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.

Candidates on the Attack

Things are heating up here in New York, and I'm not talking about the weather. New York's governor's race is getting hot, and the candidates are feeling the heat. While most polls have been showing the democratic candidate, Andrew Cuomo, in the lead by about 20 points, a recent poll put out by Quinnipiac University shows the republican candidate, Carl Paladino, only trailing by 6.

Coincidentally, at least according to the Cuomo campaign, the same week that these poll numbers came out the Cuomo campaign released its first direct attack ad on Paladino. The television ad, which can be viewed below, suggests that Paladino made several campaign contributions to elected officials in the past, which in turn earned him real estate deals.

The ad also says that one of Paladino's companies was granted $1.4 million worth of state tax breaks for a project intended to promote economic development and ended up creating only one job. Cuomo refers to Paladino as the "welfare king," and asserts that he is "part of the problem."

Paladino's campaign did not deny the allegations of the ad, but a Paladino spokesman believes it "illustrates Cuomo's misunderstanding of the business world." Attacking one's opponent is nothing new to the Paladino campaign. Paladino has openly called Cuomo "gutless," and his campaign is handing out "duck calls" to volunteers in efforts to get their supporters to attend Cuomo campaign events and disrupt them by "quacking."

October is shaping up to be a very interesting month for the governor's race in New York. Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino will spend the next month campaigning extremely hard. One can only hope that during that time New Yorkers will be exposed to information regarding where the candidates stand on the issues instead of being exposed to attack ads and horse race journalism.

FOX News on the War in Afghanistan

FOX News has been known to push a very conservative agenda; some considering the Rupert Murdoch affiliate a 'wing of the Republican Party.' Many conservatives argue that there are dozens of news agencies that have a liberal bias, and consider FOX News to be one of the only televised news channels that have a conservative voice. I happen to agree with both. The FOX News agency does act as an extension of the Republican Party, but it also is one of the only conservative voices in televised journalism. Therefore my qualm with FOX News is not that they are biased, but that they mislead people by considering themselves "fair and balanced."

These claims are not new, and have been well known for some time. There have been several articles written and documentaries made about the FOX News bias. President Obama's administration even came out to "wage war" on the network. While there is nothing more that I admire than reputable journalism, I also respect the first amendment.

I have recently read several articles concerning the current situation in Afghanistan, and the effects that President Obama's recent troop increase has had on the war torn nation. More than 15,000 NATO troops swept into Marjah, a Taliban stronghold, earlier today as part of Operation Mashtarak, the largest attack since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The recent attack has gone unexpectedly well. Major-General Gordon Messenger, a spokesman of the NATO forces, said that "the Taliban appeared confused and disorientated" and that "the key objectives have been secured and have been done so with minimal interference." However, he continued to say that the Taliban have a reputation for "sitting and watching" and that they could strike an attack at any time.

War is war. Taking over a single Taliban stronghold is certainly not a win, but it is a victory, and as we know victories under President Obama are not appreciated by FOX News. Like Rush Limbaugh, FOX News would like to see President Obama 'fail.' While BBC News put up headlines such as "NATO Hails Major Afghan Operation" FOX News put up headlines that read "U.S., Afghan Forces Face Bombs, Booby Traps in Push to Take Taliban Stronghold." In all fairness, something the FOX organization is incapable of being, the article did go on to mention that NATO forces were doing well, but not until about halfway through the article after mentioning all the "homemade bombs and mines" that slowed the advance.

These types of misleading headlines come all too often from FOX News. Although the article contained valid information, many people today simply get their news from reading headlines or get through half the article if their lucky. It shouldn't be shocking when FOX News puts out a negative headline about President Obama or the Democratic Party, but I was surprised that they had the audacity to disrespect young men and women that risk their lives to make this country safer for you and me. Our troops don't deserve the type of defamation that comes from FOX News headlines, not when we have a victory. Give their families and our citizens something to be proud of, and don't let the enemy believe that they are winning. Shame on you FOX News.

