First, they want more god in government.

Second, at the same time they also want smaller government and in many cases they want no government.

Conclusion, they really want little to no influence of god in our decision making.

Hope this helps.  Now lets move on to hearing about economic solutions from these candidates.

The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus’s rather visceral protest.

……….

Massachusetts’s animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal “in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.” An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying “it’s definitely something I’d want to check out.” The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it’s against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and “if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal.” And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said “even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we’d hope that people would use common sense…Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we’d think is inappropriate…I can’t speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation.”

Though Mitt Romney confirmed the story, in 2007 he gained criticism for this (and again recently because of Newt Gingrich attacks) and still acknowledged that what he did was okay while dismissing the criticism with saying PETA doesn’t want his dog to have fresh air. Here’s a clip from the local news and another from a Fox News interview.

Why, I’m sorry Sir. Mitt Romney, I know you’re special, but millions of other Americans like their dogs to have fresh air but aren’t stupid enough to carry them on the roof of the car.  Though the older population might try to dismiss this is as something “everyone did back in the day”, that is not true.  Furthermore, this was a 12 hr trip, not a short trip to Pet Supplies Plus around the corner. Whether you consider the standards to be different “back in the day”, there’s still the issue of why he forced the dog to ride on the roof even after the dog developed diarrhea (a sign of discomfort in animals).

Really? in an “airtight” carrier???  The dog would have died if he was really in an airtight carrier.  Now the dog is “dead”, however this story is now unclear as two of Romney’s sons told reporters that the dog didn’t like the car roof and they never saw him after Canada!  I’m sure that dog was dreading another 12hr ride back home.  But, who knows, Romney could have been 100% right by saying he used an airtight carrier…and that is why the dog didn’t come back home…

Many may want to dismiss this, but moments like these give insight into the decision making process that isn’t scripted like most of what we see from him and other politicians.  At that moment when the dog showed discomfort, and sprayed him off and put him back on the roof again, Romney wasn’t thinking about how the dog felt.  Romney didn’t consider taking the best actions to prevent harm.  Think about if you were on the roof of a car and what you’d experience?  The ride would be  bumpier, the elements would be harsher, worrying about low overpass clearances and you wouldn’t feel safe since not surrounded by family.  Romney was virtually emotionless in the this case, though he is famous for that in the business world, one wouldn’t expect that behavior towards a family pet.  This might also show a materialistic nature in caring more about using the extra car space to fill it with things they bought rather than a dog which has little to no monetary value to the Romneys.  Many Americans treat their pets with some kind of concern and consideration.  If Romney felt he didn’t want the dog to be in the car, he should have left him with a family member or pet sitter.  Or he could have used some of his money to buy a bigger car.

Honestly, I view this as poor decision making and lack of common sense, I refuse to believe he intentionally set out to ruin this dog’s life.  However, the Romney camp has refused to discuss this further, mainly about the fate of the dog or at least what happened on the car ride back home.  Romney also fails to acknowledge that it was a stupid decision.  Acknowledging the lack of common sense would take away a great deal of criticism from me at least.  But, he hasn’t and until it’s brought up by the Obama camp months later, I doubt he will anytime soon.  By the way, I’m almost positive this will continue to be a character issue that his opponents will rightfully bring up during his campaign run.

How loving owners transport their dogs.
bit.ly/xGeJuZ—
David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) January 30, 2012

If anyone was wondering where Sen. Rand Paul went, he was detained by the TSA for refusing a patdown.  He was never a fan of the TSA, but rules are rules, and a senator is no better than the grandma or 5 year old that gets pat down at the security checkpoint.

Biggest Jerk of the week, Pastor and Rick Santorum’s “Florida chairman”, Rev. O’Neal Dozier made some controversial statements.  One about Mitt Romney and the Mormon church being racist and another about God hating gays sooooo much, that God would vomit.  Yes that means, God would vomit all over us.  I put quotations marks around him being Santorum’s “Florida chairman”, because it’s too hard to believe.  No way I can believe this guy is involved directly with the campaign and can make these statements and not receive more than a weeks worth of media coverage from MSM…I don’t care how nice his hightop fade is.

