After my daily browsing of the greatest website ever, (Click here...) I have noticed a very quick shift in the news. I guess the beating of the Republicans over the shutdown has become old news, because we are BACK to bashing Obamacare!!! Just a few weeks ago, I was pretty sure the media was projecting the downfall of the Republican Party, now it seems...
I have pointed this out before, but Obamacare is giving the Blue Dog Democrats big headaches. I am not really sure why all this is happening, I would have thought Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would have made sure all the kinks were out...Oh...I mean what about...mmm...It is starting to become clear that a few Democrats are pushing for changes. J
I think the bigger question we all have to ask, is how bad was this roll out, how bad could thing have been during the first few weeks of Obamacare. Check this out, and here, and here too...It is getting a bit crazy if you believe everything you read. I would be more then willing to write this all off it is was a right leaning website or news source like Fox News, but this are from media outlets that are left leaning, say some editorals from the New York Times. Now here is a video from CBS news, that is just adding the heap of problems that Obama and his admin is facing.
Is this all Obama's fault? No, it would be stupid for anybody to go straight to Obama and say EVERYTHING is your fault. It is like blaming EVERYTHING that happened in Iraq on President Bush. Yet, I will say the marching orders have to start somewhere and he gave them, it was up to the Democrats in the Senate and House to try and stop this, but they did not. Now everybody has to deal with the fallout, and now some Democrats are running for cover.
This should be the same across the board, the Senate and the House are susposed to be checks to the President to make sure they are not going overboard, not just yes men/women. Yet, I have not seen a congress in awhile that has not become a group of yes people. If anything is to blame for this entire mess, it should be the Democrats in the House and the Senate, for not stopping and asking themselves is this really a good idea?
EDIT: ACA is starting to fall apart the wheels are falling off, and the numbers are starting to show: Here, I think we also need to realize how many people are loosing their insurance and the numbers will keep increasing...Colorado, Oregon, California, Tennessee, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or just look here.
Now, I understand some of this infromation is going to be Republican/Obamacare hating people just spitting out things that may skew the truth. I will agree that these numbers are twisted and bent to support one side or the other. What we can gather from all this infromation is that there is a large number of people who are loosing their health insurance. We can not deny that as fact, there are more people loosing health insurance then there are people getting it. That right there is a loosing cause...
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
America Divided, American United.
Today's post is going to get a bit political. I normally do not like to give out my own personal view point, but I think with so much anger going out between political factions a view point from a Political Science major might help.
I think many of us can agree that the government shutdown was a failure of American politics and in the end only really hurt the American people. I also believe that most people feel that both the Republicans and the Democrats both played a major role in creating the situation that we find ourselves in now. I doubt any person can provide a good argument how the entire situation is just one party's fault. Although, I know people have...just go to Real Clear Politics or here and you will find a ton of articles pointing out that it is all the Republicans faults. I am going to try and point out why the Republicans are not going to suffer at the polls as much as they did in 1996, I want to make it clear that I do believe that both sides had a major part to play in the shut down and that Republicans have/can/will be stupid in the future. There are some articles that do agree both sides are to blame, yet these are few and far between.
What upsets me is how people try and spin everything one way or the other, reading all the articles talking about how the Republicans are going to take a major hit in the elections is just annoying. Mostly because there is no real evidence of this happening, the thing most articles are pointing to is the 1996 shutdown and the next set of elections that followed.
There are a few things many people tend to forget or just don't point out. The 1996 shutdown happened just before the 96 elections and it was still fresh in people's minds. That did not help the Republicans, because they did control the House and the Senate. When the same party can not come up with a budget, it only makes them look bad. It was pretty much a sure lock that the Republicans were going to loose ground in that election and they did.
Fast forward to 2013, where the budget battle shutdown the government. A few major differences, Democrats control the Senate, national elections are not in two weeks, and it is not a presidental election. All these factors will help ease the hurt against the Republicans. What also helped the Democrats in the 1996 election was that Bill Clinton had a positive approval rating at around 54%, while our current President is having trouble breaking 45%, according to RealClearPolitics.com. In turn that means many of the Democrats who were elected into office that year may have been riding President Clinton's coat tails.
