Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier

Enjoy!

2012

With the end of the world right around the corner (the real one, not the May 21st one), the United States of America will be gearing up for another presidential election year.

On the blue side, the cryp side, we have President Barack Obama stepping up to the plate in efforts to maintain another four years of his socialist tendencies, as many may say, but not I.

The number one reason to vote for President Obama: he's American. That right there is a huge advantage, no matter who he is running against. As a result of the efforts of The Great Donald Trump, President Obama already has that leg up in this upcoming election. After all, nobody knows if any of the GOP candidates were born in this country, and we won't know for sure until we see all of their birth certificates. Long form! We'll have to examine it, see if it's real, etc. etc. etc.

There are really some shining contenders coming out of the bloods this year. The most sparkling would definitely have to be Newt. I don't think Speaker Gingrich has much of a chance, but it was really something to see a demonstrator pour a box of glitter on him during a very stressful week for the poor "Dancing Queen."

The GOP have many other serious candidates. On the not so serious side are the likes of Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson--to name a few.

Obviously some of these candidates, like Rick Santorum for example, hold some water; but for all intensive purposes, this is a joke. Herman Cain?!?! He is the favorite of the Tea Party movement (or at least was) and he has never even held political office. This is what this country has come to, and it's sad. The Republicans have some viable contenders, don't get me wrong--Jon Huntsman would definitely be a viable contender, and brings a lot to the plate. He is somebody President Obama should be scared of.

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are a very interesting match up, and bring some serious change and solutions to this countries problems, but the day they win an election against President Obama is the day hell freezes over. Fortunately, I heard hell usually freezes over after an Arab Spring and Summer, so they may have a shot.

Tim Pawlenty, whose 'pre-campaign launch video' can be found below, may be the most viable candidate the GOP has to offer, at least in my opinion. If I had any money, I would go to the casino, put it all on black, and then once I doubled-up I would bet it all that Pawlenty will be the GOP nominee--and if I were Barack Obama and his campaign staff I would be shvitzing.

America is definitely not in a good spot right now. Nether is the state of the world in general. It's a scary time. The truth is, however, we, the USA, are better off today than we were when President Obama stepped into office in 2008. Many people forget the sh*t storm he inherited from the previous administration. However, that being said, the Obama Administration has to do some serious fiscal belt tightening, as well as some serious kissing up to Israel, if they wish to hold another four years in office.

2012 promises to be an exciting election year as we gear up for the end of the world. Such an exciting time in apocalyptic politics!

Obama Selects New U.S. Ambassador to China

President Barack Obama has selected Gary Locke to succeed Jon Huntsman as U.S. ambassador to China, senior administration officials have told POLITICO. He will make the announcement tomorrow.

Locke is the current United States Commerce Secretary, a position he assumed in March of 2009. Prior to that he was the 21'st Governor of Washington State, having served from 1997 to 2005. In the interim of his governorship and position as commerce secretary he joined a law firm that specializes in China governmental-relations. Throughout his political career he has much to be proud of, and is often noted for being the only Chinese American U.S. governor to date. Prior to his governorship, he has worked in Washington State congress dating back to 1983.

As U.S. Ambassador, Locke will take on a very important role in the Obama Administration, becoming the chief American diplomat to China. Our relationship with our lender, I mean, very close ally, is critical to say the least; and will only become more important over the years and decades to come.

In the mean time, there is a rager in Libya that we should be focussing our attention on, as the UN has aspired to do http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37695&Cr=Libya&Cr1=.

Not So Lame

This lame duck session of congress was not so lame after all. After the 2010 midterm elections, political experts predicted that the next several months on Capital Hill would be unproductive, and almost pointless. Most political conscious Americans believed that partisanship between the GOP and Democrats would lead to nothing more than arguments and fillibusters.

This was not the case, however. To many people's pleasant surprise, or perhaps just surprise, several pieces of legislation were passed during this "not-so-lame" session of congress. This certainly helped make President Obama's holidays a bit merrier, as many key proponents of his agenda were met in some of the bills that were passed.

Bush-era tax cuts have been extended to everyone for two more years.

