"After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land." Well, you have to give it to Barack Obama. He did say he would guarantee Health Care for all Americans and he followed through with his promise. Whether states want to abide by this law is up to them and currently a lot of states, including Virginia, are trying to repeal this law. A recent poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 51% of Americans are not in favor of the Health Care Reform which is a new low for the poll since the law was passed. Obviously, not everyone is going to be in favor of the law but Obama should rethink some of the principles involved with the Health Care Reform. For example, one cannot choose their own cardiologist or urologist under their company's Preferred Provider Organization. For many people, the right to choose is important to them and taking that right away causes a shift in public opinion. This unfortunately, is not the only issue that Obama faces.
When Obama came into office, he had to take on the burden of the economic downturn. Currently, Obama is trying to enact his Jobs Plan which entails expanding the payroll tax, preventing layoffs, and creating incentives for small businesses. Personally, these are all excellent ideas to aid the economy and if implemented, would make a difference for many Americans by providing them with benefits they didn't have before. Obama has done a good job promoting this plan and making it his duty to support all Americans who have been effected by economic struggles.
By far, Obama has handled the "War on Terror" well. He has reassured the Muslim people that “we will not stigmatize or demonize entire communities because of the actions of a few.” 9/11 was a devastating day for this country but with the help of the troops, Obama has managed to kill Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible for these deadly attacks. Personally, I'm confident that Obama wants to protect the country. He has recently stated that all troops will be pulled out of Iraq and will be home by December 2011, which is a huge step in the right direction.
Obama does face the opportunity of reelection in about 12 months. And for the last few years he has done a good job of taking on the responsibilities that come with being president. Though he lacks an immense amount of job experience, he has been able to fight for what he believes in and keep up with major politicians like John Boehner. Even though he has done a sufficient job, I don't think he will be reelected. He has kept most of his promises but people would probably like to see someone with more experience take on this job. Overall, I give Obama a B-.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Perry: Either Debate or Step Aside.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/what-if-perry-skips-the-debates/?ref=politics
By definition, a debate is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. The key word here is "interactive", something Rick Perry has lacked during the last few debates. According to recent reports, Rick Perry, the Republican Governor from Texas, has talked about not participating in the upcoming debates. "I don't think Perry can avoid (debating)", Dana Loesch, a CNN contributor says "because the debates are where he has received a lot of his criticism." Even though Perry is strongly advised not to disengage from debates, he's done it before and still won. For example, when Perry ran for Governor last year, he avoided debating Bill White, the former mayor of Houston. Perry won but White made it clear that he thought Perry was afraid of debating. And from Perry's latest actions, he could be.
Michael Shrear, the writer of this article, emphasizes the importance of debates by comparing Perry to other Republican candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich who apparently don't have enough money to produce television advertisements for their campaign. For these candidates "the debates are the only opportunity to break through with the national audience." And while Perry has gone a step further by taking advantage of fund raising, he should be taking his time to also participate in the debates. In contrast though, Shrear does say that debates "are a huge intrusion" to candidates. Those who will be debating have to plan ahead and be aware of who else they will be going toe to toe with. But if participating in debates means they have a greater chance of being elected in the primary, than candidates like Rick Perry should take an active role in them rather than sitting out.
Perry could be a potential nominee for the Republican Party. Apparently, he can be "aggressive" and presents some good points for other candidates like Mitt Romney to challenge. But if Perry chooses not to participate, he faces not being elected. In this case, he only has himself to blame. In order for Perry to be considered as a future nominee, he needs to take part in these debates. By showing the people that he is willing to participate in the debate, makes him not only look like an eligible candidate but also someone who can lead this country.
By definition, a debate is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. The key word here is "interactive", something Rick Perry has lacked during the last few debates. According to recent reports, Rick Perry, the Republican Governor from Texas, has talked about not participating in the upcoming debates. "I don't think Perry can avoid (debating)", Dana Loesch, a CNN contributor says "because the debates are where he has received a lot of his criticism." Even though Perry is strongly advised not to disengage from debates, he's done it before and still won. For example, when Perry ran for Governor last year, he avoided debating Bill White, the former mayor of Houston. Perry won but White made it clear that he thought Perry was afraid of debating. And from Perry's latest actions, he could be.