That is not where the positives for the Republicans stop at this point, they also face a very friendly states to pick up Senate seats. Let's look at Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball here and look at the Senate Races right now. A very friendly map, currently the Republicans need 6 seats to take over control of the Senate and right now, it looks like it is possible. With pickups in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia the Republicans would only need to win 3 of the remaining senates. Now, to give the Democrats credit they do have some good odds in Kentucky to unseat Mitch McConnell, he never really crushed the people he was running against. They also have an okay chance to win the open seat in Georgia, but a lot of things would have to fall into place in order to take those Republican seats. The big reason why it will be a big up hill climb in both states is President Obama's approval rating in both. In the end it may come down to do people want to have a Republican vote or a Democrat vote in the senate.
The seats where the Republicans feel they can pick up the at least 3 seats are Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and North Carolina. All four of these states went Republican in the last Presidential Election, and are very high on the list of states the Republicans wish to claim. They do have outside shots in Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Iowa, but they would have to get some really good candidates to run. The shocker might be Colorado, where Registered Republicans out number Registered Democrats.
The odds of the Republicans picking up the 6 seats in the senate are 60/40 at best, but more likely sits at 50/50 at this point, and the Democrats do have some advantages in Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu has survived many Republican challengers, in a very Republican leaning state. In North Carolina with the Republican Party a mess, Senator Kay Hagan has a good chance of keeping her seat.
One of the many places where many people in the media want to point is how the Republicans are going to loose the House because of the shutdown. I can only laugh when I hear people say this, you only have to look at the districts and you will come to realize most districts have become pretty set in their ways. Less then 25 seats voted for one party on the Presidential level and then voted for the other in their house race. Take a look at the House Race ratings, you can see there are less then 10 toss up races and only one seat projected to swap parties. The Democrats have to take 17 seats to take back the House and with only 1 projected to swap and 9 toss up races they would have to win 7 more seats while loosing no other races. If you noticed to the Democrats have a larger number of toss ups then the Republicans, they would have to sweep all the toss ups, take CA-31, and then find 7 more seats. It really does not seem like it is going to happen, and then you have this.
The major white elephant in the room is Obamacare, this is something that is scaring some Democrats. Problems with the Website along with horrible support for the health care law this could become a long term head ache for them, while the shut down was a short term head ache for the Republicans. I think one of my favorite websites has become Enroll-maven, you can see how gummed up the signing up for the health care law has become. I think with the unpopularity of the health care law and the problems with the roll out are just adding to the Democrats problems. Even some Obama friendly media websites are coming out to rain on Obamacare, Go here, and here. In some regards the Democrat base is almost, I stress ALMOST as fractured as the Republicans, mmmm...
The silver lining to the Democrats is the disjointed Republican Party, the moderate old GOP and the young upstart Tea Party side. They don't seem to like each other, and I can tell you this much Sen. Cruz and Sen. McConnell don't see eye to eye all the time. The Tea Party is hurting the Republican in Senate Races and Presidential Races, where they keep pushing in ultra Conservatives into races where they just can't win. Take Delaware/Nevada/Colorado in 2010, all 3 seats should have swapped to the Republicans with ease, but the Tea Party took control of those races and just tossed them out the window. They did the same in Missouri and Indiana in the 2012 election, pushing candidates that look nice to the ultra conservatives, but turn off the general public. The Tea Party, and Sen. Cruz has become a Thorn in the Republicans' side, but they are far from a terrorist like group. I think this is where the Democrats take that silver lining and throw it out the window, read some of these comments.
They have to realize that these people who were voted in, not just in 2010, but again in 2012 do represent a segment of the American people. In the end it is calling the people who voted for them terrorists, and I as an American I am personally offended. The Senate/House/White House is supposed to work together to represent the best interests of EVERYBODY in America, much to both the Republicans and Democrats chagrin this means the Tea Party districts must be involved. The Republicans need to embrace them and the Democrats must reach out to them. If the Democrats could try and reach out to them and NOT call them terrorists they will have a much better chance in elections then the Republican who keep trying to keep them quite.
