Washington, U.S.A. – After receiving nothing short of a landslide of support from national GOP leaders, congressional candidate Joe Kaufman returned triumphantly from Washington, DC as the apparent frontrunner to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida’s 23rd District.

Kaufman garnered enthusiastic support from former Presidential candidates Herman Cain, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Rick Santorum and other Republican leaders.

Kaufman was invited to speak in Washington, along with Senator Marco Rubio, at the kick-off luncheon of the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference, where he received a rousing round of applause.

“I’m delighted to be supporting Joe Kaufman because he is a true patriot,” said Herman Cain. “We have a lot of people in Washington DC who are there for the wrong reasons, and I’m proud to be supporting Joe in his run to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz. When we have more people like Joe in Washington, DC, we would truly have a Congress for the people and not a Congress for the politicians. So good luck Joe.”

“I’m very much for Joe Kaufman beating Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  I think it would be good for America,” said Speaker Newt Gingrich.

“I can’t think of any other member of Congress that I would like to see replaced more than Debbie Wasserman Schultz, so I wish Joe the very, very best,” said Senator Rick Santorum .

Others praising and expressing strong support for Kaufman included Grover Norquist who stated, “well I think Debbie Wasserman has been a little bit of a disappointment as a congresswoman and Joe Kaufman would be certainly trading up on issues of importance…”

Kenneth Blackwell stated, “Joe is a champion of liberty and represents what will maintain American exceptionalism and I am proud to be part of this team.”

Dr. Carlos Campos said, “my feeling about Joe Kaufman is that he stands for conservative principles that really allow for freedom to exist in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Daniel Pipes stated, “I am delighted that Joe is running against DWS and I hope that she gets her pink slip in 2012.”

Foster Friess also commented, stating, “Joe would bring items to the floor that maybe Debbie isn’t too excited about, so I heartily endorse Joe’s efforts…”

Image Courtesy of  Joe Kaufman

The article Joe Kaufman Receives GOP Support to Unseat Schultz appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Newark, U.S.A. – Today’s Presidential primary election is meaningless for citizens living in New Jersey, California, Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota. “This creates an alienated and cynical electorate that is becoming more disenfranchised with every election cycle,” says Jim Lynch, author of “The 2020 Players: A Futuristic View of the 2020 Presidential Election.”

Lynch asks, “Can you blame Americans for tuning out? This is not democracy; in fact, it just may be as bad as the backroom politics back in the old days of bosses and political machines.”

“As a result, millions of Americans had absolutely no voice in the Presidential selection process. Let’s face it; the primary system is broken,” says Lynch.

After today’s vote, which involves some 299 uncontested electoral votes, only Utah has yet to weigh in and they’ll hold off until June 26.

“Voting in America should be cherished as a sacred right, as a meaningful experience to every American. But voting has become totally meaningless for almost a third of the states participating in 2012 Republican primary balloting,” says Lynch.

“This flawed process is a ringing endorsement of the reform proposal to have a National One Day Primary on the same day in all 50 states for all presidential candidates. The single day primary would bring an end to local pandering to voters – like Newt Gingrich telling the people in Cape Canaveral ‘We should build a moon base’ – and to months of negative campaigning on TV and radio, one harmful and nauseating attack after another, without end.  And it would be far easier for both parties to unite behind the winners who emerge from the one day balloting,” says Lynch.

Lynch believes Americans must overhaul the political process and the insidious role that media advocacy plays in this process. “In my novel, The 2020 Players, I also advocate a viable three-party system, a single six-year term for President, and a ban on any political campaigning while in office.”

Jim Lynch is a native New Yorker, married with eight children and four grandchildren. His parents worked for the FBI. He spent eight years as an investigator and was an executive for AT&T. Lynch is a full time novelist.

Image Courtesy of  Jim Lynch

The article American Primary System is Broken, Novelist Says appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Things are starting to look dim for Republican candidates Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum as Super Tuesday’s results revealed that Mitt Romney is definitively the front runner for the GOP spot for the election this coming November. But the real question is whether he will be able to beat out President Barack Obama for the presidential term of 2012 to 2016.

