Personally, if I were to be voting a future president, Rick Perry would not be my first choice. Sure, he sets out some good points, but he not the kind of person I see as President of the United States. Honestly, after his flub at the debate, I don't think he really has a shot at winning the Republican nomination. Obviously, Perry will not be winning because of his way with words as we saw at the GOP debate where Perry forgot his own policy ideas. Perry has slipped down in the polls; he will most likely become the least likely candidate to win the GOP nomination.
Rick Perry's state of Texas is left in shambles as its debt has nearly doubled since he became governor. Perry has yet to address the issues of his fellow Texans. Supposedly, he has reduced the debt in Texas, but in actuality, the reforms that Texans needed are not being given to them such as mental institution reforms. Perry is neglecting his own state for the GOP campaign. With the United States already experiencing financial problems, why would we want to put our economy in the hands of Rick Perry? God only knows what would happen to our already climbing national debt. This reason alone could be the deciding factor on why Perry could lose the camapign for GOP nomination. He may say that he can reduce the national debt, but how can we trust him with what's happening in Texas?
Oh gosh, it was extremely difficult to find something good to stay about Rick Perry's campaign chances, but I guess that one advantage that Perry has are his conservative beliefs. Perry's strong conservative beliefs compared to other candidates like Mitt Romney (who has been known to be playing both fields currently) will get him far in the GOP nomination. Though Perry has made some major gaffes/flubs during his campaign, Perry can most likely still count on his conservative voters (the backlands Republicans who currently are angered with Romney). One difficulty that Perry will face if he wins nomination is maintaining the votes of the Republicans while trying to gain Democratic votes as well to win the general election. Perry must keep his conservative base if he seeks to go anywhere further in the elections.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Nomination of Newt Gingrich
The political cartoonist is assessing Newt Gingrich's campaign for Republican nomination. There is one clear feature that the cartoonist tries to highlight in this cartoon--the metaphorical and literal baggage that Gingrich holds. All of the mistakes that Gingrich made--government shutdown, ethics charges, etc--before are still in the limelight. Gingrich is trying to cover up his past scandals to start anew. The cartoonist wants to highlight that America can't forget and won't forget what Gingrich had done.
We can clearly see that the political cartoonist is displaying satire about Gingrich's campaign for nomination. Gingrich cannot hide his past, just by running for GOP nomination. America still remembers what happened before, under Newt Gingrich, and Republicans should not be stupid enough to make that same mistake again.
Then again, if Newt wins, Obama can chalk up another victory, so maybe it is a good thing Gingrich is running.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
CBS is biased?
Michele Bachmann, who currently has a 4% standing in the national polls, will most likely not be winning the Republican nomination any time soon. Bachmann was enraged when she found out that CBS correspondents at the Republican debates were going to ask her limited questions: questions that didn't address the full scope of the issues at hand in America. Bachmann was angry over the fact that she wasn't being given a fair chance in the debates. Why should other candidates be allowed to answer questions, and not her?
Though CBS was being disrespectful to Bachmann, I highly doubt Bachmann would have been able to answer any of those questions, so good call on CBS's part. Bachmann is almost out of the election, so I understand CBS's need to focus on other candidates who actually have a chance at winning. I think the real problem was not that CBS was limiting questions (thus limiting her chances at winning), but that CBS was limiting her time on television. She believes that the media should not have the chance to "limit candidates' opportunity to speak to the American people." What a bunch of BS, really. She doesn't really care about her chances to talk to the American people, she just wants more prime time on television.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-accuses-cbs-news-media-bias-050121770.html
Though CBS was being disrespectful to Bachmann, I highly doubt Bachmann would have been able to answer any of those questions, so good call on CBS's part. Bachmann is almost out of the election, so I understand CBS's need to focus on other candidates who actually have a chance at winning. I think the real problem was not that CBS was limiting questions (thus limiting her chances at winning), but that CBS was limiting her time on television. She believes that the media should not have the chance to "limit candidates' opportunity to speak to the American people." What a bunch of BS, really. She doesn't really care about her chances to talk to the American people, she just wants more prime time on television.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-accuses-cbs-news-media-bias-050121770.html
Who will win the GOP race?
After reading through many articles, it seems to me that it doesn't really matter which candidate (since each have their faults) wins the Republican nomination because the Democratic party and Obama feel as though they've got the election. With all the problems coming into light about the GOP candidates, America has to wonder, do we really want one of those candidates becoming president?
First, I just want to talk about each of the candidates who probably don't have a chance of winning anymore. Rick Perry seemed like the best candidate earlier in his race, but with his recent "drinking" stint could cost his real chance in the run for nomination. Herman Cain is trying really hard to gain recognition, but in light of recent sexual harassment charges (which nobody really believes, but can't doubt the evidence), he most likely will not gain the Republican nomination. Michelle Bachmann doesn't stand a chance, especially because of her silly comments. Sure, it would be nice to have a female president, but I just don't think she should define America's women, or America itself. Newt Gingrich would be the worst choice for Republican nomination. If he wins the nomination, Obama can start planning his next inauguration.
