Obama can tell us why America is so great ...

Obama gives a speech in 2004 at the DNC in honor of the democratic presidential candidate at the time, Rick Perry. Being the great speaker that he is, he gives an amazing speech about the equality of America and how far we have come, "a black father and a white mother that came from nothing found one another".

Where will the RNC convention be in 2012?

Lenny Curry talks about the RNC in 2012 and it's significance. What shot out to me was the economic impact the RNC will have. The RNC is said to take place in Florida, and Curry put's all doubts aside with the amount of confience he has that Florida is the place to be. He's goes into why Florida is such a great factor to the nomination of the president. Watch and learn.

where is this election headed?

The news is filled with all these events going on with the campaign and the candidates but who is America’s top choice so far ? We can see that Obama is taking a big negative hit and Herman Cain is taking the lead. Obama is also taking a hit on wallstreet, against Romney. WHAT !? Which would you rather see in the White house next year?

Obama and Romney are head to head with campaign financing. Unfortunately for Obama, Romney is collecting/ raising more from firms on wall street that have given top donations towards campaigns and specifically Obama in 2008; he seems to be out of luck this year. This isn’t looking good for Obama at all. Obama’s getting hit hard because of the government regulation he tried to impose on large corporations., they obviously didn’t take that very well.  There is a great imbalance of money being distributed amongst the candidates.

Nicholas Confessore and Griff Palmer write that The imbalance exists at large investment banks and hedge funds, private equity firms and commercial banks, according to a New York Times analysis of the firms that accounted for the most campaign contributions from the industry to Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama in 2008, based on data from the Federal Election Commission and the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

“Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million — more than donors from any other private employer in the country — have given him about $45,000 this year. Mr. Romney has raised about $350,000 from the firm’s employees. “

We can see there is a huge decrease in the money Obama is taking in for his campaign from the business/corporation sector.  Other articles have shown him at the top as far as raising money, but where exactly is that money coming from?

Nicholas Confessore of the new york times writes that  President Obama’s filings with the Federal Election Commission on Friday confirmed that he had he raised about $42 million for his campaign during the three-month period, far more than any of the Republican candidates are likely to report. And Mr. Obama reported having $61.4 million in cash on hand out of the roughly $100 million he has raised so far this year, a war chest that is likely to grow as the campaign progresses.

In comparison to the 14.7 million Romney raised and the 15 million Perry raised, Obama isn’t doing too bad. Word on the street is that the candidate with the most money wins the election. I guess we’ll have to wait and see to see how this one plays out.

Another question is which candidate is Obama most likely going to come up against? It seems as though Herman Cain is doing well, to the distress of many. With the comment he made about a fence that will electrocute people at the Mexican border and his phony 9-9-9 plan that he’s not even sure about himself, do we really want him to run America- (Texan accent) ... not to forgot his slurs about how black's and Latino's vote. Oh, Harmen !!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/us/politics/romney-raises-14-million-in-3rd-quarter-just-behind-perry.html?ref=barackobama

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?_r=1

Obama, where's your head at?

This time around, Obama isn’t doing as great as he hoped. Mark Lander of the New York Times writes that Obama isn’t getting the same satisfaction that he did in 2008. His voters aren’t responding like they used to. Apparently a lot feel as though he hasn’t done enough, so they’re looking for the next best thing. At a restaurant in Marion, North Carolina, it was seemingly interesting to find that very few diners got up to shake his hand as anyone would  when in the presence of the president.  The other few were there to critique him and provide their complaints. Lander writes “A  lawyer, Dan Kuehnert, urged Mr. Obama to roll back regulations on business, which the president said he was willing to do — up to a point. Bob Ritter, a pastor at a Baptist church, told Mr. Obama he was praying for him. But he later groused about bank bailouts, saying they amounted to “picking winners and losers.”

Obama is working hard to rise above the negativity and continue to promote himself as best he can so that he can get the votes back from North Carolina. He managed a 3-day tour there to promote his jobs bill , but is also seen as a “crucial segment of his electoral map.” The responses he’s getting are a prelude of what’s to come, but he’s taking it one step at a time. “Look, I appreciate the ‘four more years,’ ” Mr. Obama said to a friendly crowd early in the day at Asheville’s regional airport after it burst into a familiar chant about a second term. “But right now, I’m thinking about the next 13 months.”

Obama spoke about the senate’s rule against his $447 billion bill. His speech was well said and well put together. Obama stated, “They said no to putting teachers and construction workers back on the job,” Mr. Obama said to a spirited crowd of several hundred gathered on the tarmac under a giant American flag. “They said no to rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports.”
“Essentially,” he declared, “they said no to you.”

 “If they vote against taking steps that we know will put Americans back to work right now,” Mr. Obama said, “then they’re not going to have to answer to me, they’re going to have to answer to you.” 

So where's Obama's head at?  He's worried about our Country. His attitude, in my opinion is pretty on point. Stating that he’s more worried about what’s going on with today’s economy rather than his reelection, is telling of his motives for the nation. With that statement we can conclude that he cares more about the people of the nation and the prosperity of America than his “title”.  Something that we need to all be aware of is the fact that he can’t just write laws and pass them all on his own. American need to understand that Congress has a large role in the law passing process and we can’t just put the blame on Obama, because he can only do so much. Obma became the president after the nation was left in ruins. He was left to remove the excess debris and continue from there. Lets cut him some slack and listen to what he  has proposed and is willing to do for the nation.

