Straw poll. Perfect wording, if you ask me. But at least the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll left me laughing (finally, something in today's politics to give me a good chuckle) at both the candidates and the news media, who took the poll as if it were Election Night *rolls eyes*.
First up on my laugh-o-meter is Tim Pawlenty. Here's a man who said that if he finished in the top five, he'd consider that a win and remain in the fight, so when he came in third, what did he do? Yep, he gave up. But then, he was smart enough to realize that if the winner could so easily buy the Straw Poll, what chance did he have in the real world? *snerk* Of course, someone in his campaign should have pointed out something very important, but you'll have to read further down to find out what.
Then there was Cain who pulled the opposite of Pawlenty. He said he needed to be in the top three to keep going and yet, when he came in fifth - decided that was exactly where he wanted to be all along. *jaw drops*
Oh, and of course, we can't leave out the winner, now can we? Yep, Michele Bachman won (covertly points upwards at new, temporary blog banner).
Or did she?
I mean, really, does paying for the attendees voting tickets and then handing them out actually count as winning? And when, after spending $180,000 for 6000 of those all-important voting tickets, she only got
4, 283 votes, doesn't that mean she really lost? Or as Stephen Colbert accurately pointed out, "She got 80% of the votes she paid for!" Yeah, that's a real win, all right. It's a winning illustration of how you buy an election, that's what it is.
Hey, and what about the man who came in second (and a VERY close second at that), Ron Paul? He seems to have disappeared as far as the news media is concerned. They're not even mentioning his amazing finish - and he didn't pay anyone to vote for him, which in my book, means he really came in first. But then, in spite of being a heavy duty Tea Party member, he doesn't follow the party line all the way. He's actually honest and dares to go against things like the wars - which is a big NO-NO in the Tea Party and the Republican Party. So he becomes the invisible man. It will be interesting to see how he fares later on down the line.
Okay, now the questions for anyone who wants to answer.
Question #1. How can we create jobs if we have a Congress that says NO to everything?
Question #2. Why, after 8 years of the rich taking advantage of the Bush Tax Cuts and creating NO new jobs as promised by the Republicans, are we still believing that leaving the rich alone (meaning repealing the tax cuts and closing the loopholes) will result in more jobs? Obama allowed the tax cuts to remain, and yet, where are the JOBS? Did he prove his point by allowing them to continue? Did he prove that they would NOT create jobs? Well, where are they? I'm saying yes, he proved a point, but everyone seems to be missing it, so again, I ask:
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
We've left the rich alone, left them with their huge profits, their incentives, their bonuses, and still no jobs!
Question #3. But why SHOULD the businesses bring jobs back to America when leaving them overseas means no unions, no benefits, lower wages, and NO regulations forcing them to work safely, produce safely, and protect the environment?
Oh, wait...the Republicans are doing their best to remove all those speed bumps, aren't they? They're working on disbanding all the unions; the EPA (number one on Michele Bachman's hit list), and any regulations that force businesses to work safely and protect workers and the environment. So does this mean that eventually the businesses will come back and the jobs will go to us? Sure, and why the hell not? There'd be no more shackles, regulations, or fair wages. No more need to treat the workers fairly or being forced to hire fairly, like, you know, minorities? And before you nod in approval at that, remember, women are minorities and in a white, male, Christian world, there's absolutely no approval of women in power. Nope, they belong at home, remember?
Ahhhh, true heaven on Earth.
4. Did you ever hear the saying that you have to "spend to save"?
Yes? No?
There's actually a good reason for that phrase and, right now, Congress is ignoring it and refusing to allow any spending except on WAR. Check Economics 101 and you learn that spending is one of the best ways to get a country out of a recession or depression (can we say Roosevelt?). You have to spend in order to create jobs. You have to create programs to BUILD things, necessary things, to provide jobs. You have to offer other kinds of incentives to companies to get them to hire. Some of which Obama is trying now - but guess what? Congress is saying NO - they're even saying no to something they've always wanted: payroll tax cuts!!! And Congress will continue to say no until Obama is out of office. Which brings me to the next question:
Question #5. Is this a hostage situation in the truest sense of the word? Think about it. We're being held hostage unlike anything we've ever seen. Congress has an approval rating lower than the President's, lower than ever in recorded history, because they just keep saying NO - so are they holding us all hostage until we vote Obama out and the right (pun intended) person in? Question #5A: Are we strong enough to hold out? To call them out?
And now, the final question:
6. Rick Perry. Does this guy scare you? Or do you love him? And why to both? Me, I think he's the most dangerous man to come along in a long time. And I see a future of Perry/Bachman on a Republican Ticket. At which time, I move to Canada. Or pray the Mayan prediction about 2012 is accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment