is imminent and it could be the time when the real GOP contenders, or contender, rise above the also rans. Each result seems to put Mitt Romney ever closer to the penultimate prize. The ultimate prize of course being residence in the White House.
The results tend to be viewed differently depending which source provides the information. Read a GOP slanted publication and you will be lead to believe that Romney is cruising to victory. This of course helps the candidates political race as voters, like sheep, so often will then follow suit and vote accordingly.
It would seem a much fairer assessment to say that Mitt Romney is slowly but surely edging his way to victory.
Before the Washington Caucus the vital statistics read "Romney leading in the overall delegate count with 173. Santorum with 87, followed by Gingrich with 33. Paul had 20", according to FoxNews. Although that sounds like a sure fire victory for Mitt there is still some way to go. Bear in mind that it
takes 1,144 delegates to clinch the nomination.What could of course impact is the cost of this protracted nomination.
This is when Mr Romney should win hands down. Even the Democrats are struggling to fund the 2012 election which does make it seem to this Brit that the White House is up for grabs by the highest bidder
. Perhaps this is the way of world politics. Is there any wonder that young people often turn away from the ballot box and opt for protest instead? We can always turn a blind eye to disillusioned youngsters and concentrate on those who are politically active but dig a little deeper for the truth. If you are one of the negative statistics, in Europe for example, such as unemployed aged 20, what do "more of the same" governments offer you?
Each candidate in the US, be they Democrats and Republicans have a difficult task in hand. In the words of their famous leader Abraham Lincoln, they will never please everyone. However most people will feel that they should at least try to govern fairly and for the good of all.
Sooner or later one of the stragglers in the GOP race must surely quit? There must come a time when they feel they are throwing good money after bad to fight a losing battle. If that happens it will be interesting to see who they choose to support. Of course backed by many of the 1% for now there is still money to burn. As such people strive to get the man they want into the oval Office you have to wonder what is in it for them? In truth I guess we all know. The cost of this election could go a long way toward curing some of the financial ills of the USA.
Mitt Romney still has one big negative as far as the US GOP voters are concerned and that is his Mormon faith. Whilst it will not affect all GOP voters it could still be a stumbling block for him. Right now the GOP seems to have no true idea who they want but they have maybe come to terms with the fact that it will be one of the FOUR
That said will they finally settle for Mitt Romney as their best option?
Some people become famous for utilising their natural talents. Others acquire skills which they then use to their best advantage. Then of course there are the big mouths. People who become famous for airing their, often off the wall, views. Enter Rush Limbaugh.
Ignorance can be bliss and that was the case for this blogger until Limbaugh came on her radar. Then it is a whole different ball game. Other forms of ignorance are far from blissful and perhaps this is the category Limbaugh belongs in After all unless his comments are just headline grabbing ways to make money he does seem to be far from intelligently informed.
As part of the extreme right of America, GOP hopefuls must be wincing every time he opens his mouth to speak. Extremists will love his off the wall words but they are in the minority surely? Limbaugh's comments must so often alienate less extreme voters and damage the GOP race. Good news of course for the Obama camp and their election campaign. Perhaps Limbaugh is in the pay of Democrats wanting to ensure an Obama win in November 2012. If so way to go Rush.So what's all the fuss about?
Sandra Fluke, a Law School student, testified before US Congress regarding contraception. According to the Washington Post
she did this in "support of women’s access to birth control" to protest at right wing attacks aimed at limiting this access. WP claim, "Fluke said her fellow students at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, pay as much as $1,000 a year for birth control because campus health plans do not include coverage of contraceptives for women."
Here is what Limbaugh said about Sandra:"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."Limbaugh then said, "ok, so she's not a slut. She's round-heeled." "Round-heeled" is an old-fashioned term for promiscuity.
I wonder what Sandra's parents felt about this. It does however show a great deal of ignorance on the part of Limbaugh. It is such a stupid statement that it needs no explaining why. Of course it might to Mr Limbaugh.
As a blogger viewing from across the Pond my other conclusion is that Limbaugh is simply a well known celebrity. Someone a little like Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer, no offence intended to you guys. What I mean is that he is simply an entertainer not a person to be viewed with any political credibility.
Those American viewers who do take his words seriously should perhaps consider his thoughts on "Dumb" people. Speaking about people who he has deemed dumb Limbaugh said, "The first clue that a dumb person doesn't know they're dumb is they open their mouth. The way they dress. The political party that they join. There's all kinds of evidence. "Similarly, unfunny people don't have a good enough sense of humour to tell" they're not funny. Have you ever been around somebody who thinks they're funny as hell and they're not? It's 'cause they're too dumb to know that they're too dumb. This is why banning the ugly, making it voluntary, never worked. The ugly are too dumb to know it, and it's a blessing"
So I guess Limbaugh fits right in there along with many of the GOP bible belt? He obviously feels that he is very funny, whilst he is not, and the bible belt evangelists keep opening their mouths. Perhaps Rush is simply an unfunny comedian who loves publicity and making money at other people's expense. One thing is for sure, some of his extreme views appear to break many rights and code's of conduct.