Education: is the government doing too much?

 

What does it mean to take a anti-federalist stance when it comes to education? Well, as reported by Trip Gabriel of the New York Times, Michelle Bachmann promises to “turn out the lights” at the federal Education Department. Gov. Rick Perry calls it unconstitutional. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, would allow it to live but only as a drastically shrunken agency that mainly gathers statistics. Mitt Romney, too feels as though the government and education should have nothing to do with education. There goes Mitt Romney once again, with his flip flopping ways, as once a defendant of the “no child left behind” law. Anyway, that’s beside the point, but I just thought I’d throw that in there.

The Republican presidential candidates feel as though the states and local districts should take care of the educational system and the government should NOT. States are more likely to know what’s going on with their school districts far better than the government does. The government takes care of the educational system as a whole, not really considering what each school district individually needs.

Margaret Spellings, the education secretary in the latter years of the Bush administration, said that before No Child Left Behind, when federal laws had few strings attached, many states showed little progress raising student achievement, especially for poor and minority students. “We tried that for 40 years,” she said. “The results were far from stellar.”

“People want government money, they want higher standards, they want greater accountability,” said Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative-leaning education policy group, who was an education official in the Reagan administration. “None of those things in most places comes from local control.”

Gabriel write that ”Mr. Perry participated in a news conference heralding federal officials’ approval of the Texas plan for putting the law in place, providing $400 million for the state. But today he complains of “unfunded mandates” in federal education laws that require Texas, he says, to spend more to meet the rules than it receives in federal dollars.”

The issue of the government and educational system has been an issue dating back to Ronald Reagan’s presidency when he tried to do away with it but had no supporters to help him out. That just lead him to create a bigger cause to support it and fund more money. Why did Reagan give up his stance on education and do the total opposite? Education hasn’t really been a huge topic for the candidates but it’s only a matter of time.

If the government isn’t funding education, which is only getting worse as studies have shown, then how is public education going to work? Government funded education opens the doors for the poor and less fortunate who can’t afford private schooling. In my opinion, I don’t think that smaller, less wealthier states will have the proper funding to give towards education and that will only keep the students behind, cause a bigger issue. Let’s just wait and see what the Republicans have in store for us as far as this issue goes and then we’ll decide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/politics/gop-anti-federalism-aims-at-education.html?ref=politics

Religion or just politics?

How does religion play into our politics in present day America? As a New Yorker, I view the world as quite diverse, as naïve as that may sound. When I think of who my friends are, it’s safe to say that I have never thought twice about their race or religion when considering our friendship. Unfortunately, politics considers everything. Today, the presidential nominees are as diverse as ever and so many issues arise. One of these issues is religion. Should we dwell on a candidate’s religion and put a label on his/her politics? Why is it that the new is filled with unworthy reports about whether or not a candidate is considered to be “Christian?” Are we swaying away from what’s really important, or is religion an important factor when it comes to our president? Personally, I feel as though religion should never be a factor. A candidate should be judged upon their credentials, potential, goals, etc that they have for America and its Citizens.

It seems as though it all comes down to the consistency and depth of a candidate’s conservatism; when looking at presidents of the past, those that were considered to be good old conservative Christian family oriented men were caught cheating on their wives or sending out obscene pictures here and there. . . I’m sure you know who I’m talking about. Anyway, back to what I was saying, why is it that Americans feel so inclined to butcher a candidate over their religious beliefs? Does being Christian mean that you’re more of a conservative, or is this just all a stunt to sidetrack candidates from their political message?

Just on the news, I read that Mitt Romney is facing some scrutiny over his Mormon beliefs. Herman Cain congresswoman Michele Bachmann declined to answer questions about Romney’s Mormon religion, but others didn’t seem to be on the same boat. What was being questioned was if Mormons are considered to be “Christian”. Why is this even on the news? Michael D. Shear, Erik Eckholm and Ashley Parker of the New York Times answer that question. “With Mr. Romney having regained the perceived status of front-runner, his opponents have signaled that they will go after him hard from the right, questioning his conservative credentials and trying to force him off his economic message. He now has to parry those intensifying attacks without giving up the opportunity to win over independent voters should he become his party’s nominee and face President Obama next year.”

I feel as though this is very well put and described. Romney’s opponents will do anything to steal his title as front runner so they’re playing hardball. Anything that can be thrown out there to get the public’s reaction is fair game. Social issues have been a big deal for Romney because he is seen to be a “flip flopper” as his political stance on certain things have changed over the years. He does well at defending his motives and continues to be the front runner. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/politics/social-issues-pose-new-test-for-mitt-romney.html?ref=politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-presidential-primary-opponents-decline-to-answer-whether-the-mormon-is-a-christian/2011/10/09/gIQAbkafXL_story.html

Libertarian party alternative

Andre Marrou, Libertarian Party candidate in 199, Talks about third party alternatives and all the government regulations are making thing worse for the citizen. Libertarians and the founders of this country perceive Government power as opposed individual liberty. Democrats and Republicans think that government programs and government regulation is good, but in fact they are a negative impact on the people. He states that Government programs have caused more illiteracy, poverty, crime, drugs, etc.