The only candidate who actually seems to have promise is Mitt Romney. He's hated by many Republicans because Romney doesn't have the same evangelical beliefs, but if he can compromise and make amends, he is set to win the nomination, along with the support of many Republicans. Romney is going to need to "flip flop" by keeping the support of Republicans and trying to gain the support of Democrats, in the general presidential election if he wins nomination. Romney has been known to give his direct stance and opinions outright; he continues to stand by them.
First, I just want to talk about each of the candidates who probably don't have a chance of winning anymore. Rick Perry seemed like the best candidate earlier in his race, but with his recent "drinking" stint could cost his real chance in the run for nomination. Herman Cain is trying really hard to gain recognition, but in light of recent sexual harassment charges (which nobody really believes, but can't doubt the evidence), he most likely will not gain the Republican nomination. Michelle Bachmann doesn't stand a chance, especially because of her silly comments. Sure, it would be nice to have a female president, but I just don't think she should define America's women, or America itself. Newt Gingrich would be the worst choice for Republican nomination. If he wins the nomination, Obama can start planning his next inauguration.
The only candidate who actually seems to have promise is Mitt Romney. He's hated by many Republicans because Romney doesn't have the same evangelical beliefs, but if he can compromise and make amends, he is set to win the nomination, along with the support of many Republicans. Romney is going to need to "flip flop" by keeping the support of Republicans and trying to gain the support of Democrats, in the general presidential election if he wins nomination. Romney has been known to give his direct stance and opinions outright; he continues to stand by them.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Gov. O'Malley "at war" with rural Maryland?
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, has always had troubles with the conservatives living in rural Maryland, mainly over his evironmental agenda (which was central in his five years as Governor). O' Malley's evironmental agenda continues to clash with farmers, fisherman, and drillers. He proposed a ban on new septic systems, pushed for Chesapeake Bay cleanup, and withheld state funding from local governments.
Conservatives have always been riled by the governor's policies and agendas, but now, they believe he has overstepped his boundaries. They believe that Governor O'Malley should not be allowed to dictate how all the communities in Maryland are run. O'Malley has now increased taxes (sewer, tolls, and gas).
In a sense, a war between the Democratic governor and his conservative peoples has developed. O'Malley's real power will be tested in the upcoming months with the issues of same-sex marriage, wind development, and higher taxes on transport. The people are split over their feelings about how the governor has controlled Maryland these past five years.
Democrats (and proponents) are 100% sure that O'Malley's policies are for the best of the Maryland people. They believe he is effectively curbing sprawl, improving bay quality, and helping the rural people.
On the other hand, conservatives believe that O'Malley is monopolizing the power and not helping the rural folk at all. They believe that in the governor's goal for helping Maryland, he is stepping on the little people (or in this case, the rural conservatives). Most conservatives say that if he doesn't get his act together soon enough, who knows what will happen at the Iowa caucus.
In a sense, we won't truly know what will happen in the upcoming election. If the conservatives have their way, Governor O'Malley may not be re-elected. Conservatives from rural Maryland have never played a key role in deciding the election for O'Malley, but who knows, that could all change this year.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/gov-omalley-at-war-with-rural-maryland-republicans-say/2011/10/28/gIQAcEZCXM_story.html?wprss=rss_local
Conservatives have always been riled by the governor's policies and agendas, but now, they believe he has overstepped his boundaries. They believe that Governor O'Malley should not be allowed to dictate how all the communities in Maryland are run. O'Malley has now increased taxes (sewer, tolls, and gas).
In a sense, a war between the Democratic governor and his conservative peoples has developed. O'Malley's real power will be tested in the upcoming months with the issues of same-sex marriage, wind development, and higher taxes on transport. The people are split over their feelings about how the governor has controlled Maryland these past five years.
Democrats (and proponents) are 100% sure that O'Malley's policies are for the best of the Maryland people. They believe he is effectively curbing sprawl, improving bay quality, and helping the rural people.
On the other hand, conservatives believe that O'Malley is monopolizing the power and not helping the rural folk at all. They believe that in the governor's goal for helping Maryland, he is stepping on the little people (or in this case, the rural conservatives). Most conservatives say that if he doesn't get his act together soon enough, who knows what will happen at the Iowa caucus.
In a sense, we won't truly know what will happen in the upcoming election. If the conservatives have their way, Governor O'Malley may not be re-elected. Conservatives from rural Maryland have never played a key role in deciding the election for O'Malley, but who knows, that could all change this year.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/gov-omalley-at-war-with-rural-maryland-republicans-say/2011/10/28/gIQAcEZCXM_story.html?wprss=rss_local
Biggest Issue in Virginia
There are many issues concerning the state of Virginia such as environmental problems with the Chesapeake Bay, its political neutrality for the upcoming election, or perhaps transportation. But to me, the biggest issue is education.
Of course, a lot of money is being funneled into Fairfax County (supposedly the richest county), but not all the schools have been fortunate enough to experience this luxury. Schools like Herndon High School and Wakefield are in dire need of renovation, which isn't scheduled for another 5-6 years. Instead of renovating the entire school itself, the county should take on projects of fixing parts of the school, one at a time (starting with trailers).