Recommended Read: I had a friend who is extremely liberal that I often find her annoying.  However, she mentioned that if forced to vote republican, she’d vote for Ron Paul.  After pointing out how ridiculous that is and how his position on war is irrelevant as to the bigger picture.  Well I found this blog post which is extremely on point about Ron Paul.  Ron Paul looks reasonable on the outside, but people need to look further before going on a honeymoon with him.  Here’s, Let’s Be Clear, Ron Paul Fucking Sucks. Here Are 20 Reasons Why.

Last night during the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich should not have won.  Clearly Mitt Romney didn’t learn his lesson that not only does below the belt negative campaigning not work or go (un)attacked anymore, but also that being married multiple times does not matter anymore in this society.  You can view the ad that was played here, note the subtle underlining theme here about marriage.  We all like to bring up the Newt Gingrich’s fidelity and marital issues, but in this decade is it unlikely that even christian conservatives can’t relate to either knowing someone or being married multiple times.  And lets not forget Romney tried this before on McCain who was married twice and no one really cared.

Looking at the exit polls from South Carolina, Mitt Romney has more issues than negative campaigning.  He has an elitist – rich guy – issue.  The exit poll results are via CNN.

He only won with those making over $200k! At this point, he should have learned how to relate to those below his income category.  Though education means little to whether someone is elitist or not, it’s good to mention that he only attacks postgraduates.  Pres. Obama also displayed this trend when just starting, however Romney has essentially been campaigning longer and should be more in tune with the rest of the public.  Unfortunately Newt is correct in that Romney puts out this aura of elitism.  Romney tends to use the words “I” and “me” a lot, he often spends his time defending why and how he got to be so rich, which is a big no-no.

Romney, with no surprise, has issues with christian conservatives.

This issue here is that Romney was mainly able to attract the more liberal thinkers in the South Carolina primary.  Which is probably not the best indication of whats to come if he’s going up against Pres. Obama.  Even Santorum, who has little chance of winning, able to beat out Mitt Romney with the very conservative crowd.

Which candidate can beat Obama? Apparently NOT Romney.  Though Gingrich is a great debater and has experience…he has also been around longer and has more skeletons than Romney.  I personally do not think Gingrich stands a chance, but he’s better than Romney simply based on the fact that his positions aren’t as aligned with Pres. Obama.

I truly think Mitt Romney will win the Republican primary, whoever, the general election is not looking good at this point.  Next primary is Florida where Romney is likely to win.  But the exit polls from that state will give a better indication on the split within the republican party as it pertains to Romney.  Sure, many of the more populated parts of Florida are occupied by northerners, but the 18% or so of evangelical Christians could mean a lot in what is now a swing state.  Hopefully for Mitt Romney, doesn’t mention marriage or morals of other candidates, because in the end no one will care about Newt’s marriages or morals, it will only remind people that Romney is a Mormon.  And though I think it’s ridiculous Christians would be against Romney for this reason, it is a serious issue that factors into polling decisions.

First, I do agree that infidelity in his marriage really doesn’t dictate how he’ll be as a President.  However, the rest of his theories and conclusions are a little far from reality and “reasonable” as he puts it.  Dr. Ablow writes,

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

Really? That’s a major assumption, not only assuming that these women wanted to be with him because of his “emotional energy and intellect” but also for assuming Gingrich has great emotional energy and intellect.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

Really now!? Because three women wanted to be with Newt Gingrich, that means we’d be clamoring for a third term.  One piece of information not here is that having women all over Gingrich doesn’t indicate the effectiveness of his policies.

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

Basically Gingrich is wish-washy about women, doesn’t know what he wants and that’s seen as having a truthful honest character?  I’m not denying Gingrich is probably one of the most straightforward politicians on the republican side, but how is this also not an indication that when he’s president, he wouldn’t be able to make solid decisions and stand by them?  If Dr. Ablow can make his conclusions about Gingrich, then surely my conclusions would also be applicable.

