Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button

The Republican Primary Debates Through The Eyes Of An Atheist

October 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

In the United States of America you have to search really hard to find politicians who can successfully win a campaign without having a religious affiliation on their resume.  Pete Stark (D-CA) became the first openly atheist U.S. Congressman when he made his convictions known in 2007, but one congressman from California’s stanchly liberal 13th district falls flat of giving the atheist community proportional representation in Congress. American religious demographics aren’t likely to be progressive enough to allow for an atheist to lead the country such as Australia’s Prime Minister Julian Gillard for a long time, especially in an atmosphere where the current president is repeatedly accused in ignorant circles as secretly possibly being a Muslim as if that were a horrible thing to be.

With atheists all over America cringing at the religious statements being made by Republican candidates in the first of the recent Republican Presidential Debates, this is a good chance to highlight exactly what turns off atheist voters in terms of intolerance and bigotry displayed in the people who might make it to the 2012 ballot.

On same sex marriage:

-          Ron Paul said,” The federal government shouldn’t be involved. I wouldn’t support an amendment. But let me suggest — one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.” (CNN.com)

As an atheist I have to wonder why my ability to marry someone should be determined by a church. If some of the more fundamentalist ministers in America had their way, Atheism might be just as much of a marriage no-no as homosexuality, open marriages, or living together before marriage. Also, why not include mosques, synagogues, Wiccan covens, and satanic temples in the conversation instead of just the majority religion?

On the separation of church and state:

-          Tim Pawlenty said,” Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith. This is a country that in our founding documents says we’re a nation that’s founded under God, and the privileges and blessings at that we have are from our creator. They’re not from our member of Congress. They’re not from our county commissioner.” (CNN.com)

I disagree with Governor Pawlenty’s stance because if government isn’t protected from the influence of religion it is the minority religions (along with atheists) that run the very real risk of being oppressed by the social values of the dominant religious institutions of the country.  The separation of church and state protects minority religious positions from discrimination by limiting the ability for majority religions to control government policies.

Also including a respect for the use of faith in leadership and decision making when asked about the separation of church and state were Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. For most atheists this is not the kind of quality we are looking for when we vote. Quickly following this was Herman Cain’s backpedaling and clarifications on why he said he’d feel uncomfortable with a Muslim in his cabinet in a previous interview, along with Newt Gingrich stoking the fires of Islamophobia with a story about a failed car bomber who told a judge he lied when he swore an oath to the United States during naturalization. The cheers from the crowd as Gingrich spun the fear of people infiltrating the government with anti-U.S. sentiments were chilling to me as I realized that the one group the American Christian majority is afraid of more than Muslims is atheists, and we could be next on the menu for the fear mongering tour.

Filed Under: GOP 2012 Tagged With: , , , , ,

Mitt Romney – John Bolton: 2012 Winning Republican Presidential Ticket

September 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The battle amongst a host of Republican candidates with varying degrees of ideology is heating up for the nomination to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency in 2012. Powerhouse names such as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney are dominating the media.

But as Republicans begin side up and decide who stands the best chance to beat President Obama in 2012, they must keep in mind that the recent sweep into power was not a Republican referendum, but a rejection of the socialist policies of the Obama administration.

Popular Republican candidates such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie have already emphatically ruled themselves out as challengers in 2012. Of course this has never meant much in politics, but in the case of Bush and Christie, it stands to reason that it is just not the right time for either of them to run.

Chris Christie is undoubtedly a rising Republican star and his time is sure to come, but that time is not now. It is too early in his career and the country is not ready for another untested President. Jeb Bush simply has the wrong last name. It is just too soon for most Americans to stomach another Bush in the White House, and despite being one of the most qualified candidates, would lose on name recognition alone.

Newt Gingrich has been a workhorse in the Republican Party for decades. Sarah Palin is currently the face of Republicans, and the face of everyday Americans. Either one of these two candidates could easily carry the Republican base in the primaries and win the nomination. But winning over the base of conservatives is not going to beat president Obama in 2012.

- J Michael Nelson

 

Newt Gingrich defines what it means to be a conservative and is the leading voice for traditional values with a resemblance to Reagan conservatism. Sarah Palin is a rockstar in the Republican Party and draws crowds by the thousands, but is nationally polarizing to a fault. The problem is the regular folks are just not going to vote for candidates this far to the conservative right.