The end, does this all really matter? People have a very short attention span and it really comes down to what have you done for me lately. I mean how many people remember Benghazi, IRS scandal and crack down on the AP by the Department of Justice. This all happened last year and most people have moved on and don't give it a second thought.
The problem is the both parties are to blame for the shutdown, and I think both sides have to share the blame, I just don't believe the Republicans should have to shoulder all the blame. They are also far from dead come 2014.
I think many of us can agree that the government shutdown was a failure of American politics and in the end only really hurt the American people. I also believe that most people feel that both the Republicans and the Democrats both played a major role in creating the situation that we find ourselves in now. I doubt any person can provide a good argument how the entire situation is just one party's fault. Although, I know people have...just go to Real Clear Politics or here and you will find a ton of articles pointing out that it is all the Republicans faults. I am going to try and point out why the Republicans are not going to suffer at the polls as much as they did in 1996, I want to make it clear that I do believe that both sides had a major part to play in the shut down and that Republicans have/can/will be stupid in the future. There are some articles that do agree both sides are to blame, yet these are few and far between.
What upsets me is how people try and spin everything one way or the other, reading all the articles talking about how the Republicans are going to take a major hit in the elections is just annoying. Mostly because there is no real evidence of this happening, the thing most articles are pointing to is the 1996 shutdown and the next set of elections that followed.
There are a few things many people tend to forget or just don't point out. The 1996 shutdown happened just before the 96 elections and it was still fresh in people's minds. That did not help the Republicans, because they did control the House and the Senate. When the same party can not come up with a budget, it only makes them look bad. It was pretty much a sure lock that the Republicans were going to loose ground in that election and they did.
Fast forward to 2013, where the budget battle shutdown the government. A few major differences, Democrats control the Senate, national elections are not in two weeks, and it is not a presidental election. All these factors will help ease the hurt against the Republicans. What also helped the Democrats in the 1996 election was that Bill Clinton had a positive approval rating at around 54%, while our current President is having trouble breaking 45%, according to RealClearPolitics.com. In turn that means many of the Democrats who were elected into office that year may have been riding President Clinton's coat tails.
That is not where the positives for the Republicans stop at this point, they also face a very friendly states to pick up Senate seats. Let's look at Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball here and look at the Senate Races right now. A very friendly map, currently the Republicans need 6 seats to take over control of the Senate and right now, it looks like it is possible. With pickups in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia the Republicans would only need to win 3 of the remaining senates. Now, to give the Democrats credit they do have some good odds in Kentucky to unseat Mitch McConnell, he never really crushed the people he was running against. They also have an okay chance to win the open seat in Georgia, but a lot of things would have to fall into place in order to take those Republican seats. The big reason why it will be a big up hill climb in both states is President Obama's approval rating in both. In the end it may come down to do people want to have a Republican vote or a Democrat vote in the senate.
The seats where the Republicans feel they can pick up the at least 3 seats are Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and North Carolina. All four of these states went Republican in the last Presidential Election, and are very high on the list of states the Republicans wish to claim. They do have outside shots in Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Iowa, but they would have to get some really good candidates to run. The shocker might be Colorado, where Registered Republicans out number Registered Democrats.
The odds of the Republicans picking up the 6 seats in the senate are 60/40 at best, but more likely sits at 50/50 at this point, and the Democrats do have some advantages in Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu has survived many Republican challengers, in a very Republican leaning state. In North Carolina with the Republican Party a mess, Senator Kay Hagan has a good chance of keeping her seat.
One of the many places where many people in the media want to point is how the Republicans are going to loose the House because of the shutdown. I can only laugh when I hear people say this, you only have to look at the districts and you will come to realize most districts have become pretty set in their ways. Less then 25 seats voted for one party on the Presidential level and then voted for the other in their house race. Take a look at the House Race ratings, you can see there are less then 10 toss up races and only one seat projected to swap parties. The Democrats have to take 17 seats to take back the House and with only 1 projected to swap and 9 toss up races they would have to win 7 more seats while loosing no other races. If you noticed to the Democrats have a larger number of toss ups then the Republicans, they would have to sweep all the toss ups, take CA-31, and then find 7 more seats. It really does not seem like it is going to happen, and then you have this.