5) Mr. Gingrich’s daughters from his first marriage are among his most vigorous supporters. They obviously adore him and respect him and feel grateful for the kind of father he was.

Yeah, because he’s their father! Probably got them into the best ivy league schools based on name recognition alone and probably pays for their expenses….what child wouldn’t be a vigorous supporter.

If Dr. Ablow is correct to say that his marriage and infidelity issues means nothing to indicate bad presidential material, then neither are the good conclusions he comes up with.

“Name one thing government has run successfully?”

Republicans always seem to ask this question to democrats as to say, “check-mate, can’t answer that, huh!”.  The idea seems to be that smaller government is better and this is because government can’t run successfully like a business.  However, I would say, they’re right, government can’t run anything successfully and I wouldn’t expect government to run anything successfully.

First lets address that government can’t be as small or live up to republican expectations of “small government”.  The U.S. population has grown significant and we’re faced with newer problems than decades ago.  Just imagine if government was smaller, you’d have one small office handling millions of incoming calls and paper work to take care of a hundred different things.  It’d take more than a 2 weeks to transfer information from one tiny department to another.  It’d a month to receive notification that a document was received and processed.  It’d take more than 6 hours on hold to reach someone to talk to.  Then the new argument from republicans would be that we need faster government.  Government will never be smaller.

Next, I would argue, what is the definition of success.  Are we saying government isn’t successful because it isn’t as successful as business?  If that’s the definition of success, then that is correct.  However, it’s a bit unreasonable, because government is supposed to do what businesses cannot and shouldn’t do.  Just think if businesses were running libraries or deciding who gets a passport…or better yet, issuing driver licenses and running the courts….it would be absolutely horrible.  I’m sure Walmart would love to run our courts while treating employees like crap.  The point is that government ultimately doesn’t profit from the services.  I would also argue that in a perfect world without economic constraints, government would run successfully.  We have great teachers in the public school sector, awesome firefighters and dedicated policemen.  I can confidently say in a surplus economy, without cutbacks or layoffs, many government agencies and sectors would be able to provide services better and run successfully.

Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in and the economy plays a heavy role in the success of government. It’s a vicious cycle which not only relies on the personal responsibility of individual Americans, but courage of politicians to be selfless and implement often what are unpopular policies.  A major difference between the government and business is that when the economy is hurting, more people rely on government.  Unlike businesses, when the economy is hurting, fewer people rely on the private industry.  Of course, no one really calls a business “unsuccessful” when the economy is hurting, because it’s the “government’s fault” they have to “downsize” and layoff employees.  Which brings me to another point in which government cannot really downsize and be functioning as expected.  Even if a business is downsizing, that is its’ way of keeping it afloat and negating further loss and can later increase their business to how it use to be which is greatly dependent on the economic climate.  Government doesn’t have that much leeway when there’s more individuals relaying on it.

I would hope republicans look at the reality of what’s happening now and stop hoping government would be a business.  Sure, government can always improve in some way but the reason government is often strained is due to the economy.  The ideas republicans are offering have not worked and they need to update their economic plans to work in this current climate.

Now like many of us…this ad probably creeps you out.  Mainly the creepy grin (or smile) in the end.  In fact, I planned to blog about this days ago but after waiting and watching a few more times, here’s my analysis (other than it’s creepy).

The ad works for him with conservatives who are his base.  It may seem ultra weird, but I bet it works for those Christian conservatives in states like…South Carolina.  He is showing that a white guy is willing to work for Herman Cain’s campaign thus making the cultural conservatives feel a little better.  And the camera is zoomed in on the guy’s face and showing his tough exterior (wrinkly, imperfect skin), thus making him come off as a regular everyday guy that’s working for a man he truly believes in.  The testimony he gives is pretty good and honestly doesn’t come off as contrived as it could have been.  Also, notice the guy takes a smoke in the end, I thought it may be interpreted as the guy being stressed so much to make a fake testimony that he needs a smoke…but to the “real Americans” in the south that comes off once again as him being a normal guy (either with an imperfection like a smoking addiction or someone that they can imagine standing outside, talking and smoking with).  Now, the music is also very Americanized and plays to the younger Christian conservative crowd.  Though she is singing about America being united, I also felt the Christian Rock genera vibe.  And the Herman Cain grin shows that he’s kinda nice and not all his teeth are straight and perfect like Barack Obamas’.  This gives the impression that he is a manly man who doesn’t care about straightening his teeth because he is too busy working hard to put food on the table for his family.