I remember when I was taking the SAT a few months back at HHS. There were about 200 kids from different schools taking the exam at HHS. All of these students were complaining about how ugly or ghetto our school looked and were, of course, comparing it to how students from the school must look and act. At that moment, I felt shameful that I went to HHS. Our school has great teachers and good students (well, not all...but a relatively large amount) and it deserves to look better than how it is now (leaky ceilings, broken sidewalks, peeling paint, missing ceiling tiles, etc). Thankfully, our school has fairly good technology such as smart boards and new laptops.
Money should be spent on providing better resources such as technology and textbooks. All schools need either desktop computers or laptops. A television in every classroom that actually works right.
If a school in Northern Virginia in Fairfax County looks this crappy, I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds more that looked this way in all of Virginia.
Also, another major fix-up needs to be done about cafeteria food. It's unhealthy. It's greasy. It's disgusting. Students would actually rather starve that eat it. Not all students have the luxury of bagged lunches and must eat food from the school cafeteria. I feel bad for those poor, young souls.
Maybe a little more funding in the right places (*cough* like the education department *cough*) would do Virginia some good.
Of course, a lot of money is being funneled into Fairfax County (supposedly the richest county), but not all the schools have been fortunate enough to experience this luxury. Schools like Herndon High School and Wakefield are in dire need of renovation, which isn't scheduled for another 5-6 years. Instead of renovating the entire school itself, the county should take on projects of fixing parts of the school, one at a time (starting with trailers).
I remember when I was taking the SAT a few months back at HHS. There were about 200 kids from different schools taking the exam at HHS. All of these students were complaining about how ugly or ghetto our school looked and were, of course, comparing it to how students from the school must look and act. At that moment, I felt shameful that I went to HHS. Our school has great teachers and good students (well, not all...but a relatively large amount) and it deserves to look better than how it is now (leaky ceilings, broken sidewalks, peeling paint, missing ceiling tiles, etc). Thankfully, our school has fairly good technology such as smart boards and new laptops.
Money should be spent on providing better resources such as technology and textbooks. All schools need either desktop computers or laptops. A television in every classroom that actually works right.
If a school in Northern Virginia in Fairfax County looks this crappy, I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds more that looked this way in all of Virginia.
Also, another major fix-up needs to be done about cafeteria food. It's unhealthy. It's greasy. It's disgusting. Students would actually rather starve that eat it. Not all students have the luxury of bagged lunches and must eat food from the school cafeteria. I feel bad for those poor, young souls.
Maybe a little more funding in the right places (*cough* like the education department *cough*) would do Virginia some good.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy Wall Street protests
Recently, an article was posted in the Washington Post describing the expansion of the Occupy Wall Street protests into mainstream and global prominence. The protests which started on September 17, 2011, with just several dozen people has expanded into a worldwide movement against the global financial system. The whole issue has been brought up over the fact that Wall Street has been colluding with the government in order to control the real estate problems, which rather than have benefits, has forced the economy to dwindle further.
The global movements have been relatively non-violent, not counting Rome and Massachusetts. In Rome, people were out on the streets protesting the mounting debt of the Italian economy. Police were forced to use tear-gas against the violent protesters who were lighting cars on fire. In the United States though, the movement now known as "Occupy Wall Street" has shed light on the troubling economic situation (not only in United States, but in the global economy). Protesters were angered over the government's constant bail out of banks, rather than aiding the people.
This idea is clearly showing the globalization of a movement that started in the United States. People in 900 cities all over the world are protesting about the problems their facing with the economic system. People have become united under a single voice and under a single cause. The article describes a growth in the "international solidarity."
This movement was probably not the best way to combine the efforts of the global population, but it has done just that. People all over the world are protesting in hopes to stand side by side with the protests on Wall Street. Another important note that has come up from the growth of these protests is that there are more people than government officials. The people ultimately make the decisions as they have now realized. The protesters will not stop until they have achieved their goals.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/occupy-wall-street-protests-go-global/2011/10/15/gIQAp7kimL_story.html?hpid=z1
The global movements have been relatively non-violent, not counting Rome and Massachusetts. In Rome, people were out on the streets protesting the mounting debt of the Italian economy. Police were forced to use tear-gas against the violent protesters who were lighting cars on fire. In the United States though, the movement now known as "Occupy Wall Street" has shed light on the troubling economic situation (not only in United States, but in the global economy). Protesters were angered over the government's constant bail out of banks, rather than aiding the people.
This idea is clearly showing the globalization of a movement that started in the United States. People in 900 cities all over the world are protesting about the problems their facing with the economic system. People have become united under a single voice and under a single cause. The article describes a growth in the "international solidarity."
This movement was probably not the best way to combine the efforts of the global population, but it has done just that. People all over the world are protesting in hopes to stand side by side with the protests on Wall Street. Another important note that has come up from the growth of these protests is that there are more people than government officials. The people ultimately make the decisions as they have now realized. The protesters will not stop until they have achieved their goals.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/occupy-wall-street-protests-go-global/2011/10/15/gIQAp7kimL_story.html?hpid=z1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)