Romney was victorious in six of the ten states on Tuesday including Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Alaska, Idaho and Vermont. Santorum followed with three wins in the states of North Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Gingrich trailed with only one win in Georgia and Ron Paul still has not won a single state’s primary or caucus.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, easily won the state’s vote with a turnout of approximately 72% voters in his favor. Surprisingly though, only about 20% of all registered Republican and Independent voters showed up to the polls to cast their ballots on Tuesday, according to Brian McNiff, who is the spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin. This is a significant drop from all presidential primaries in 2008 where about 45% of registered voters cast their ballots for both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Massachusetts State Representative George Peterson is positive that there will be a much higher turn out for the general election in November. Peterson stated, “People feel very strongly about this race and they are not happy where this country is headed.” Peterson also added that he sees, “a 60% percent turnout in the presidential race, and having Romney and Senator Brown on the ballot will be extremely helpful to all Republicans in the Legislature.”

In order for any presidential candidate to make it to November, one thing is important above all: Monday. And Romney has that. Massachusetts Party Chairman John Walsh claims that over the past seven years, Romney and his supporters have spent over $200 million in order for Romney to receive the Republican Party’s nomination. While Romney might have the money to get there, it’s going to be hard for the people of the state of Massachusetts to forget that the state ranked third lowest in the country as job creation and manufacturing declined over twice the national average during the time that Romney served as Governor there.

Despite Romney’s wins, none of the other Republican candidates have dropped out of the race — yet. The next state Romney must tackle is Kansas on Sunday and then Mississippi and Alabama on Tuesday. However, strategists believe that Santorum has a good chance of winning those states because he has strong supporters there. Santorum could be the only thing standing in the way of Romney being the Republican candidate for the presidency. Based on polls, Santorum is favored by those making less than $100,000 a year, non-graduates, independents, and people under the age of 65.

In the long run, Romney is looking to be the Republican nominee up against current President Obama in November, but before then, it looks as if he is going to have to beat out his Republican rivals. For Romney, it could be a long and drawn-out race until April, when the states of Maryland, Delaware, and Connecticut get to vote, as well as the District of Columbia. At that time, things will be much clearer as to who will go up against Obama in November.

Image Courtesy of    http://www.flickr.com/photos/newshour/

The article Will Romney’s Super Tuesday be Enough to Win Him the GOP? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

It’s Mitt Romney. No, it’s Rick Santorum. No it’s Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul. Who really is the front-runner most likely to be the GOP candidate for the U.S. Election for 2012?

Current Republican front-runner Mitt Romney continues to target Obama about his views and promises of what is to come for the United States if the Republicans take office. Romney has been reflecting on all the things Obama didn’t do or did wrong for the U.S. since his election in 2008.

In the same vein, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul has been knocking on his Republican rivals. Paul has been ridiculing Santorum and Romney, calling Romney a “flip-flopper” in an advertisement. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich is doing the same by speaking poorly of his Republican rivals and President Obama equally, by saying, “They all have poor visions for our country.” But some would argue that ridiculing and criticizing Republican Rivals and President Obama is not the way to win over Republican voters. Former Senator Rick Santorum is one of them.

Santorum is taking a very different approach in his appearances, reminding Americans that we should focus on ideas, and “not attack Obama,” while he was campaigning in Georgia. Santorum made a statement, saying how in the past, “one candidate has been able to win the race, by serially destroying their opponent.” He continued that, “it is not a winning formula in the general election. A winning formula is having better ideas and motivating the Republican Party.”

Ron Paul is currently the only Republican candidate yet to win a single primary or caucus. He is hopeful to win over the state of Washington and has publicly announced that he will remain in the race until this year’s Republican Convention.