President Obama, bring our troops home.

If You Haven't Seen It Yet, Here It Is!

Two days after President Obama gave his State of the Union address he did something no President has ever done before in American history. He stood in front of a Republican chamber, and allowed them to ask him a series of questions; no ifs, ands or buts. It was incredibly risky, and incredibly bold. It also seems to have paid off. Not only did it make President Obama look emphatically brilliant when he was able to seemingly answer all their questions without hesitation, but it also was good for Washington. President Obama took a giant step in the right direction towards healing the segregation between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. If you haven't seen it yet, here it is.

Time for us to Throw in the Towel on Obama?

It's like getting an overcooked steak at a five star restaurant. It's like sitting through a horrible movie that received amazing reviews. It's like going on vacation to Hawaii only to have it rain the entire time you're there. These analogies are in reference to President Obama's first year in the Oval Office.

During the Presidential campaign back in 2008 the American public was promised a great deal of change if we were to elect, then, Senator Obama to the Presidency. The American Electorate, desperate for something new after eight years of nausea, took the bait and elected the first black president to the White House.

Now, one year later, the American public seems to be disillusioned by the thought that President Obama did not bring about the change that he had promised. We are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, unemployment has risen to the double didgets, universal health care is no longer a reality, and the list goes on and on. As a result, the President's approval ratings have fallen dramatically. Worse than losing faith in President Obama, many have lost all hope in our political system. If things don't change with a democratic president and a large democratic majority in the house and senate, when will they ever change?

Last night President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address to a joint session of congress. It was a much needed transcendent speech by the suave American Presidential speaker. By stating that "jobs must be our number one focus in 2010" it showed that he is in step with the American people. He also insisted that congress not step away from health care reform, "not when we are this close." He also spent time talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, clean energy, climate change, education, bipartisanship, and a few other important issues.
In a vital part of President Obama's speech, he reminded the American people of what he HAS done since he has taken office. He insisted that the Recovery Act saved 2,000,000 jobs, a figure which has not been rebuked by FactCheck.org. He insisted that the Wall St. bailout, although "about as popular as a root canal," saved unemployment from going into Great Depression figures, saved homes from being lost, and saved businesses from closing. He also said that the government has recovered most of the tax payer money that they spent on the banks, and promises to recover the remaining sum. Furthermore, he talked about the important job he did rekindling Americas partnership and standing with the rest of the world, a relationship that was hindered during President Bush's 8 years in the circus, I mean White House.

Last night's State of the Union address once again proved how powerful of a speaker President Obama is. Just as I, and many other Americans were beginning to believe that we had another failed president on our hands, he lifts us up and restores our faith.

I, once a staunch Obama supporter, am willing to give President Obama more time to fulfill his promises. I must say that I am disappointed that I have not seen more change over this past year, but I also understand how hard change is, even while your party may hold the presidency and have majority in the house and senate. Our constitution does not allow for sweeping change overnight, and perhaps that is a good thing.

We have at least 3 more years to find out if President Obama will be successful in fixing this country, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I will continue to question his every action, and continue to be skeptical of his optimistic rhetoric. After all, actions speak louder than words. Let's see more action!

Politics As Usual

When I heard about it I didn't believe it. When I found out that it was true I was in awe. As many by now know, congress has voted to open up debate on the healthcare bill, which is great. But the means by which they did so was not so great. In order to do so, all 60 Democratic votes in the Senate were needed in order to block a Republican filibuster, which they got from a price that will be paid by the American taxpayer.

One Democratic Senator, a Mrs. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, was originally opposed to voting with her Democratic colleagues to open up debate on the bill. In order to convince her otherwise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, along with some other congressional Democrats, added a clause to the bill which promises to provide $300 million in aid to Landrieu's state of Louisiana in the form of a "Medicaid bonus."

