Shouldn’t the presumptive republican nominee for president be talking about reducing tax liability, not raising it? Specifically after President Obama’s “Buffett Plan” has come under severe criticism (at least from me), you would think Romney would have taken note.
When I started this blog a few months ago, I began by deploring the current state of politics. Specifically, how change is always the promise but seemingly never the outcome – especially when the commitment is about campaign finance. If there is one thing that I hope I have successfully conveyed through my ramblings it is this:
It is strange that Tarek Mehanna connected with Batman, the comic-book superhero, when the role of villain is more befitting. Mehanna, a Bostonian who traveled to Yemen in search of training with a terrorist group in 2004 and later used the Internet to spread al-Qaeda’s message, was sentenced to 17 ½ years in prison on Thursday.
While much of what can be found in the blogosphere, on certain cable “news” channels or the continued success of Michael Bay movies might persuade you otherwise, apparently most voters are smart enough to realize when someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
So far, from the blogs and articles I’ve read and news coverage I’ve watched about this past “Super Tuesday” results, I haven’t heard or seen anyone call out the creatively named “Red, White and Blue Fund,” a Pro Rick Santorum Super PAC, on its totally legitimate demand that Newt Gingrich drop out of the race for the Republican nomination for President.
From the department of redundancy department. After all, I’m the author, the editor and a majority of the readership. I obviously approve of this. However, when Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Act (BCRA) in 2002, back when it still had teeth, the “Stand By Your Ad” provision, which required ads contain the sort of direct disclosure parodied above, was implemented to prevent ad hominem attacks and curb factually baseless claims about an opponent’s record.
State sponsorship of terrorism is not a new phenomenon, though some states are better at it than others. But when does state sponsorship become something more than just sponsorship? When, if ever, do the actions of a sponsored terrorist group become the actions of the sponsoring state?
$181,000,000. That’s how much money Super PACs (political action committees) have raised over the past two years alone. $181,000,000. Amassed and spent for political attack ads. I could pontificate at length about what this absurd amount of money could have provided our society, but instead I’m going to give you the next three lines to imagine how you would have spent it.
Recently, Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, claimed that Iran has not launched an “aggressive war in modern history (unlike the US or Israel),” a claim only outmatched in error by Yousaf Butt’s assertion that Iran has adhered to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for four-decades.
Change is the inevitable pledge of virtually every presidential candidate – unless of course you’re the incumbent. And yet without fail, the excitement of every election cycle brings with it the inescapable reminder that with these often unattainable, or flat-out ludicrous, promises, comes disappointment.