Michael Shrear, the writer of this article, emphasizes the importance of debates by comparing Perry to other Republican candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich who apparently don't have enough money to produce television advertisements for their campaign. For these candidates "the debates are the only opportunity to break through with the national audience." And while Perry has gone a step further by taking advantage of fund raising, he should be taking his time to also participate in the debates. In contrast though, Shrear does say that debates "are a huge intrusion" to candidates. Those who will be debating have to plan ahead and be aware of who else they will be going toe to toe with. But if participating in debates means they have a greater chance of being elected in the primary, than candidates like Rick Perry should take an active role in them rather than sitting out.
Perry could be a potential nominee for the Republican Party. Apparently, he can be "aggressive" and presents some good points for other candidates like Mitt Romney to challenge. But if Perry chooses not to participate, he faces not being elected. In this case, he only has himself to blame. In order for Perry to be considered as a future nominee, he needs to take part in these debates. By showing the people that he is willing to participate in the debate, makes him not only look like an eligible candidate but also someone who can lead this country.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Answer to Question #2
Abortion has been an on going political issue for decades. Liberals and Conservatives tend to fight over whether or not it's a woman's choice to keep the baby or if it's society's choice. Since I'm a liberal, I support 'pro-choice' because our country is built on the basis of freedom and taking away a person's right to choose would be to take away their freedom. But one of the reasons I gravitate towards this issue is because of the people in charge who are making the decision. They're mostly men. Currently the amount of men in Congress is an overwhelming number compared to the amount of women and yet, they still feel inclined to make this decision. The irony is, their own personal beliefs conflict with how they politically stand. In the past there have been congressmen who have voted against abortion yet their daughters or wives have had one. Essentially it should be up to the women of this society to decide because they have to carry a baby. Even though abortion is seen as murderous, there are some women who are not suitable to be mothers and they could end up hurting themselves and the child during their pregnancy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the issue but when it comes down to the actual decision, it should be given to the mother and no one else.
Bachmann and Cain "Welcome" Illegal Immigrants with Guns and the English Language
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/politics/bachmann-and-cain-deliver-blistering-attacks-on-illegal-immigration.html?_r=1&ref=politics
The fight to fix Illegal Immigration has been a huge issue for not just the Democratic Party but also the Republican Party. This past weekend, Republican candidates Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann both publicized how they feel about illegal immigration. Cain even had the audacity to propose that an electric fence should be constructed on the border of Mexico and America to kill those who try to cross illegally. While Bachmann's approach was not extreme, she did make it clear that illegal immigration is a security threat and should be dealt with accordingly. A little harsh? Unfortunately this isn't the first time Cain has suggested that we use military tactics and extreme methods to keep illegal immigrants from entering. Cain has gone on several radio shows and talked about this type of action. He has even compared construction of the electrical fence to the building of the Great Wall of China. His philosophy: "If the Chinese can build the Great Wall then surely we can build a border control fence".
Even though Bachmann is still harsh in her attacks, she takes a more logical approach saying English should be made the official language of America in order to keep those out who cannot speak it. Though she stated she is "not targeting" Hispanics in her attacks she has voted against the DREAM Act and does not believe the immigration laws need to be modified. The fastest growing immigration group in America is Hispanics and from the article many are starting to speak out about Cain and Bachmann's critical comments. “To suggest that they would be electrocuted or shot would be to treat them harsher than we treat murderers or rapists.” Brent A. Wilkes, vice chairman of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda says. Writers Trip Gabriel and Edward Wyatt, continue to emphasize how strongly Bachmann and Cain feel about the issue by quoting them and using contrasting views of other patrons. By doing so, it makes both Bachmann and Cain look like extremist, which most people aren't in favor of. Personally, I don't want either of these candidates representing the Republican Party if they continue to talk about future amendments or regulations that will increase the value of this country by eliminating illegal immigrants. Is illegal immigration a problem? Yes, but there's a better way of going about this business. If Cain and Bachmann want to represent the Republican Party they'll have to take different approaches to the issue. People are tired of seeing candidates use the same strategies to scare illegal immigrants. They want to see someone that's going to fix the problem without having to use the electrical fence in order to instill a better system.