In addition to attracting new and young voters in 2008, Barack Obama owes his victory in large part to the independent voters who found something in his platitudes of hope and change that they themselves could believe in. If Republicans are going to take the White House back in 2012, they are going to have to focus a message of truth towards the disillusioned independent voter and earn back their trust. Republicans and Democrats alike will always vote with their base, but the independent voters decide elections.

The election in 2012 is not going to come down to Democratic progressivism or Republican conservatism. It will come down to the issues facing everyday Americans around the dinner table. In the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis and a high level of unemployment with future uncertainty, Americans want somebody who can fix the problem and return some sense of security back to their lives.

]]>

To this end, the best choice for Republican nominee in 2012 is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Mitt is a lawyer by education, and has amassed a large personal fortune of more than 0 million. One of Mitt’s greatest achievements was his taking over a financially destitute and corrupt laden Olympic body in 1999. By the 2002 Winter Olympics, Mitt had ended the corruption and turned the Olympics into a financial windfall.

The primary crisis that our country currently faces, and will still face in 2012 is our looming debt and out of control spending. There is no better person to put in the White House to fix the economic crisis than Mitt Romney. He is the most qualified to personally make the best decisions necessary to get the country back on track without the pandering of economic advisors.

In addition to Mitt Romney’s economic expertise, he also has unique experience with the implementation of universal health care in Massachusetts. Although hailed for it at the time, he now looks back at it and sees things he would’ve done differently to avoid the debt crisis it has caused the state. Short of Republicans being able to repeal Obamacare altogether, Mitt would also be the best suited to deal with the crisis.

Finally, what Mitt Romney has that many of the other front-runners do not have is the ability to carry the independent vote. Mitt is seen as a moderate Republican. At times he has even been accused of being a flip flopper because of his positions on abortion and healthcare in the heavily liberal state where he was a Republican governor.

The combination of Mitt Romney being an economic expert in a time of American economic crisis, a universal health care expert in a time of Obamacare crisis, and a moderate Republican who could likely steal back a large number of the independent voters that Barack Obama relied on in 2008, make him unquestionably the most formidable challenger to Barack Obama in 2012.

Generally, the vice presidential pick is more about carrying a state to anything else. But in a time of so many crucial issues facing our nation, maybe it is time to look for a vice president that can actually contribute to the people with real policy influence.

With that in mind, some of the most vulnerable aspects of a Mitt Romney candidacy are a lack of foreign policy experience at a time when the world is on the brink, and his inability to carry the vote from the conservative base. The most highly respected right-leaning conservative that has proven himself time and again as a formidable foreign policy expert that would best compliment a Mitt Romney presidency is John Bolton.

Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, John Bolton has recently been positioning himself in a way indicative of a presidential run. The truth is he could not beat Barack Obama on the top of the ticket. His foreign-policy expertise is a much-needed asset in this time of world unrest, but his lack of domestic policy record, especially concerning the economy, could not see him win. In addition to that he would be considered far too conservative to appeal to the independent voter.

Yet, combining the expertise of Mitt Romney and John Bolton on a Republican ticket to challenge Barack Obama in 2012 would be virtually unbeatable in lieu of the current issues facing our nation.

On the top of the ticket you have a man that you can count on to use a moderate approach to fix the debt crisis and the out-of-control spending. Mitt simply knows how to run a business and a businessman is what this country needs right now. In addition, Mitt has all of the qualifications as the former governor of a state to handle the intricate responsibilities of the presidency.

To cover any of Mitt Romney’s vulnerabilities on foreign-policy, national security, and appeasement to the right-leaning base, there is nobody better suited to fill the void as the vice president than John Bolton. Mr. Bolton’s ability to carry the conservative base and have the primary responsibility as vice president of implementing foreign-policy while taking an active role in advising the president makes him the perfect match for a Romney administration.

In 2012 the country will not need politicians. Americans need to elect the right people to prioritize and fix the current problems that are diminishing the United States on a domestic and a foreign stage. This means instead of pulling the handle based on a creative commercial seen on TV, Americans truly need to understand who it is they vote for and what their professional experience can do to restore the greatness of the United States.

Despite all the other options out there, the facts are simple. Based on the needs of our country, the people we need in charge must be economic experts and foreign-policy powerhouses. That administration could be no better than a Mitt Romney – John Bolton ticket for 2012.

Filed Under: GOP 2012 Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Republican Party Infighting Deepens

September 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Republican Party Infighting Deepens
Written by Paul I. Adujie

Tea Party fringes of the Republican Party have now won elections in Alaska, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York etc. The ultra right conservatives in the Republican Party are pressuring and pushing the party into a corner!

The extremists amongst conservatives, are pushing mainstream Republicans to adopt extreme positions on many public issues. In New York for instance, the governorship candidate, Carl Paladino who advocates an extremely irresponsible fiscal policies, such as a billion cut in Medicaid, cut tax by as much as 10% among other outlandish claims and public policy position adopted by Palladino.

It will be recalled that Carl Palladino, it was, who stated that he would have used Eminent Domain to seize and confiscate Park51 property of the developers of the now controversial so-called Ground Zero mosque, in order to frustrate the developer from completing the project.

The electorate will find these outrageous positions on public policies unacceptable and vote against them, come midterm elections in November.

Carl Palladino has found himself in awkward positions more than once, he is vulnerable on many counts. He has been known to peddle racist jokes and redistribute tasteless pornographic materials through emails.

Carl Palladino is an upstate billionaire developer, who is very unconventional in his campaign style, public policy proposals and positions, as well as even matters of personal comportment and political finesse. He has already made gaffes and goofs, before and during the run up to the election primaries.

Rick Lazio on the other hand, was sidetracked by his own fixation on the so-called Ground Zero Islamic Cultural Center controversy. He cloned the issue and sought to make it his sole campaign issue, apart for occasional scurrilous references to Mr. Andrew Cuomo and how dysfunctional Albany, the state capital has become. Rick Lazio, was, clearly, not served by his choice to be fixated on one issue, the building of a mosque, blocks from Ground Zero. An area in lower Manhattan bustling with trade and commerce, including strip clubs, gaming and gambling halls and pizza parlors etc.

The wins in New York, Delaware etc by the Tea Party fringe elements in the Republican Party, could spell relief for Democrats in November. A factional and splintered Republican party, should enable the Democrats to successfully wrest the positions from the Republicans

In both Delaware and New York, two ultra conservative Republicans political neophytes have in effect bruised mainstream of the party, by upturning electoral order in Delaware and New York respectively.

It does however remains to be seen, whether these little known Republican newcomers could prevail against well established Democrats on November 2, 2010 at the midterm elections.

Karl Rowe, a Republican operative, has dismissed Christine O’Donnell as a nonstarter who will not fare well against the Democratic nominee in Delaware. Apart from Karl Rowe, there are many in the Republican Party, who are seething and licking their wounds from the fights with ultra conservatives and fringes of the Republican Party with the Tea Partiers and Birthers as the arrow heads. Many Delaware Republicans are moderates, and had worked against Christine O’Donnell who they thought extreme, unethical and unelectable. Christine O’Donnell, may therefore face and uphill task in the November elections, as mainstream Republicans may not rally around her, when it will count the most.

These deepening infighting and acrimony between mainstream Republicans and the extreme fringes of the party is rapidly whittling down what have, all through the spring and summer, as resurgence by the Republicans. Tea Party victories this September could quite likely turn Pyrrhic in November as there are no symmetries between Tea Party and mainstream Republican Party, as they in fact tend to cannibalize and polarize each other with endorsements and retaliatory endorsements and dueling campaigns replete with mean attacks.

After this primaries in the various states, there were reports of celebrations and jubilation in Delaware by the Democrats who are obviously of the belief that a defeat of Congressman Michael N. Castle by O’Donnell is a favor to the Democrats as they will coast to victory, come November.

There are now Democrats who would tell you that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin Tea Party phenomenon could be a blessing in disguise. Tea Party has accomplished a major feat, successfully splintering the usually disciplined Republican Party conservatives.