But the most important thing this ad does is grab media attention to take away from the talk about how he may have flip flopped on important issues like abortion and how his 9-9-9 and 9-0-9 plan is horrible for America.

Unfortunately for Tim Pawlenty, he put too much resources in a straw poll that doesn’t really matter and a straw poll where substance on the issues isn’t valued by people who voted in Ames.  Also noting that Michelle Bachmann is from Iowa, he really didn’t stand a chance.

Pawlenty poured a million into trying to win this insignificant poll.  A poll only represents the far right of the republican party, not the (relatively) sensible sect of the GOP that would likely vote for him.  The sad part is that Tim Pawlenty was finally getting his mojo, taking on Michelle Bachmann and her little achievements (her only achievement being passing the light bulb bill).  Pawlenty could have been a moderate alternative to Mitt Romney who conservatives feel can’t trust.  He could have exposed more of Romney’s flaws and argue on the issues and substance of his “achievements”.

However, as a moderate democrat that sees nothing enticing about the GOP field that would make me change my vote from Pres. Obama, I’m quite content with Pawlenty’s decision.  That’s one less person that will make it hard for Pres. Obama to win another term.

Another thing to note is how this reflects on the republican party as a whole.  We have to think, did Pawlenty quit only because he came in a distant third in the Ames straw poll? No! It’s because of that, that he won’t be able to raise the money required to run his campaign.  Donors don’t believe in keeping relatively substantive candidates in the field.  Most only care about supporting the candidates that to the far right of the country.  The candidates that don’t have a chance of winning in a general election.  The GOP is kicking out the politicians that with some time could be stars within their party.

The weird part about this is that after all the back and forth, he was still unable to answer the question thoughtfully.  He only answered by saying, “I’m not going to raise taxes”, then he went on about Obama and how he will raise taxes.  In the end, that’s not a valid answer, all he did was spew out a key republican talking point which isn’t even a practical answer when social security and Medicaid are only becoming more expensive programs to upkeep.  Romney’s solution must also be to keep printing off money and not raising the revenue.  I love how the crowd reaction of mostly republicans are to applaud like mindless fools whenever they hear “not raise taxes”.

The next clip of Romney at this Iowa State Fair tops the cake.  He literally said that “corporations are people”….here’s the clip.

What Romney said may be true to a fraction of a degree, but he is failing to once again understand where the attendees are coming from.  He said, “corporations are people” and went on to defend them, he doesn’t understand the issue with saying that.  Corporations pocket the money they earn (and rightfully so in my opinion) but a major portion goes to the top few including the huge bonuses and trickles down in very low wages to the thousands of workers.  That’s how the cookie crumbles in our society…I’m not saying that’s entirely wrong.  I support capitalism in our society, but it has flaws.

Saying corporations are people, is the same as saying Walmart or Target is one person that should have a say.  Maybe he truly believes and supports this since I’m sure he’s the top republican candidate that receives the most money from corporations.  Corporations have been controlling political decisions behind the scenes for decades through lobbyists and favors for politicians.  Only recently (especially since the Supreme Court decision) have they been coming out to lobby in the open.

Romney has to decide whether it’s his decision that a corporation should have the same privileges in our political system as a person.  Is it really fair that Target decides to send 10 million to X-candidate, the CEO of Target sends 7 million to X-candidate, while most of Target employees send $10 each to support  X-candidate?  Do you not think that if X-candidate wins, that Target and it’s CEO will have more influence than the employees about the direction of the country?

Romney needs to get real, address the issues, not use talking points that explain nothing, or once again he will fail as a candidate.

By the way, how is she the queen of rage?  Or maybe that’s why they chose this picture…to make her look scary and raging?