The major white elephant in the room is Obamacare, this is something that is scaring some Democrats. Problems with the Website along with horrible support for the health care law this could become a long term head ache for them, while the shut down was a short term head ache for the Republicans. I think one of my favorite websites has become Enroll-maven, you can see how gummed up the signing up for the health care law has become. I think with the unpopularity of the health care law and the problems with the roll out are just adding to the Democrats problems. Even some Obama friendly media websites are coming out to rain on Obamacare, Go here, and here. In some regards the Democrat base is almost, I stress ALMOST as fractured as the Republicans, mmmm...
The silver lining to the Democrats is the disjointed Republican Party, the moderate old GOP and the young upstart Tea Party side. They don't seem to like each other, and I can tell you this much Sen. Cruz and Sen. McConnell don't see eye to eye all the time. The Tea Party is hurting the Republican in Senate Races and Presidential Races, where they keep pushing in ultra Conservatives into races where they just can't win. Take Delaware/Nevada/Colorado in 2010, all 3 seats should have swapped to the Republicans with ease, but the Tea Party took control of those races and just tossed them out the window. They did the same in Missouri and Indiana in the 2012 election, pushing candidates that look nice to the ultra conservatives, but turn off the general public. The Tea Party, and Sen. Cruz has become a Thorn in the Republicans' side, but they are far from a terrorist like group. I think this is where the Democrats take that silver lining and throw it out the window, read some of these comments.
They have to realize that these people who were voted in, not just in 2010, but again in 2012 do represent a segment of the American people. In the end it is calling the people who voted for them terrorists, and I as an American I am personally offended. The Senate/House/White House is supposed to work together to represent the best interests of EVERYBODY in America, much to both the Republicans and Democrats chagrin this means the Tea Party districts must be involved. The Republicans need to embrace them and the Democrats must reach out to them. If the Democrats could try and reach out to them and NOT call them terrorists they will have a much better chance in elections then the Republican who keep trying to keep them quite.
The end, does this all really matter? People have a very short attention span and it really comes down to what have you done for me lately. I mean how many people remember Benghazi, IRS scandal and crack down on the AP by the Department of Justice. This all happened last year and most people have moved on and don't give it a second thought.
The problem is the both parties are to blame for the shutdown, and I think both sides have to share the blame, I just don't believe the Republicans should have to shoulder all the blame. They are also far from dead come 2014.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Anne Frank who?
Hello,
Welcome to my new blog. Many of you are going to be wondering why did I create and what will I be doing here. It is pretty simple, I will be posting my opinions and thoughts on a number of different topics from politics to history to even random events in the history of man kind.
Today, I feel I need to post about a comment I read on the website fmylife.com (Click here) The OP states that they are disappointed that the student asked who wrote the book The Diary of Anne Frank. Upon first read you want to smash your face into the desk in front of you. What makes it even worse is that you realized that OP indicated that they are living in France. At this point you are thinking to yourself that you want to straight up strangle this child because they live in France and you would assume they would have a stronger connection to the war. It is utterly horrifying that today's youth could not know who Anne Frank is...right?
The answer is not so clear cut, and it becomes one of those yes and no answers. This is the point where you want to put your head into your desk. I am going to try and explain why you may have to accept this and just go with it. The odds of this student not being the brightest bulb of the class is pretty high and the title does tend to suggest that Anne Frank wrote it. To be fair, to the student, you can not always determine the author of a book just based on the title of the book and if I gave you titles of well known books could you give me their authors?
The Hobbit, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, The Old Man and the Sea, To Kill A Mockingbird, and The Great Gatsby. I will venture to guess that you drew a blank on at least one of them, I am nice I will give you the answers. J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Ernest Hemingway, Harper Lee and F. Scott Fitzgerald are the answers, how did you do? Okay, okay...you are going to argue that those books did not refer to the author and that is a very good point, so I am going to give you some other examples. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Jane Eyre, Bridget Jones Diary, and The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole age 13 3/4. The last two titles even make the book sound like they are a published diary of both Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones, but they were written by Helen Fielding and Sue Townsend.
I know, I know I can hear many of you screaming that even if that was the case how could anybody NOT KNOW ANNE FRANK!!! I can explain it, as long as you give me a chance. It is a generational thing, many older adults know who she is because they have a direct connection to the events that took place in the diary. The older generation's parents were the people who went to fight, who read about it every day in the news paper and listened to updates of the horrors of the war on the radio. That information was passed down to their kids with stories...or even personal experiences as a very young child. My generation and down don't really have a direct connection to the Second World War and don't have a really good grasp of it in turn. Many of us were young when our grandparents died, or they died before we were able to really sit down with them and talk about the war with them.
The further you get away from an event the less people will be able to connect to those events. It starts to become a story, where fiction and non-fiction start to merge together. Would it be fair to ask our parents to really connect to the family of Archduke Ferdinand, or to ask our great grandkids to feel the way we felt on 9/11?
In the end, I would not be shocked if a question like this is asked again or becomes a more common place. It is just the way things go, time marches on leaving history to become blurred between fact and fiction.
Welcome to my new blog. Many of you are going to be wondering why did I create and what will I be doing here. It is pretty simple, I will be posting my opinions and thoughts on a number of different topics from politics to history to even random events in the history of man kind.
Today, I feel I need to post about a comment I read on the website fmylife.com (Click here) The OP states that they are disappointed that the student asked who wrote the book The Diary of Anne Frank. Upon first read you want to smash your face into the desk in front of you. What makes it even worse is that you realized that OP indicated that they are living in France. At this point you are thinking to yourself that you want to straight up strangle this child because they live in France and you would assume they would have a stronger connection to the war. It is utterly horrifying that today's youth could not know who Anne Frank is...right?
The answer is not so clear cut, and it becomes one of those yes and no answers. This is the point where you want to put your head into your desk. I am going to try and explain why you may have to accept this and just go with it. The odds of this student not being the brightest bulb of the class is pretty high and the title does tend to suggest that Anne Frank wrote it. To be fair, to the student, you can not always determine the author of a book just based on the title of the book and if I gave you titles of well known books could you give me their authors?
The Hobbit, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, The Old Man and the Sea, To Kill A Mockingbird, and The Great Gatsby. I will venture to guess that you drew a blank on at least one of them, I am nice I will give you the answers. J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Ernest Hemingway, Harper Lee and F. Scott Fitzgerald are the answers, how did you do? Okay, okay...you are going to argue that those books did not refer to the author and that is a very good point, so I am going to give you some other examples. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Jane Eyre, Bridget Jones Diary, and The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole age 13 3/4. The last two titles even make the book sound like they are a published diary of both Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones, but they were written by Helen Fielding and Sue Townsend.
I know, I know I can hear many of you screaming that even if that was the case how could anybody NOT KNOW ANNE FRANK!!! I can explain it, as long as you give me a chance. It is a generational thing, many older adults know who she is because they have a direct connection to the events that took place in the diary. The older generation's parents were the people who went to fight, who read about it every day in the news paper and listened to updates of the horrors of the war on the radio. That information was passed down to their kids with stories...or even personal experiences as a very young child. My generation and down don't really have a direct connection to the Second World War and don't have a really good grasp of it in turn. Many of us were young when our grandparents died, or they died before we were able to really sit down with them and talk about the war with them.
The further you get away from an event the less people will be able to connect to those events. It starts to become a story, where fiction and non-fiction start to merge together. Would it be fair to ask our parents to really connect to the family of Archduke Ferdinand, or to ask our great grandkids to feel the way we felt on 9/11?
In the end, I would not be shocked if a question like this is asked again or becomes a more common place. It is just the way things go, time marches on leaving history to become blurred between fact and fiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)