Essentially, Landrieu's vote was bought by her colleagues. Is it just me, or is there something terribly wrong with this picture. Bribes are not the way voting on bills should be taking place. Unfortunately, there have been many instances on both sides of the aisle where congressional leaders were promised something in exchange for their vote, and it's perfectly legal.

During President Obama's campaign he promised to "clean up" Capital Hill. What happened to getting rid of "politics as usual." It is sickening that such a stunt can be pulled so openly in Washington D.C., with no shame what so ever. I am sure that Louisiana and the Katrina victims need the help, but this is certainly not the way to go about it. I am hopeful that President Obama has the courage to condemn his colleagues, and finally clean up Washington and put an end to this abomination.

Happy Thanksgiving

Real Talk Politic wishes all a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Hopefully you are all with close friends and family on this turkey filled day. Along with celebrating Thanksgiving, Real Talk Politic is also celebrating its 1 year anniversary. Happy Birthday Real Talk!

Here are a few video clips of some memorable political turkey filled moments for your entertainment, from Barack Obama to Sarah Palin to George W. Bush. Enjoy.

Sorry

Why is it so hard for people to say that they are sorry? Perhaps it is because saying sorry draws attention to the fact that you made an error in judgement. It means that you have recognized that you made a mistake. Worst of all, it means that you have recognized that you were wrong.

We are all human, and as humans we all make mistakes. To deny that fact is to be out of out of touch with reality. It is hard enough to get family members or friends to say sorry to one another, and when talking about politicians, forget about it.

President Bush and The Bush Administration made a terrible mistake when they decided to invade Iraq in March of 2003. It has since cost hundreds of thousands of lives, well over 4,000 of which were American military men and women. Let's also not forget about the hundreds of thousands that have been injured and disabled for life as a result of the Iraq War.

The Bush Administration had originally invaded Iraq based on the primary belief that the Saddam Hussein regime had ties to al-Qaeda and were developing nuclear and biological weapons. We all remember the infamous address by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations where he pinpointed exactly where the production of weapons of mass destruction was taking place, or so he thought.

Fact of the matter is, as we clearly know today, is that Saddam Hussein's regime was not developing WMD's, nor did they have relations with al-Qaeda. Sure the Hussein regime was extremely evil and corrupt, but that is no reason to invade a country. If the U.S. was to invade every country with an evil and corrupt government we would be at war in South America, Africa, Asia, and, well, all over the world. The Bush Administration clearly made a mistake by invading Iraq and has never, to this day, apologized and admitted that they were wrong for doing so.

Admitting one's wrongs holds no political barriers. President Obama and the Obama Administration also seem to be guilty of being unable to say sorry to the American people. During his campaign and early on in office, President Obama promised the American people that if the gargantuan stimulus package was passed the unemployment rate of this country would not exceed 8%.

Well, when President Obama took office the American unemployment rate was at 7.2%. Almost a year down the road and hundreds of billions of dollars later the unemployment rate has jumped to 10.2%. Not only does the Obama Administration refuse to apologize to the American people, but they insist that the stimulus has been working. A jobless recovery is not what the Obama Administration had intended back in January of this year when President Obama told us that the stimulus package would stop the unemployment rate from growing over 8%.

As we all know, saying sorry is a very difficult thing to do. It takes vulnerability and admitting one's wrongs. The Bush apologetics and Obama apologetics are diluted, and in complete denial. Not being able to recognize that we all make mistakes is to be out of touch with reality, even if that mistake was at the expense of human lives or billions of dollars of debt for subsequent generations to come. We need more honest apologetics in Washing D.C.

Compromising Health Care Reform

This week the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus introduced a health care reform plan that would not add to the federal deficit. The bill does not include a public option (AKA government funded health care), a key element of reforming health care according to President Obama and fellow democrats. At least it used to be a key element. Recently President Obama has said that the public option is not absolutely necessary to reach his goals for reform.

