Welcome to The Situationalist beginning of Coverage of Election 2012!
Two weeks ago, it was made known that the Obama Administration had implemented a rule that forced religious institutions to cover the use of contraceptives to women that were asking for it. The media focused on the expressed anger of Catholic Bishops who oversaw Catholic medical centers and universities housing health services for their students. One could say this was another run of the mill when it comes to Democrats standing for Women's Issues while Republicans show their loyalty to the religious right.
However, one should wonder why the Obama Administration implemented this rule considering social issues have not been brought before in this election cycle. Why give the Republicans a reason to rally up a constituency that had been dormant for the last year and a half? Although some are calling foul and others are calling this an embarrassing move by the Obama campaign machine, it is interesting what has happened since this event occurred. Below are the events that occurred starting with the implementation of the policy:
1. Media recognizes implementation of the contraception policy
2. Political outcry by Catholic Leaders and other social conservatives
3. Rick Santorum (R) gains bump in the polls for his strong stance on social issues
4. Mitt Romney loses ground to Santorum and loses a handful of primaries
5. President Obama announces compromise given political outcry
Intentional or not, the Obama Administration has been able to shake up the Republican Primary in the short run which has made it harder for conservatives to fully back Romney as their Republican Nominee. Some political commentators are speculating that Santorum has become the momentum candidate which could lead to nomination. Although the Republicans will eventually unite to nominate a presidential candidate, The Obama Administration has been able to indirectly make political campaign contributions to Republicans more sporadic.
Blog/Article by The Situationalist - Mike Lampe
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
BREAKING NEWS: Huntsman joins Perry-Romney battle in Tonights Republican Debate
In the Reagan Presidential Library, the 2012 Republican Presidential Debate was held on MSNBC to determine who might be the next Republican Candidate to run against Barack Obama. There are three groupings of candidates that showed up at the debate; 1. the Governors, 2. The Opportunists 3. The Left Behind.
1. The Governors
A secondary title to this article was the battle of the Governors. Everyone knew and expected a back and forth between Gov. Perry from Texas and Gov. Romney from Massachusetts. There was a great interaction between the two on the most important issue, job creation. The exchange argued the rankings of each state while they were in office. However, another Gov. Huntsman from Utah gave Perry and Romney a run for their money. After the small exchange, Huntsman pulled a fast one and shared that his state was #1 in job creation during his administration.
2. The Opportunists
Of course, I would have to say that the three governors took the main stage. Now for those who I would consider to be on the side "free stage," I put Michele Bachmann and Herman Kane. Michele Bachmann was putting an aweful amount of time talking about Obamacare, especially during the job creation discussion. Did she not remember how the Democrats lost the congressional elections is 2010? (Focusing more on health care than on job creation/economy)
3. The Left Behind
Although I called Ron Paul the winner of the first Republican Debate, I'm surprised to see him somewhat off his game tonight. Since the whole field was somewhat hostile, Ron Paul's normal strategy was overshadowed. Santorum was not strong and Gingrich is known not to have a good foundational campaign for Republicans to throw support at him.
SUMMARY:
- Perry will remain the front runner, but Romney also took impressive swings
- Huntsman may get a bump in the polls for being on par with the other front runners
- Bachmann and Paul will diminish more in polls
- Herman Cane 9-9-9 Tax Plan was catchy and may stick.
1. The Governors
A secondary title to this article was the battle of the Governors. Everyone knew and expected a back and forth between Gov. Perry from Texas and Gov. Romney from Massachusetts. There was a great interaction between the two on the most important issue, job creation. The exchange argued the rankings of each state while they were in office. However, another Gov. Huntsman from Utah gave Perry and Romney a run for their money. After the small exchange, Huntsman pulled a fast one and shared that his state was #1 in job creation during his administration.