Unemployment benefits were extended for 13 more months.

The payroll tax was reduced by 2 percentage points for one year.

A major food safety bill was passed designed to increase government inspections of food supplies.

Most funding levels for the federal government will be maintained for another 10 weeks, through March 4th.

9/11 responders health bill passed, providing free medical treatment and compensation to first responders of the 9/11 attack.

A new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia was passed, known as New START. The treaty will resume inspections of each country's nuclear arsenal and limit both countries to 1,550 warheads and 700 launchers. The treaty still needs the Russian parliament's approval.

You're in the NO Spin Zone

I do not have much in common with Bill O'Reilly when it comes to politics, or when it comes to just about anything for that matter. However, I still listen to what he has to say because I think it's important to hear differing points of view. O'Reilly and his colleagues at Fox News present the public with the opportunity to entertain the right wing ideologies of the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, and Republican politicans such as Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. To say the Fox News program doesn't have a right wing bias is to not live in reality. Unfortunately, people do live in this fantasy world, and are absorbing their information from Fox News as fact, when in fact much of it is biased information. The same can be said of MSNBC, with the likes of Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow instilling a liberal bias into today's media. While this notion of news corporations essentially becoming propagandists for the Republican or Democratic Parties is extremely troublesome, it allows for people in a free society to hear "both sides of the story," if you will, and hopefully reach their own conclusion after careful study of the issues. The importance of receiving information from reliable sources is obviously imperative, but it is equally important to receive it from an assortment of sources, no matter how out of line they may be with your own political ideology. That being said, I leave you with an article from a man with whom I disagree on almost everything, Bill O'Reilly, entitled "Obama vs. Bush."

"America is a fascinating country, and if you don't believe me, consider this: In the space of just ten years, we have elected two men to the presidency who could not be more opposite. That fact was clarified for me last week when I spent some time with George W. Bush.

After disappearing for almost two years, Mr. Bush is back in the public arena with a book about his decision-making during the eight years he spent in the Oval Office. But the former president is not interested in commenting on Barack Obama, nor does he want to re-involve himself in the political process. He simply wants to sell some books and go back to the golf course. In a televised interview, he told me that he would most likely not campaign for Republicans in 2012 and will only offer private advice if it is sought.

Also, the former president feels no obligation to comment on his policy decisions (or lack thereof) that continue to this day—things like Iraq, Afghanistan and the brutal economy. Simply put, George W. Bush did his time and believes he has no further obligation to the public.

This was my fourth televised conversation with President Bush, and it is clear to me that he is a reactive guy, not a proactive person. His major decisions were all made after something happened. They were not foisted upon the country. The one exception is Social Security reform. He tried to change the system and got hammered. Aside from that, Mr. Bush basically watched events dictate which way his presidency turned.

Contrast that to Barack Obama's administration, and you have two different galaxies. President Obama is proactive to the max, seeing his mandate as reshaping the nation into a more just society. Mr. Obama has a huge agenda and is not shy about blaming the country's problems on his predecessor. It is hard to imagine President Obama going quietly into the night once his tenure is over. He sees himself as a reformer, a person who must fight for change he can believe in. I don't think that will stop when he returns to private life.

President Bush did not seek much social change because he believes it is not needed. He's a traditionalist, a man who thinks the country is noble and doesn't require an extensive overhaul. President Obama is the exact opposite, believing that United States policy is flawed both at home and abroad and a new set of rules must be instituted. Both men are sincere, but they could not be more opposed in their points-of-view.

But we the people elected both of them. What does that say about us? Well, it says we are open to suggestions and are willing to give different philosophies a chance. We remain, however, a performance-driven society. The folks want results from our elected leaders.

Both presidents have felt the sting of those expectations. That may be the only thing they have in common."

2010 Midterm Election Brings GOP Historic Victory, But Why?

This past Tuesday's election stirred things up a bit on Capitol Hill. The election showed a stark contrast to the way the American public voted just two years ago in 2008, and spoke volumes about the way the public feels about the current job being done by all levels of U.S. government.

As if President Obama didn't have enough trouble pushing through his agenda over his first two years in office, his troubles are now compounded by the fact that Democrats no longer maintain majority in both chambers of congress.