Many people have acknowledged that passing health care reform has a "make it or break it" stigma attached to the success or failure of President Obama's presidency. Is President Obama loosening his belt on his goals for health care reform simply so that he can say he was successful? Is he letting the main component of reform, a public option, slip under the table so that he can say he passed health care reform legislation? Is gaining a few Republican supporters worth erasing such a key element from the bill? Negotiating, compromising, and reaching a common solution is extremely important for passing partisan legislation, but is health care reform really something that can be compromised? These are all important questions we must ask ourselves.

Furthermore, another questionable aspect of Baucus' proposal is the idea of mandated health care coverage. In other words, if an individual is not insured they could receive a fine. The bill does create health care exchanges, non-profit health insurance cooperatives, and sets limits on out-of-pocket expenses, but should we really be fining people if they can't afford health care insurance.

The Baucus plan is definitely a step in the right direction, but much more work needs to be done if we are going to pass serious health care reform. This plan estimates to cover nearly 30 million uninsured Americans While nearly 50 million Americans remain uninsured. We can do better. America can do better.

Universal Health Care, Is It Time?

During the Presidential campaign of 2008 Senator Barack Obama promised to reform the health care system in America. Now, more than halfway through the 2009 calendar year, President Obama is fighting hard to fix the health care problems that he talked about repeatedly during his campaign without adding to the nation's debt. This is no easy task.  In fact, the last time any substantial reforms were made to our health care system was in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson with the creation of medicaid and medicare.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle agree that health care reform is necessary. Their differences lie on their views of what kind of reform is needed and where the money will come from. Politicians who oppose Obama's plan have called it nothing more than pure socialism, a government take over of the nation's health care system. These are the same politicians who have drawn charts to represent the President's plan. Charts that can be described in one simple word. Confusing.

Just hearing the words socialist health care and looking at a chart that looks like a maze leading to nowhere has made many American's think twice about the President's health care initiatives. Hell, I don't like the sound of it either. Who wants the control over their own health taken away from them and put in the hands of the government? Who wants to be led on a long journey to nowhere? Not I.

In the mean time close to 50 million American's live every day of their lives with no health care insurance, millions of American's can barely afford the coverage plans they have, and millions of American's may think they have great health care coverage until they get sick or injured and learn that their health care provider won't pay for their treatment because of a pre-existing condition.

There is something wrong with this picture. There is something wrong when roughly 1/6 of the population of the "greatest nation on Earth" is uninsured and even more underinsured. There is something wrong when nearly every westernized country has universal health care with the exception of America. There is something wrong when we equate a persons health and well being with corporations making a profit. Yes, there is something wrong.

Universalizing the health care system in America is not going to be easy. It is a complex issue with extremely complex solutions that the majority of Americans, including myself, will not be able to grasp. It will not be easy to pass in congress nor will it be easy to figure out how the system will work and how it will be paid for. But one thing is for certain, health care reform in America is long overdue.

Sonia Sotomayor's Senate Hearings

So far, so good. That is in reference to Judge Sotomayor's three days of Senate Hearings so far this week led by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. She has been asked some very tough questions from Senators on both sides of the isle, and has answered them all diligently in a cool and calm voice. Even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been amongst those asking some of the toughest questions from the bunch, said to Sotomayor that "unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed. And I don't think you will."

Sotomayor has been questioned on everything from gun rights to abortion. She has also been questioned about some extremely controversial statements she has made in the past. Amongst these statements were one in which she said "I hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Sotomayor explained herself by saying that this statement was made during a speech especially for Latino women, and that it was meant to inspire them. She admitted that the statement "fell flat," and probably regrets ever saying it. In the hearings Senator Graham told her that "If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over. And that's true of most people here." He is probably correct about that.

For such an important position in which you are appointed for life, it is necessary that such tough hearings be held, and that we learn absolutely everything there is to know about this woman. Tomorrow we will hear speeches from some of Sotomayor's biggest supporters and foes. However, even if her enemies make some great points, Republican Senator Graham is probably correct in saying that she will in all likelihood be accepted and become the first Latino women to be on the Supreme Court of America.