Finally on "dumb people Rush said""The first clue that a dumb person doesn't know they're dumb is they open their mouth." Yes it would appear that you do Mr Limbaugh!
Looking across the Pond at the GOP nomination race this UK writer is struck by many things, not least the latest televised debates between the front runners in the race. There is so much press surrounding the main contenders that it is easy to forget that there are others jockeying for position. The six major contenders dominate debate and media coverage. The fact that all these politicians, from the same political party, are fighting it out publicly is definitely odd. TEK has already noted that.
The fact that these TV debates could be so influential in who a voter chooses to support, is another misnomer. After all, the most charismatic or best actor could fare the best. Perhaps this is how Reagan came to office. Although with his acting record perhaps we should scrap that idea.
The UK took its lead from the US political debates and held similar ones pre the last general election. That is how we ended up with a loosely run Coalition government full of style, money and no substance.
The New Hampshire audience may have already made up their minds who they will select, however many in the US will have yet to decide. The debate seemed to be aiming for those floating voters. By doing so most of the candidates did their best to be moderate. Nothing too excesvsive. Nothing that could lessen their individual vote. So what was the point of all this?
If each candidate has no firm manifesto and simply speaks in order to plese the listener how the hell does anyone know what a candidate truly stands for?
In light of the sorry state of the World right now some of the questions and answers were downright silly. A great deal of debate time has been spent name calling each other on their past records and deating issues such as gay rights in America. Whilst this writer would not want to belittle such subjects surely there are more important issues at hand? Israel, Iran, North Korea, American drones, terrorism, global economic disasters, environmental dangers, poverty, high levels of unemployment, budget cuts and so much more rapidly spring to mind.
Whilst we all know that charity begins at home there are so many global issues which could affect us all, not least the US. The US has many urgent issues which need to be resolved. Is contraception one of them? I doubt it.
The questions were selected for the candidates but there was ample opportunity to discuss more serious issues. In the end it all seemed like an X Factor type contest. Which GOP candidate has that certain extra something? The X Factor. It seemed to have little to do with policies and political beliefs but more to do with the persona for the job.
Surely the American people want and deserve better than this?
It seems that bad boys can and do change. That is if you believe the hype surrounding GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich.
Yesterday, December 30, 2011, Newt was asked questions about his mother and his campaign. Those regrading his mother caused the veteran politician to shed more than a tear or two.
Those present at the Des Moines. Iowa, coffee shop, where the interview took place, all sighed a resounding aww. The majority were females.
Newt went on to detail some of his political aspirations and his childhood. The questioning was by pollster and Republican consultant Frank Luntz. This fact makes this writer wonder if it was all a set up. As Gingrich dabbed his tearful eyes with his handerkerchief this writer began to wonder if there was some tear inducing substance conveniently placed on the said hankie. However it seems that the tissues were supplied after the tears, by his daughter.
Nothing in politicis surprises and so anything is quite possible. It is also possible that having joined forces Luntz knew exactly what to ask to push the tear duct button. Some people however can bring to mind particular sad times in their lifes and start the tears falling. The late UK comedian Norman Wisdom once explained how he could do just that. He would remember his harsh childhood and the tears would fall. This was ideal for an actor and I guess will also be so for a politician.
Gingrich talked about his life and then, according to CBS said that", his mother spent "27 years as an army wife" as part of a culture that valued patriotism and duty. He said that if his mother were here today he would tell her he would "do everything I can as a candidate to be worthy of ourselves.""
Asked if he was able to convince those listening that he was a chnged man Newt went on, "I don't know that I can convince you. I can be a witness and you have to decide whether you're convinced. I would say that I am a sadder and slower person than I was 25 years ago. I have learned a lot of limitations of life, and that in fact sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes it's very painful, and sometimes you have to go to God for forgiveness and you have to seek reconciliation. I don't ask people to vote on whether or not they approve of my entire life."
Well perhaps that is good news. After all he has a reputation as an unfaithful husband, cheater, womaniser and more in his personal life history.
He told the listeners that he wants people instead consider whether they want to support a "68-year-old grandfather" who has spent over half a century studying what the country needs "and how to get it done."
That may not be a winning hand for the majority of the voting public. It could have been last century but times change. Whilst leaders need experience they also need a fresh approach. The 21st Century has the whole range of problems to deal with right now. Whether America and the World now need leaders from the old guard is doubtful. After all so many of these are responsible for the god awful mess the world is in right now.
Full CBS article here