Republicans needed 39 seats in the house to reclaim the majority they lost in 2006, and were able to claim an astounding 60 (a couple of races are still too close to call 72 hours later, so these numbers may change slightly). Their victory will go down in history, marking the biggest house gain by any major party since 1948.

Republicans also won 6 seats in the Senate, but Democrats will maintain control of that chamber. Republicans also did well in governor's races across the nation, and will be moving into at least 10 governor's mansions across the country that previously belonged to Democrats. In addition, at least 16 state legislative chambers that were Democratic went to Republicans.

So why did the Democrats perform so poorly this past election? After the Democratic Party cleaned up in the 2008 elections, many political strategists theorized that Democrats would reign in a significant length of stay. James Carville, political consultant and pundit most well known for being Bill Clinton's campaign manager during the 1992 presidential elections, even wrote a book based on precisely that theory entitled "40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation."

While there are dozens of possible arguments as to why Democrats performed so poorly and Republicans so well, I would like to briefly discuss two arguments that, in my own estimation, were the biggest influences. The first I would characterize simply as 'liberals losing hope in the Democratic Party,' and the second as 'conservatives gaining hope in the Republican party.'

So why have liberals lost hope in the Democratic Party? I would argue that during President Obama's campaign in 2008 he instilled an unrealistic measure of hope in the American people, a measure that could never be attained. President Obama's motivational rhetoric made people believe that they would see a much needed change after eight horrific years of President Bush.

Two years later I think that Obama supporters feel that they have once again been let down by their government, leading to low turnout at the polls in 2010. Lower turnout is always expected during a non-presidential election year, but turnout was so low this year that it was almost half of the turnout we saw in 2008. This shows the importance of campaign strategists to legitimize political platform claims during campaigns so that once in office elected officials can fulfill their promises. In the 2008 election, I would argue that President Obama's campaign managers let people's imaginations run rampant, and may have caused serious problems for him and the Democratic Party in the years to come.

Republicans, or more specifically the Tea Party movement, may face a similar problem over the next couple of years. They have promised a great deal of change to their constituents, and if they are unable to deliver they may face the same type of backlash come 2012. The Tea Party movement did a tremendous job of energizing the conservative right to get out to the polls, and really influenced voter turnout. Their endorsement of several candidates helped them win critical seats, most notably Rand Paul's Senate seat in Kentucky.

Both parties are faced with extremely hard challenges on the road ahead. Now that Republicans control the house will they remain the party of "just say no," or will they take action and push through pieces of legislation? Will Democrats and Republicans be able to come to agreements, or will we be faced with another two years of gridlock and politics as usual? These are some very scary times for this country, and the world as a whole. Only time will tell if America can rehabilitate itself.

Jon Stewart Interviews a Real President on a Fake News Program

I don't usually upload video clips of interviews, but I found this weeks interview of President Obama by Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) to be worth watching, and worth sharing. The interview was much more serious than one might have expected coming from Stewart, who is truly a comedian and satirist at heart. Due to the nature of Stewart's show, the president received quite a bit of criticism from some pundits, who apparently deemed it inappropriate for a sitting president. I would argue, however, that the decision to go on Stewart's show was a strategic one. Aside from promoting and executing his agenda, one of the president's main focuses right now is to keep as many seats as possible come November 2nd. As such, by going on Stewart's show President Obama was attempting to mobilize his 18-29 year old liberal base, much of which is the same demographic of your average "Daily Show" viewer, or what Bill O'Reilly would refer to as the "stoner slacker."

Here is part 1 to the interview, if you wish to continue watching it just click the link to part 2 at the end.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

"Don't Ask" Obama, because he can't make up his mind

President Obama has continually ran on a platform of equal rights for gays. As such, he has stated openly numerous times that one of his goals concerning this issue is to repeal the armies "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Well, last week the Obama administration got their wish. A federal judge ordered the army to stop enforcing the policy. Since the judges ruling seven days ago, openly gay men and women have been allowed to enlist in the army. Just like that, President Obama had a huge accomplishment under his belt. At least it seemed that way.

