Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Here's a radical thought, as we change full-steam into convention season: Could the "marijuana vote" propel Barack Obama to victory in the upcoming election? This may sound a little far-fetched (and might indeed provoke "What are you smoking, dude?" sorts of comments) so please allow me to explain how this demographic could become key to the entire election, in one particular state.
The first night had two large overarching themes: Women's rights, and President Obama's accomplishments. A multitude of women spoke not only about abortion and being pro-choice, but about equal pay for equal labor. However, the dominating pattern was the constant praise of President Obama, and the effectiveness of his policies. Obama's ability to save the auto industry and create jobs for twenty-nine consecutive months was a focal point in why he deserved to be re-elected. In addition, Obamacare and benefits for veterans were mentioned repeatedly by speakers. Last but not least diversity was constantly stressed. I lost count of the number of times I heard the line, "you should be able to defend the country you love, regardless of who you love." Overall, a very strong performance by the Democrats -- they were consistent in their backing of Obama, and unlike the Republicans they gave examples of concrete policies that have actually made a difference.
Just a quick update as the Democratic National Convention gets rolling here.
I wrote a new article last week which is now appearing on the Huffington Post, but I don't have access to the text file of the article right now, nor do I have time to copy and paste and do a bunch of formatting. [...]
I was five when President George Bush "beat" candidate Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. At the time I had no clue about politics or party philosophy. However, I did know Al Gore received more overall votes in the election than George Bush, then the members of Supreme Court voted on who would become the next president, and they elected Bush. The election was the first political event that I can remember clearly in my life, and although I was always bound to be a liberal (given the household I grew up in), that lost election established my anti-conservative opinion. I followed the Kerry/Bush election in 2004 with determination (or at least all the determination a nine-year-old can muster), thinking I could somehow impact the results of the election. Of course I was wrong.
Fast-forward to today, and we have a timeline: Hurricane Katrina. Three years later, Hurricane Gustav interrupts Republican National Convention. Four years later, Isaac threatens the first days of the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Draw your own conclusions.
As we approach the "convention season" in the race for the presidency, it behooves us to take another look at how the electoral math currently stands. Mitt Romney chose to announce his running mate rather early, which is just beginning to be reflected in the polling. But, starting next week, each party will likely get a noticeable "convention bump" in the polls. Because the two conventions are happening right after one another, this should stir the big data pot well into September. Which is why now is a good time to look at the state of the race, to establish a baseline to measure all this expected frenzied movement.
Democrats would do well to point out that this extremism would have serious consequences if ever enacted. Follow the logic through to the end. Put it in as blunt language as possible. This is what the Republican Party now stands for. Point it out.
With that "fair warning" out of the way, there are two highly amusing talking points coming from the Republican camp this week. If your irony-detector is as acute as mine, you'll appreciate the GOP completely and utterly destroying two of their bedrock positions just to score a few cheap political points. I don't know about you, but I find this sort of thing to be one of the more enjoyable forms of political entertainment around.
Another madman, another massacre, this time in Aurora, Colorado. When will it end? The Supreme Court has guaranteed an individual's right to bear arms -- how does that end? Do we wind up with private armies, owned by rich individuals and corporations? Is that where it ends?
In a surprise announcement today, the International Olympic Committee has filed a lawsuit against Mitt Romney and his entire family. Not, as some might have expected, for his recent comments about the London Olympics, but rather because Mitt has been using the term "Romney Olympics" to describe a summer festival held at his palatial vacation home, up to and including this year. The I.O.C. is famously protective of the term "Olympics" and who is allowed to use it, and according to their press release, they are merely protecting their brand. No word on what financial penalty the I.O.C. will be seeking, as an I.O.C. spokesperson told us, "We're going to have to subpoena Mitt's tax returns before we can answer that." He also added, "Mitt's dancing horse will be disqualified from the dressage event, as well."