The fight to fix Illegal Immigration has been a huge issue for not just the Democratic Party but also the Republican Party. This past weekend, Republican candidates Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann both publicized how they feel about illegal immigration. Cain even had the audacity to propose that an electric fence should be constructed on the border of Mexico and America to kill those who try to cross illegally. While Bachmann's approach was not extreme, she did make it clear that illegal immigration is a security threat and should be dealt with accordingly. A little harsh? Unfortunately this isn't the first time Cain has suggested that we use military tactics and extreme methods to keep illegal immigrants from entering. Cain has gone on several radio shows and talked about this type of action. He has even compared construction of the electrical fence to the building of the Great Wall of China. His philosophy: "If the Chinese can build the Great Wall then surely we can build a border control fence".
Even though Bachmann is still harsh in her attacks, she takes a more logical approach saying English should be made the official language of America in order to keep those out who cannot speak it. Though she stated she is "not targeting" Hispanics in her attacks she has voted against the DREAM Act and does not believe the immigration laws need to be modified. The fastest growing immigration group in America is Hispanics and from the article many are starting to speak out about Cain and Bachmann's critical comments. “To suggest that they would be electrocuted or shot would be to treat them harsher than we treat murderers or rapists.” Brent A. Wilkes, vice chairman of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda says. Writers Trip Gabriel and Edward Wyatt, continue to emphasize how strongly Bachmann and Cain feel about the issue by quoting them and using contrasting views of other patrons. By doing so, it makes both Bachmann and Cain look like extremist, which most people aren't in favor of. Personally, I don't want either of these candidates representing the Republican Party if they continue to talk about future amendments or regulations that will increase the value of this country by eliminating illegal immigrants. Is illegal immigration a problem? Yes, but there's a better way of going about this business. If Cain and Bachmann want to represent the Republican Party they'll have to take different approaches to the issue. People are tired of seeing candidates use the same strategies to scare illegal immigrants. They want to see someone that's going to fix the problem without having to use the electrical fence in order to instill a better system.
Answer to Question #1
Due to the fact that I'm under 18 years old and a female, I tend to be in favor of the Democratic Party. This party leans towards changing the systems in America to make them more coherent and accessible all individuals regardless of social status. For example, they believe immigration plays a large role in the success of this country but they recognize this system is broken. To change the system would be to make it stronger and would not only help immigrants but also aid the economy and national security. Personally, this change should be made because America is built on diversity and will continue foster more immigrants. The current system will not last under a failing economy, so reforming it will encourage not only this generation but future generations to remain positive about immigration.
In addition, Democrats tend to be women because they want to support the people in this country. Recently there have been issues over 'Obamacare' and setting up a proper system that will aid the citizens in this country who do not have it. Should we offer Health Care to everyone or just the individuals who qualify? As a democrat, we should make is accessible to everyone. The reason being is because it gives Americans a sense of equality. Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" and sometimes America can lose site of that. By making Health Care available to everyone, it sets a good example for other countries who want to move towards building a democratic system and ensuring equality for all.