On Wednesday, however, the Obama administration filed an emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the military from allowing openly gay troops from serving. In other words, the Obama administration wants to continue to bar gays from the military even though it ultimately favors repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Unfortunately Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. Either the policy is repealed and gays serve openly, or they don't. There is not much room for compromise in regards to this issue.

The administrations argument for the abrupt change in policy was quite insipid. They argued that it would "risk causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute." In effect, what they are ultimately expressing is a sense of fear that allowing gays to serve openly in the military will be destructive to group cohesion and performance.

Hopefully the Obama administration can iron out this sense of doubt, and do what is best for the country. The administration says they remain hopeful that they can have the matter resolved through Congress instead of unilaterally through courts or the presidency. It remains a controversial issue that needs some resolve.

When the Circus Came to Town

Last night was New York's gubernatorial debate, and boy did it live up to its expectation of being entertaining, to say the least. There was no heated debate between the Republican and Democratic hopefuls Carl Paladino and Andrew Cuomo, but there were some characters among the other five candidates.

Representing the Anti-Prohibition Party was Kristin Davis, otherwise known as the 'Manhattan Madam'. Davis served time on Riker's Island for her involvement with the Emperors Club VIP, the escort service that provided a prostitute for Eliot Spitzer (his show on CNN sucks by the way, no pun intended). Davis is running on the platform of legalizing prostitution and marijuana, which she believes will help improve the economy of this state. Surprisingly, this silicon tatted blonde was once the vice president of a hedge fund firm and knows a thing or two about business. When asked about Carl Paladino she said that if he is elected "business will leave this state faster than Carl Paladino at a gay bar."

Then there was Jimmy McMillan of 'The Rent is too Damn High' Party. Yes, it's a real party. However, if you were to turn on the debate while he was speaking you may have mistaken it for a Saturday Night Live sketch. Let's start with the mysterious black gloves. You know what, words will not do justice so just watch the video below.

The three other candidates include Charles Barran of the Freedom Party, Warren Redlich of the Libertarian Party, and Howie Hawkins of the Green Party. Barran is a former Black Panther member who believes increasing taxes on the wealthy will solve our economic crisis. He is quoted as saying "we already cut to the bones, it's time for us to get the wealthy." Hawkins has a similar ideology, and he too would like to see taxes increased on the wealthy. Redlich believes that cutting big bureaucratic salaries will allow us to save about 3 billion dollars a year.

As with most political races in America, none of these minor party candidates stand a real chance to win in a two-party system, some of them for good reason. It is quite upsetting that these seven candidates are all that New York has to offer. Carl Paladino is a loose cannon who is not connected with reality, while Andrew Cuomo doesn't seem to have a solid plan to get this state back on track. With only 14 days to go until election day, Cuomo maintains a considerable lead in the race to become New York's 56th governor.

Paladino's Gyration

This week Carl Paladino managed to claim headlines of all major news agencies once again. Unfortunately, all the press Mr. Paladino received appeared to be bad press. Last week Paladino made headlines for an altercation with a journalist. This week, after an upsurge in recent anti-gay hate crimes both locally and nationally, Paladino made headlines for “hating gays.”

On Sunday, during an address to a group of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, Paladino made some very provocative statements concerning homosexuality. For example, Paladino said that he didn’t want children “to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option,” compared to heterosexuality. Furthermore, a transcript of Paladino’s speech said, “there is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. That’s not how God created us.”

Paladino also attacked his opponent, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, saying that it was in bad taste for him to bring his daughters to a recent gay pride parade in New York. Paladino went on to say, “That’s not the example that we should be showing the children, and certainly not in our schools."

It seems to me, however, that Mr. Paladino is the one who is not showing a good example to the youth of America. Ever since I was little I remember being taught to treat others as I would like to be treated. This principle of equality is a key tenant of this nation, and is vital for a democracy to function properly. Perhaps if we raise our children to be more accepting of others, as Mr. Cuomo's children seem to be, the Tyler Clementi's of tomorrow will be able to live a normal life. Until all homosexuals are treated equally in America, our nation will fall short of setting an example for human rights around the world.