Call me a bit astounded at the GOP’s primary process that currently pits Romney against Santorum as the number two guy. Let’s quickly review all of the other candidates that “popped” previously in the process and gave Romney a run for his money:
Herman Cain and his ‘999’
Michelle Bachman and her tea party caché
Rick Perry and his amazing résumé
Newt Gingrich and his stunning debate performances
Then let’s consider candidates like Tim Pawlenty who early in the race polled at higher levels than Santorum, but dropped out like a gentleman. Ron Paul also has polled higher than Santorum for a good stretch of the campaign.
Is Santorum rising now simply because he was the worst of all of the other options? If not, what explains his failure to connect with voters earlier like most all of his competitors?
More here. Interesting quote from the article:
“Well, as you know, those delegates had to be filed in Virginia and all the way back in early part of December,” Santorum said. “And, you know, look, I’ll be honest, I mean, I was running across the state of Iowa and, you know, sitting in 2 percent of the national polls, with very, very limited resources, you know, we didn’t have the ability to go out.”
Aside from the quality escape that the legend on the bottom of the video is mismatched from the labels on the Y-axis, this video is a little surprising to me:
President Obama appears to be taking credit for the increase in oil production over the last three years. Yet here is candidate Obama in 2008 explaining that it takes 10 years for oil drilling efforts to take effect (actually probably closer to 5):
It is misleading to point out that domestic oil production is up under the Obama administration, as the groundwork for the increase was clearly laid many years ago. I’m not aware of any specific actions the administration has taken in the last three years that would lead to increased production.
From http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-suggests-romney-shoveling-load-know-171643214–abc-news.html :
The visit was an “official” presidential event, not campaign-related, but the odd dynamic when the president took the stage to chants of “Four More Years!” after which a labor official told the crowd, “This is not a political event.”
That seemed a questionable assertion, given how the president continually referenced Romney, defending how his moves to save GM and Chrysler demanded change and accountability.
Why the façade? I understand that the President has the bully pulpit. Fine. So, why call it an “official visit” when you are visiting a state on the day that it votes and blast your opponent? You are in campaign mode, I get it. So why not just call it what it is.
Candor is an important part of my campaign, and my outlook on life. If I try to describe my behavior in nonsensical or defensive ways please call me out on it. When elected I will, of course, spend some of my time as your congressman campaigning. It’s one of the core activities on the job – explaining what I’ve done, what I’m doing, what I want to do, and drawing distinctions with my opponents who want to do something else. I won’t call it “official business” I’ll call it “campaigning” and then people won’t accuse me of obfuscation.
I was watching the Republican Presidential Debate last night and very much enjoyed this simple question:
“Without caveats or explanation, please define yourself using one word, and one word only.”
I thought each of the candidates did a very nice job with the question – picking a word that would address what they wanted the voters to remember about them. The best answer, however, went to Newt Gingrich for his answer “cheerful” which was delivered masterfully and got a big laugh from the crowd as it went counter to the current meme about Newt that he is too angry to be elected.
So what’s my answer?
But I’m open to suggestions in the comments below…
From a recent article in the USA Today talking about the politics of climate change:
“The science doesn’t matter because the science isn’t the real issue,” Brulle adds. “It’s about politics and money.” All we have with climate change, he suggests, is politicians taking sides in an economic debate over whether we should spend money to address climate change, or not (with one side very strongly opposed), and hiding behind a smokescreen of debate about settled science to avoid making those issues clear.
Exactly! Which is why I’ve clearly laid out my position on the environment. The science part of the debate should be reserved for very few people who actually understand the climate research – it’s the public policy that matters. I will spend my time talking about the policy.
Check out the chart in the link below showing almost half of Americans not paying taxes now:
Politicians of all persuasions must be celebrating – whether you’re President Obama, calling to tax the top 1%, or Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman who call for a zero percent tax rate, we’re halfway to that political nirvana where everything is free and everyone is happy.