Writeup of recent Anti-Palin rally in Alaska…
Over and over again, I keep reading how (according to Republicans and some former Hillary Clinton supporters) the media has it in for Sarah Palin, how they’re going after her because she’s a woman. There may be instances in which that may be true but I believe that those instances are few and far between. She’s running for Vice President of the United States of America!! What are the media and everyone else that challenges her knowledge, credentials, experience, and history, supposed to do? She’s supposed to be challenged, she’s supposed to be questioned. I repeat, she’s running for Vice President of the United States of America!! Not for President of Student Council. Not for the top prize in a spelling bee contest. Bush and Cheney are criticized, questioned, and mocked, everyday and have been ever since they took office. As the saying goes, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”.
As the election season heats up I think we, as ordinary citizens, watching the convention coverage and the morning talk shows, listening to the left leaning or right leaning commentators, the pundits, the gurus, the historians, the know-it-alls, the O’Reillys, Limbaughs, Matthews and Olbermanns, need to remember that [IMHO] it’s all about one thing:
$$ MONEY $$
Democrats and Republicans alike need to give outlandish, roaring speeches, make fun of the other team, so that they can rally their base and bring in more money through donations and contributions to their respective parties and elections.
Pundits and commentators need to make bold predictions and make outlandish statements so that their value increases. They need to be loud, hard, and controversial. They need to be a part of the news and make news. They feed off of one another by bashing each other. And if they’re popular enough, they get invited to participate on the news/talk show circuit such as MSNBC, FOX News, or CNN. The more popular they are, the more they make, the more books they can sell, and the more viewers the programs get. The more viewers they get, the more the networks can charge for advertising. The more they charge for advertising, the more money the networks make. Also, the more viewers they have the more consumers big companies get to see products they advertise through commercials, and the more money they make selling their products. The more money companies make, the more their stock value goes up, the more they can spend on lobbying Washington, the more they can contribute to politicians and political parties.
And around and around we go. Obviously, this is a simplified analysis, but you can get the essence of it. We just need to take everything we hear with a grain of salt. Understand where it’s coming from, and why.
What does that mean for us ordinary citizens? Maybe just more of the same no matter who gets elected.
Ok. This is getting to be ridiculous. We have a war going on. China is killing protestors, clamping down on freedom of speech, while getting ready to host the Olympic games. We have failing economy, gas prices at all time high. We have a food shortage crisis, resulting in riots in parts of the world. Innocent women and children are being killed on both sides of the Middle East conflict. And yet we have a President that has time to appear on Deal Or No Deal. And we have all three presidential candidates appearing on Wrestling’s RAW. WTF?!? This is why I think all three choices suck. I don’t want a president that appears on wrestling shows, pretending to be The Rock or Hulk Hogan. I don’t want a president that appears on late night comedy shows, making themselves look like idiot. I don’t want them appearing on game shows, or pretending to bowl or drinks shots at a bar. I want a president or a presidential candidate that will be presidential. One that evokes respect. One that evokes confidence. One that evokes a sense of leadership. One that is worthy of being called the Commander In Chief. I don’t think our current President is worthy. And I don’t think any of the candidates are worthy.
At a meeting with California superdelegates, apparently Bill turned red-faced and began a diatribe when asked what he thought about Gov. Bill Richardson endorsing Obama instead of Clinton. Richardson was Energy Secretary, under President Bill Clinton, and supposedly confided in the President that he would support Hillary. As some of the Clinton donors who wrote to Pelosi had said:
Looks like Gov. Bill Richardson did just that.
Clinton was expected to propose the elimination of tax breaks for companies that move jobs to other countries and use the savings to provide $7 billion a year in tax incentives to persuade companies to “insource” jobs in the United States
I’m confused. So we take away tax “breaks” to give tax “incentives”? If it’s cheaper to move jobs overseas, no amount of tax “incentives” is going to persuade companies to “insource” jobs in the US. During an economic downturn, when companies are trying to cut costs, while the cost of doing business in the US remains high, companies will look even harder in trying to outsource jobs to countries where the cost of doing business is far cheaper. Who’s to say other countries won’t give tax breaks? In this global economy, companies can pick up and go where ever they want.
In addition, she’s proposing:
Creating a $60 billion National Infrastructure Bank
Increasing federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year
Devoting an additional $1 billion to intercity passenger rail systems
Investing in cutting-edge technological solutions to the growing problem of traffic congestion
Promoting the “greening” of our highways and transit systems
Where is all this money coming from? And all this while, Bernanke is warning of a possible recession. Hey, I’m all for creating new jobs, renegotiating NAFTA, keeping existing jobs here in the US. Just do it without raising my taxes.