Greetings fellow Americans. (please forgive me for only offering this blog in English--my hope is that your desire to participate will be a driving force in learning our native tongue...)
Let me first say, I am not a professional blogger, politician, famous celebrity or president...of anything. I am just a guy. A guy who loves his Country and wants it back. I would also like to get a few things clear as this is my first entry in what hopes to be a fair, free-speaking and honest forum constructed to house the ideas that may in some small way help this great Country get back on its feet. First, I will always read your posts (and often add my two cents. Second, don't be a donkey (absolutely no pun intended).
Moreover, you may not like my ideas, you may not agree with them, you may even hate me for them. However, the only thing I ask is that you back it up. Fair? Fair.
Now, let me open the discussion to all who have ideas worth hearing. Topics? Hmm....let's begin with the current state of our Nation; Do we need an entirely new health care system? Does the President have a responsibility to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States (disregarding the fact that he has sworn to do so)? Does Deval need a new Cadillac? Does Martha Coakley have enough foreign policy experience to sit as a US Senator based on her vacations? I welcome your thoughts....
-TRD
I'll just post shortly my reactions to tonight's Mass Senate Seat debate. In a word: obvious.
ReplyDeleteWhen we hire a new employee, we start with a job description usually and then try to match that up with resumes. We go through them and come up with folks that we want to actually meet and interview. In that interview, we look to put people in real situations to figure out if they know how to do the job, look for them to state clearly how they have done the task previously, and yes, we look to see if personality will match those of the rest in the office. Know who I think did the best yet? I bet you do. But let's start with the other side:
“....Very few people go the U.S. Senate with foreign policy experience,” Coakley said." (Boston Herald 10/29/09) - really Martha? That's like saying that most people that get the AG job don’t have any experience inside a court room. Besides, she literally sounds like Palin (and TRD knows who I feel about Palin).
I'm not even going to find comments from the other hacks up there tonight. This is an interesting race sure, but in statistics we call Pags and Crazy Khazei are straw candidates put up to try and muddy the waters. Great book on this tactic called the "Drunkards Walk". I don't know (yet) who got these other two guys drunk enough to run, but they need to realize that they are doing more harm than good (to themselves and to the party).
As I told my brother (who works indirectly for one of the candidates), Pags and Khazei are in this for one reason - to be able to put this on the resume. They will forever be able to list "candidate for senate" as an accomplishment. Congrats guys. The problem we'll have with Coakley is that she has only been on the job for two years. She is basically saying to voters "Thanks, but I didn't really want this job anyways. I want that one please. Thanks!" I think that politicians should need to resign their current elected or appointed position in order to run for an open one. And yes, the same goes for Mike for that matter. This of course is unique to politics, not something I would advocate for a person simply applying for a new job.
I come back to my original analogy. Who would you hire? Someone that has had the same job for 11 years but wants a slightly more challenging one or someone that has had a job with little to no correlation to the one you are trying to fill for 2 years?
Heck, we all want change. Change is the new black. But come on, we've already elected enough people that represent radical change from the status quo. If this keeps up, government will end up way too out there and will just spiral out of control. This is a two way race, until the general election that is.
Rant Over.
-RAG
TRD - Also, curious to understand in what way you think Obama has ignored his duty to defend and protect the constitution?
Excellent post RAG. I would certainly have to agree with the "muddy the waters" perspective. Unfortunate considering the result of such tactics often result in an inferior candidate slipping into office. And as we all know...in Massachusetts, when you're in, you're in (term limits?). ('Drunkards Walk' can be purchased here - http://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Lives/dp/0375424040)
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Martha; RAG, you make a good point suggesting a retirement prior to beginning a political campaign for a new and different (completely different) office. It would certainly be interesting to see who would put their/our money where their mouth is eh?
Now, a brief suggestion for you, Martha: When submitting your 'application' for the senate, I would recommend doing something small to help yourself stand out--print it out on PINK paper. (Just kidding, I am sure the content will speak for itself). Also, a another quick resume builder might be to pack your bags immediately and grab a jump seat on Sean Penn's Air Insanity to spend the weekend with the ever-popular Fidel Castro. Just a thought...
Ok, on to the well spoken, spiffy Commander-in-Chief; "Ignore his duty to defend and protect the constitution?" Well...for now, let's just stick to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." - I would argue this particular Amendment has been trampled on. However, let's just stick to 'abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press'. Let me just say thank goodness CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and company felt strongly enough to stick up for FOX News (I am fairly sure they sensed it was only a matter of time until their reporting may not be 'entertaining' to the King-As much as I would love to believe it was out of the goodness of their collective hearts). Not allowing FOX News to interview with the Treasury dept. would have been a BLATANT violation of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I am truly sorry Mr. Obama (and Rahm), just because you don't "like" a news source doesn't mean it's not "really" a news source...
Keep up the good work everyone! Accountability. Pass it on.
(and RAG, yes I know you think Palin is hot-we all do :))
-TRD
LOL. I totally disagree. How is saying no to a media outlet ignoring the constitution? If the President was required to say yes to every media request received that's all they and their cabinet members would do all day.
ReplyDeleteThe President is not required to afford equal time to every media outlet. They can pick and choose. Now, during elections and some special government/political events, law or general practice does come into play (i.e.: response following state of the unions, time during debates, offering commercial spots to candidates at the same price, etc).
Sorry man, weak argument. Now, if you want to talk about the continued containment of POW in Cuba/the ongoing war on drugs/US Census policies/the continuation of DADT in the military...all of those arguments are more relevant complaints in my opinion from a constitutional standpoint that the one you raised.