In addition, Democrats tend to be women because they want to support the people in this country. Recently there have been issues over 'Obamacare' and setting up a proper system that will aid the citizens in this country who do not have it. Should we offer Health Care to everyone or just the individuals who qualify? As a democrat, we should make is accessible to everyone. The reason being is because it gives Americans a sense of equality. Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" and sometimes America can lose site of that. By making Health Care available to everyone, it sets a good example for other countries who want to move towards building a democratic system and ensuring equality for all.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Hey Romney, Can You Answer Some Questions Please?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/politics/social-issues-pose-new-test-for-mitt-romney.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=politics
Lately, Mitt Romney has been faced with questions about his Mormon faith and how it effects his stance on certain social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and health care. The simple thing would be to "shine a light on his problem" (i.e. his religious background) and move forward in his campaign. But Romney, has deferred the attention from himself and focused on controversial issues such as 'Obamacare'. "You measure a leader on how they walk, not how they talk." Rick Perry recently said, specifically directing his comment at Romney. Perry is right though, Romney has done little to show where he clearly stands on a particular issue and if it is based on his faith or not. And unfortunately this is nothing new for him. Before Romney was elected as Governor of Massachusetts, he took a democratic stance on abortion claiming he was "pro-choice" and even said he would support the funding of Planned Parenthood. Prior to his election, he said he would support gay rights and acknowledge the union of same-sex marriages. But after Romney was elected he pulled back from his original statements and opposed gay rights and abortion.
Clearly, Romney can talk the talk but not walk the walk. Obviously his past decisions have lead other politicians, like Rick Perry, to question his beliefs and moral values. This article emphasizes that while Romney says one thing, he clearly has intentions to do another. This brings voters to question whether or not Romney is being influenced by his religious background and if so, will this hinder his opportunity of being elected to run in the primary? The content of the article hints that it will."Mr. Romney’s broader challenge: establishing himself as authentic and principled, and battling the perception that he has reshaped himself for the politics of the moment." Michael D. Shrear writes. The key words are "authentic" and "principled" neither of which Romney seems to be trying to portray. If he wants to pull ahead of his opponents he must address this issue surrounding his religious beliefs otherwise his chances of being elected are slim. Even though Romney "reaches out" to conservative voters, it's not enough. He would gain much needed respect and even sympathy if he explained his decisions and actions to the public. For example, Kennedy knew the voters were skeptical due to his Catholic background. Kennedy made it apparent though, that his Catholic beliefs would not determine his decisions on particular issues, such as abortion. In my opinion, Romney needs to approach it from that angle because this country will not be lead by a president who bases their decisions off their faith. Americans want a leader not a preacher.
Lately, Mitt Romney has been faced with questions about his Mormon faith and how it effects his stance on certain social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and health care. The simple thing would be to "shine a light on his problem" (i.e. his religious background) and move forward in his campaign. But Romney, has deferred the attention from himself and focused on controversial issues such as 'Obamacare'. "You measure a leader on how they walk, not how they talk." Rick Perry recently said, specifically directing his comment at Romney. Perry is right though, Romney has done little to show where he clearly stands on a particular issue and if it is based on his faith or not. And unfortunately this is nothing new for him. Before Romney was elected as Governor of Massachusetts, he took a democratic stance on abortion claiming he was "pro-choice" and even said he would support the funding of Planned Parenthood. Prior to his election, he said he would support gay rights and acknowledge the union of same-sex marriages. But after Romney was elected he pulled back from his original statements and opposed gay rights and abortion.
Clearly, Romney can talk the talk but not walk the walk. Obviously his past decisions have lead other politicians, like Rick Perry, to question his beliefs and moral values. This article emphasizes that while Romney says one thing, he clearly has intentions to do another. This brings voters to question whether or not Romney is being influenced by his religious background and if so, will this hinder his opportunity of being elected to run in the primary? The content of the article hints that it will."Mr. Romney’s broader challenge: establishing himself as authentic and principled, and battling the perception that he has reshaped himself for the politics of the moment." Michael D. Shrear writes. The key words are "authentic" and "principled" neither of which Romney seems to be trying to portray. If he wants to pull ahead of his opponents he must address this issue surrounding his religious beliefs otherwise his chances of being elected are slim. Even though Romney "reaches out" to conservative voters, it's not enough. He would gain much needed respect and even sympathy if he explained his decisions and actions to the public. For example, Kennedy knew the voters were skeptical due to his Catholic background. Kennedy made it apparent though, that his Catholic beliefs would not determine his decisions on particular issues, such as abortion. In my opinion, Romney needs to approach it from that angle because this country will not be lead by a president who bases their decisions off their faith. Americans want a leader not a preacher.
So really Romney? Are you going to address the attacks or pull the bate and switch again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)