2. The Opportunists
Of course, I would have to say that the three governors took the main stage. Now for those who I would consider to be on the side "free stage," I put Michele Bachmann and Herman Kane. Michele Bachmann was putting an aweful amount of time talking about Obamacare, especially during the job creation discussion. Did she not remember how the Democrats lost the congressional elections is 2010? (Focusing more on health care than on job creation/economy)
3. The Left Behind
Although I called Ron Paul the winner of the first Republican Debate, I'm surprised to see him somewhat off his game tonight. Since the whole field was somewhat hostile, Ron Paul's normal strategy was overshadowed. Santorum was not strong and Gingrich is known not to have a good foundational campaign for Republicans to throw support at him.
SUMMARY:
- Perry will remain the front runner, but Romney also took impressive swings
- Huntsman may get a bump in the polls for being on par with the other front runners
- Bachmann and Paul will diminish more in polls
- Herman Cane 9-9-9 Tax Plan was catchy and may stick.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Lampe: Its the Labor Markets Stupid... (Obama announces Jobs Plan after Labor Day)
Prior to the new Jobs Plan President Obama is set to announce after Labor Day, the un- and underemployed people in the United States are asking, 'what have you done for us lately?' With unemployment at over 9%, both Democratic and Republican officials are trying to pitch the failure of the other party.
Let's face it, the Republicans are being hypocritical by slashing social programs and fundraising machines from Democrats (unions) without touching revenues; and Democrats are asking to keep key governmental programs without putting much of a fight to keep revenues (taxes) on the table.
But all this bickering does not solve the issue at hand. Yes, the federal budget will help ease political uncertainty in the markets, but it will not do much to increase employment as dramatically as the public wants. Although the Republicans' minds are in the right place, they are not thorough in their tax cut approach for the high income earners.
Would it not be a fair compromise to replace the high income tax break for a tax break specifically for companies employing people in the United States?
MAKING IT SIMPLE: Remember in school where we learned the basic process of our economy. You had the banks, industries, and the laborers. The bank would loan money to the industries to invest in their businesses. After the business is set up, they would pay employees to run the business. When the employees get paid, they go back to the banks and industries to start the process over again and expand the economy.
The question for our time is this, 'Are we becoming too efficient?' If we are not giving people the opportunity to earn money then spend it in the US Economy, does that mean the economy slows down because goods and services are not being purchased by the consumer powerhouse of Americans?
My three points of what I would ask President Obama to do:
1. Expire the tax cuts to the higher income brakets
2. Reform former tax cuts into a job-creating tax cut
3. Initiate these steps in your new jobs plan
Blog/Article by the Situationalist - Mike Lampe
Let's face it, the Republicans are being hypocritical by slashing social programs and fundraising machines from Democrats (unions) without touching revenues; and Democrats are asking to keep key governmental programs without putting much of a fight to keep revenues (taxes) on the table.
But all this bickering does not solve the issue at hand. Yes, the federal budget will help ease political uncertainty in the markets, but it will not do much to increase employment as dramatically as the public wants. Although the Republicans' minds are in the right place, they are not thorough in their tax cut approach for the high income earners.
Would it not be a fair compromise to replace the high income tax break for a tax break specifically for companies employing people in the United States?
MAKING IT SIMPLE: Remember in school where we learned the basic process of our economy. You had the banks, industries, and the laborers. The bank would loan money to the industries to invest in their businesses. After the business is set up, they would pay employees to run the business. When the employees get paid, they go back to the banks and industries to start the process over again and expand the economy.
The question for our time is this, 'Are we becoming too efficient?' If we are not giving people the opportunity to earn money then spend it in the US Economy, does that mean the economy slows down because goods and services are not being purchased by the consumer powerhouse of Americans?
My three points of what I would ask President Obama to do:
1. Expire the tax cuts to the higher income brakets
2. Reform former tax cuts into a job-creating tax cut
3. Initiate these steps in your new jobs plan
Blog/Article by the Situationalist - Mike Lampe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)