Ok now RAG, let's start out with this; it is becoming increasingly more clear after our brief discussions that there are areas of the Constitution that can be left open to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation to the first amendment is this: "abridging freedom of speech or the media" literally translated would be "to cut short, curtail".
And it was not the President that was being interviewed, it was Treasury Department "pay czar" Kenneth Fienberg. Now, it was not as if there was a quick story that broke and every news outlet rushed to the White House for explanation. This was a structured media gathering in which each news outlet has equal time to ask their questions and have them answered. FOX News was initially denied access to this forum that has gone on in this format since long before you or I were born. Never before has ONE major news outlet been denied access to this style gathering, for good reason.
While you may consider this behavior to be in complete compliance with the Constitution of the United States, I would still urge you to question why.
The media has a responsibility to not only inform the general public, but to also serve as a check and balance for our Government. Furthermore, I want to be on the record as saying the fact that it was FOX News that was denied access has absolutely nothing to do with my disgust. As a matter of fact, every other news agency felt the same. This was evident when they all walked out and refused to interview unless FOX was granted access.
While the White House may not "like" what is said or revealed by FOX, they need to remember why they are there in the first place. Whether or not you consider what took place to be constitutional or not, this is a seriously scary thing.
It was interesting when you said the President can "pick and choose" with whom they speak. I would imagine you would not feel quite the same way if FOX News were the only media allowed in the forum...
This type of behavior if tolerated, would eventually "control" what stories the media would or would not cover (for FEAR of having repercussions from the Government). I hope even the most liberal mind can appreciate what this could mean for our future.
In closing, there is no need to apologize to me. :) If you feel I made a weak argument, just prove it...no need to say it.
Always a pleasure RAG.
-TRD
Two great videos covering the material we are discussing in this thread....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/29/suns_zurawik_on_obama_admins_criticism_of_fox_news.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/29/suns_zurawik_on_obama_admins_criticism_of_fox_news.html
I would argue that the freedom of the press clause is normally interpreted to have been included in the 'bill of rights' not as a requirement for the press to have access to the government, but so that the media had the right to operate without censorship of what they choose to print. I guess we just disagree on that point. Which is fair I guess, but that's why judicial review exists. Thank g-d john roberts is at the top of that quagmire. [sarcasim meant]
ReplyDeleteRAG,
ReplyDeleteI think we got off the point by debating the constitutional merit of the issue. The real issue is what was taking place. Doesn't that scare you? Just think if this were Bush in office and MSNBC was the only one not allowed in the media pool? The bottom line is that these are the beginning stages in Government control, scary.
-TRD
Noted your blog with interest. One would guess by its content that the "raw deal" specifically addressed is the ascension to power of Barack Hussein Obama.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps it denotes his unfulfilled promises - chief among which is transparency in government. Was there ever a more secretive President of the United States? He has successfully covered his tracks since birth (conception, perhaps). No school or college records are available; payment for Harvard is a mystery, as are his thesis topic, health records, and law practice.
Or "raw deal" may reflect the nature of the CHANGE which we now must all believe in. Leftward, expensive, radical, and dangerous change is suddenly upon us. Enormously complex and voluminous bills appear overnight, to be passed (unread) in a hurry, obviously constructed long before. Others are being cobbled together behind closed doors, while we can only guess at their contents, until we are ambushed.
Internationally, our posture toward friends and enemies has been reversed. Decisions are delayed, the military is dissed, the intelligence community is attacked, and surely our national security is reduced.
If all of the above constitutes the topic of your blog, then the Obama Administration can be counted on to provide material for commentary.
Dr. J
Dr. J,
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me say welcome. You make some terrific points in your post. Certainly there is no shortage of issues to be discussed regarding our new administration.
"The Raw Deal" implies many things. The two main points I want to convey with the name are as follows:
1)The raw deal-meaning the blog will be a search for the REAL truth. No bells, whistles or the like. Just the pure unadulterated truth (or as close as we can get with the completely "transparent" administration). My hope is that it will stand as a record to later be referenced for answers.
2)The raw deal- That we have been dealt with our new President. Most of this was covered in your posting.
I welcome your thoughts, insights AND opinions in this open forum. Thank you again for your post, and look forward to the next. Please feel free to share this with anyone who may have something worth saying.
-TRD
Healthcare reform, healthcare takeover, whatever you call it - seems to be about everything but actually taking care of Americans.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me it should be as simple to understand as this - to "suddenly" (a loose term, when beuracracy is concerned) cover 47million NEW, previously uninsured individuals - utilizing the current number of doctors, hospitals, medical personnel, clinics and offices is going to choke our abilities to get "seen" by a doctor. Furthermore, how can Pelosi and her cohorts in socialism (let's be frank, that's what this is about) dare even suggest that my current care will remain the same, maybe improve, and it won't cost me anymore, and taxes and the deficit will not be increased?
It simply isn't possible. The implications of this are simply a means of more government control, and not really about healthcare at all.
This bill should be quashed - immediately. Thoughts?
Jazz,
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point. Let's think of this whole fiasco in the simplest terms; the single purpose (ulterior motives aside) of the new health care bill is to provide coverage to those who currently do not have it (20 million illegals included). While I may be missing a crucial element of this new "plan", I fail to see how the same coverage that currently exists can be extended to cover some 20-30 million more Americans at the same cost?
My simple answer: you can't.
-TRD