There are reports of angers and disgusts, in both Delaware and New York, reports of anger within the Republican Party leadership, rank and file, over what is seen as opportunities handed over to the Democrats by the Tea Party wins in Delaware and New York.

There will be Wednesday morning second-guessing. Why did Rick Lazio refuse to actively engage Carl Palladino?

But could Tea Party candidates produce victories in November 2010 similar to Senator Scott Brown type victory in Massachusetts? Will Tea Party enthusiasm, support and energy levels be sustained or produce election victories in November? Or will it be the case the Tea Party fringe exuberance will evaporate without the support and coordinated efforts between the extremes of the Republican Party?

In other races in New York, Congressman Charlie Rangel easily won his nomination to continue to represent the Upper West Side Manhattan congressional district. This, despite the strident criticism from the press and media, and even suggestions by many, including President Obama that Charlie Rangel step aside, as consequence of pending ethical charges. Charlie Rangel, despite the ethical cloud, has won the nomination to continue to represent his district in congress.

Voters in Charlie Rangel’s constituency have expressed skepticism in connection with the ethical charges against him. Some say that the congressman is merely being singled out from a congress with ethical reputation which most do not find beguiling or worthy of emulating.

Charlie Rangel easily defeated his five challengers or rivals, and this essentially assures his retention of his seat in congress. As his district is heavily Democratic, and ultimately, nominees from the district are virtual shoo ins.

At the governorship of New York contest in November, will be between Andrew Cuomo and Carl Palladino. Andrew Cuomo, the current Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of the state of New York, he is the son of political scion, Mario Cuomo, himself, a lawyer, and former three terms governor of the state of New York. Andrew Cuomo won easy nomination for the governorship as Democratic candidate.

Andrew Cuomo will face an amalgam of Carl Palladino and Rick Lazio, who apparently are configuring a working political relationship, which will make the almost limitless self-funding of Carl Palladino available in conjunction with mainstream Republican Party funding, tagged with the support of New York Conservative Party.

This sorts of coalition could give Andrew Cuomo a good fight, it is in fight the only fighting chance Palladino nad Razio etc could have against a robustly funded and supported Andrew Cuomo who on primary night laid low, even as Palladino referred to him as Andrew Status Quo Cuomo!
 

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , ,

Republican Failure of Imagination to Stall Gains on Election Day

July 2, 2011 By Leave a Comment

From ‘change we can believe in,’ to ‘maids, witches, and wardrobes,’ Democratic campaign talking points have deteriorated to a level of slapstick politics in just two short years. The trouble for Republicans is with Election Day less than a week away, the constant barrage of personal attacks is giving Democrats some much needed breathing room.

With trillion in spending and unemployment still hovering at 10+%, the performance of Democrats over the last two years has been nothing short of abysmal. With an undeniably unpopular agenda and little to say by way of accomplishments, Democrats have settled on a single ‘divide and conquer’ strategy using personal attack to target specific vulnerable candidates. Despite voter disapproval of negative attack campaigns, Democrats have found a surprising measure of success in picking off one vulnerable Republican after another.

Predicted just a couple short months ago to be a sweeping election giving the House and Senate back to Republicans, the midterms are shaping up to look like a Republican retaking of the House alone by a slim margin. But with ratings of the Democratic Congress and the Obama Administration hovering at such dismal disapproval, the question becomes how are the Republicans letting some of these key battleground races slip away? The answer lies in a failure of imagination.

The 2008 elections saw Democrats sweep into power on a message of hope and change in the midst of a nasty recession. What change would occur remained ambiguous and was never clearly detailed during campaign season. Democrats gambled and won on the fact that it wasn’t the message, but unification of the message that really mattered. They were able to exploit the desperation of the public by utilizing a uniform campaign strategy based on platitudes that meant something to everyone; while also growing support from a disillusioned Independent voter base.

Two years later the political climate has turned 180 degrees. ‘The change we can believe in’ turned into ‘the change we need to run from’ in European style socialism, and those Independent voters who supported President Obama and the Democrats in 2008 now feel cheated. This gave Republicans the unexpected opening to regain control of Congress and push their momentum forward towards the 2012 Presidential race. But as Election Day draws closer, the poll numbers indicate that the Republicans are beginning to lose a little steam.

