paul has a strong following, but it is simply not large enough to garner him a win in any state (he won no states in the 2008 primary).
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is quite a candidate. He has run sixteen marathons and climbed Mt. Everest. One could say he is “fit” to be president! One of his signature campaign issues is the legalization of marijuana. Here is one area in which Johnson and I agree. He thinks we should legalize it (above a certain age), regulate it and tax it, seeing as pot is one of America’s largest cash crops. And I agree with him! But unfortunately for Johnson, he does not have the name recognition or the typical conservative background to do well in the primaries. Don’t expect him to win any delegates on Super Tuesday.
Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, pleasantly surprised me during the North Carolina Republican debate. He spoke fluidly about taxes and foreign policy and I think he impressed a lot of people. Conservatives are also attracted to his business experience and lack of experience in Washington — he is “untainted” by insider politics. But Cain, like Johnson, does not have name recognition. And we can be sure that Cain will not be nominated simply because America is probably not prepared to have two African Americans running against each other for president. Wouldn’t that be something else?
I am most intrigued by Tim Pawlenty. The former Minnesota governor is a very strong candidate and I think the nomination will come down to him and Mitt Romney. Some say Pawlenty is dry and boring but I disagree; the man has released some really stinging videos in support of his campaign, the latest being an official announcement of his candidacy. I am really impressed by Pawlenty’s blue collar background and his dedication to restoring the economy. He is also really not afraid to criticize Barack Obama on anything from the economy to foreign policy. Tim Pawlenty is helped immensely by Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels not running, but he could run into some trouble if Michele Bachmann were to run. Pawlenty would be relying on carrying the midwest, and Bachmann (also from Minnesota) could act as an obstacle. I think Pawlenty can win this primary, but it won’t be easy getting past Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are both expected to announce in the next few days. Romney is probably the Republican frontrunner in this race (despite his relationship with Obamacare/Romneycare) and will be battling with Tim Pawlenty. Santorum is strong but has been quiet in the past few weeks. He seemed to do well at the North Carolina debate, but he does face problems with winning his own state of Pennsylvania (he lost a Senate reelection bid there in 2006). Huntsman is an interesting candidate as well. But, he seriously lacks name recognition and faces two problems: one, he worked for President Obama until about 2 months ago, and he was quoted as originally supporting the president’s health care reform law. And Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, could contest the state against Mitt Romney (who should win it with the Mormon vote). I think everyone can agree that this Republican primary field is the weakest in a number of years, and the GOP needs to seriously charge up the campaigns for 2012.
My Take on President Obama’s Statements on Israel and Palestine
May 20, 2011 Leave a comment
There has been a lot of discussion amongst politicians, talking heads and concerned citizens about the Israel-Palestine portion of President Obama’s Middle East speech yesterday. What does it mean for peace negotiations? Is the president anti-Israel like so many people insinuate? Is there going to be some major back lash? Here are my thoughts:
Some background
Here is what I understand to be the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (this is the “For Dummies” version): Jews and Arabs lived amongst each other in the land now recognized as Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza strip and parts of Jordan and Syria. Over time, the Jews were forced out or left, and sometime around the 1900s they began to return, seeking a Jewish homeland. The largest instance of immigration back to Israel was right after the Holocaust. But by this time the Palestinians were already firmly seated in the area and did not appreciate the mass influx of Jews into the area. The British authority was vanquished from the area and the new Israeli people declared the area as their homeland. The UN eventually voted on this measure, granting the Jewish people a state (now called Israel) and giving the Palestinians an equal sized piece of land. Over time, the Palestinians left the area until their only territory consisted of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Now what happens?
President Obama called for the beginning of peace talks between Israel and Palestine. He suggested that the United States endorses the pre-1967 border lines in Israel and Palestine, with some small parcels of land swapped here and there. That would look something like this:
The Israeli land is in white and the Palestinian land is in green. These are the boundaries promised by the UN in 1967. I really don’t see anything wrong with this. Palestine has agreed that this is a great place to start and it seems as though only Israel is angry about the proposal. Of course I can see why, they would be losing access to holy places in the West Bank, and they would have to move a number of settlements. But the point of this is to achieve peace; isn’t this the beginning?
Some may say that the 1967 borders will simply increase attacks on Israel. But all the Palestinian government desires is to have the 1967 borders, so theoretically wouldn’t the attacks lessen? Of course we cannot expect all terrorists to cease and desist all terrorizing acts, but at least it is a start. This conflict has been going on for decades, isn’t it time to try to work out a solution? I think the President has proposed a beginning to peace talks and should be commended.
President Obama really backed Prime Minister Netanyahu into a corner on this one. But maybe this is what we needed; now the two states (Israel and Palestine) have no choice but to talk. Call it a swift kick in the butt by Obama. There is no denying that Hamas is a major player in these talks, but President Obama made it clear that Palestine and Israel would have to work hard to deal with Hamas rationally. Israel is not thrilled about Obama’s calls for the 1967 border, but a compromise works as such: it means each side wins some and each side loses some. It is time for people to make sacrifices and work out a peaceful solution.
Another problem for Israel is that they would have to move a number of settlements from the West Bank. But the United States has been telling Israel to cease placing settlements and it has not happened. If moving from there means the beginning of peace talks, it is worth it.
President Obama is “anti-Israel”?
I think not. Obama said in his speech that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is “unshakeable” and Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that “there is an overall direction that we wish to work together to pursue a real genuine peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.” I think one of the primary reasons Republicans are calling the president “anti-Israeli” is because the 2012 election is right around the corner. This speech is the perfect opportunity for Republican presidential hopefuls to jump on the president and make him look weak on Israel. Republicans can also support Israel and look good to Jewish voters in Florida. This is not meant to seem insensitive, but I think it is really a plausible situation. If Jews in Florida, and there are a lot of them, feel as though Republicans support Israel, they may be more inclined to vote for GOP candidates.
In Washington if you aren’t dramatically pro-Israel then you are automatically 100% anti-Israel. But nothing President Obama said was anti-Israel. He made it clear that now is the time to negotiate peace in the region and for Israel to stand up and exercise its right as a sovereign nation that can defend itself. He is not leaving Israel on its own, but instead simply saying that we need a solution with which we can make Israel secure and Palestine sovereign and democratic.
In conclusion
Let us remember that the President’s speech was simply an endorsement of a plan, not a set-in-stone solution. The 1967 borders are merely a focus point for peace talks, not necessarily the only outcome. He said in his speech that it is ultimately up to Israel and Palestine to mitigate the situation. These are stepping stones, nothing will be solved over night. I think the goal of Obama’s speech was to set in motion peace negotiations, and the goal was completed. We will see how this all plays out in the coming months.
Am I totally wrong with this? Please comment, let’s start a discussion.