The failure of imagination that is turning the Republican tsunami back into a wave can be exemplified by a simplistic comparison of the campaign strategy undertaken by Democrats in 2008 and Republicans in 2010. This comparison clearly illustrates why Republicans will not make the gains they were expecting. Democrats in 2008 utilized a two-part campaign strategy which not only fed off of public dissatisfaction and turned them against the Republican agenda, but also created a consistent and uniform message of unity and change that would make America a better place for everyone. At the time it didn’t matter what the change really was. All that mattered was unhappy voters believing that any change would be better than what they had.

Republicans on the other hand, have done no more than an ‘I told you so’ strategy. They’ve been sitting back and waiting for the disillusioned Independents and blue dog Democrats who supported President Obama in 2008 to return to the polls next week and unchange the change. But after waiting around for these great expectations, the House appears to be the only Republican prize to be had. Republicans had a golden opportunity to run the same playbook the Democrats used in 2008 with similar results, but they have failed. And how they failed is exactly why the personal attack strategy undertaken by Democrats is proving to more effective than it should be.

Ultimately, Republicans are letting some key battleground races slip away due to a lack of a unifying message. Not just a message of partisan spin about taxes, spending, and jobs, but a message that exemplifies reunification of the Republican Party and a clear and concise plan for the future. Here lies the failure of imagination. The folks out there are frustrated and looking for something. But without a message… without hope for gain, they have nothing to grasp onto. They are left to base their voting decision on nothing more than political speak which they ignore, and attack ads which they dislike in an environment where they believe the entire system is broken. As a result, political base energy begins to diminish along with the conversion rate of the much needed Independent vote, leaving the chances for an incumbent victory vastly improved regardless of who they are or what their agenda.

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,

Will a Republican Candidate that is Strong Enough to Win Emerge in time for the 2012 Presidential Election?

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

As citizens and pundits look forward to the 2012 Presidential election we can be certain of one thing–we will not experience the historic drama and significance witnessed in the 2008 election. Never before had a country held it collective breath in anticipation of such tide change. It can also be said that never before, or at least for a very long time, had the majority of Americans held out hope for greater change in the way our government operated.

Yes, indeed, the election of the first African American president was historic and game changing. For many voters, it was the dream of a lifetime, for others it was confirmation that the country was headed down the wrong path. For many, the promised change has been slow to come and the difficulties brought about due to the flagging economy drug on far too long. For some, the 2012 election can’t come soon enough and for others the hope for change remains. Whatever way you look at it, the 2012 Presidential election is like to be a referendum on the performance of the Obama administration.

It is widely assumed that Barak Obama will once again be the Democratic candidate. But can he win? It is clearly too soon to tell and it is certainly not a given. Many who hung their hope for change on the young president are voicing disappointment in the administration’s handling of the economy and the war in Afghanistan and the Democrats continue to face stiff competition in both the House and the Senate. Few would argue that the sweeping change that many anticipated has come despite significant new legislation regarding health reform and financial regulation.

Depending on the side of the aisle you stand on, Obama is an easy win or a sure loser for the 2012 Presidential election. But the real question is can the Republicans put for a candidate that is strong enough to beat an incumbent? As it stands right now there is no clear front runner to take the nomination. Electability will be a key consideration for any candidate as will the ability to fight what may be a country-wide desire to make a statement against all politicians. Mid term elections will offer some insight into the mood of the country in this regard. Should voters sweep out long term politicians wholesale, all bets will be off.

The list of potential 2012 Presidential election Republican candidates is long. From familiar names such as John McCain and Mike Huckabee to newcomers like Scott Brown we find a wide range of potential candidates. Should Sarah Palin decide to run as many suspect she will; the fight for the nomination will be unpredictable. It is difficult to predict the impact the Tea Party will have and lesser players such as Bobby Jindal and Charlie Christ could step to the forefront to offer less traditional alternatives.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party it is fragmented and will likely to remain so for some time. Whether or not a candidate that is strong enough to win can come forward and take the 2012 Presidential election will depend for the large part on how quickly the economy recovers and whether the Obama administration can reverse the downward trend in the approval polls. For now, it is too soon to tell.

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,