So far, Romney has won six states with Santorum following second winning four states, as Gingrich trails behind with one. Although Paul is hopeful to win Washington, his chances of winning are about 16% according to a survey taken by the Public Policy Polling. He is expecting that young adults and independents, who have seemed to gravitate toward Paul, will increase his odds of winning what would be his first victory.

As ‘Super Tuesday’ approaches, Republican candidates are making as many appearances as possible to win the primaries and caucuses where Americans will vote in ten states. Primaries will be held in seven states including Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. Caucuses will be held in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota.

Considering those states comprise one-fifth of the country’s states, this day could be a huge turning point that could change everything for the Republican candidates toward their race to the presidency.

Image Courtesy of Gage Skidmore (uploaded by JaumeBG) (Flickr) [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The article Who Will be the Front-Runner After ‘Super Tuesday?’ appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum flailed against each other through most of the Republican presidential primary in Mesa, Arizona on Wednesday night, but both assailed President Obama for not taking a more aggressive stance towards Iran.

Romney called Obama’s policy towards Iran, “his biggest failure,” and said the Iranian threat to stop the flow of oil to the west and drive up gas prices “pales in comparison” to the threat of the Iranian regime getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

The United States should have intervened during the Green Revolution in 2009 when protesters rose up against the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Romney added. When the Iranian regime pressed ahead with efforts to produce nuclear fuel, the US should have put in place “crippling sanctions,” he said.

Santorum agreed that Obama hasn’t supported sanctions and is too timid to stand up to the Iranians. “We need a new president or we will have a cataclysmic situation,” said Santorum. He agreed that Obama should have come to the aid of the pro-democracy movement in Iran, but stumbled a bit during his tirade, calling Iran “the world’s most most prolific proliferator of terrorism.”

Both men agreed that the United States should do more to help the pro-democracy movement in Syria, although they stopped short of calling for direct military intervention. Santorum called Syria “a puppet for Iran” in the Middle East and Romney said the turmoil in Syria presented a critical time for the United States to change the balance of power in the Middle East. He said the US should consider turning to Turkey or other allies in the region to help overthrow the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Santorum stumbled again when he said that Obama had not demanded that Assad leave office. In a statement to the United Nations on February 4, Obama said Assad should step down, stop the killing of his own people, and allow the pro-democracy movement to run its course. It was the latest of many similar statements Obama has made since the protests in Syria began last year.

Newt Gingrich joined the chorus of tough talk, but added that if the United States got rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and eased restrictions on oil exploration, the country would produce so much gasoline that it could ignore Iran’s threats to stop oil shipments to the west.

Gingrich said he wouldn’t necessarily oppose a preemptive strike against Iran by the Israelis. “If you think a madman is about to get nuclear weapons and you think he is going to use those nuclear weapons, then you have an absolute moral obligation to defend the lives of your people by eliminating the capacity to get nuclear weapons,” said Gingrich. Ron Paul struck his usual contrarian pose on foreign policy, saying that the US has already overextended and nearly bankrupted itself with militarily intervention.

“There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon,” said Paul, to a chorus of cheers and jeers from the audience. And even if Iran did acquire a weapon, he continued, that’s not an excuse for immediate military action. Paul said the Soviet Union had over 30 thousand nuclear weapons, “but we still talked to them.” Eventually the Soviet Union collapsed, he continued. “It was because they bankrupted themselves.”

Paul said that al-Qaeda’s intention was to “bog down” the United States with military intervention in the Middle East, and so far, they’ve succeeded. “We’ve spent more than $4 trillion dollars over the last ten years in the Middle East,” said Paul, suggesting that if those who favor military intervention against Iran won’t listen to constitutional or moral arguments, perhaps they will listen to a financial one.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Republican Candidates Talk Tough on Iran appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

With about ten days to go before the next primaries in the Republican race for the nomination, all four remaining Republicans are losing to President Obama by between 8 and 17 points. As the race narrows down to the final candidate, just half of Americans (51%) say they are satisfied with the choices available to them for President while more than two in five (44%) are not satisfied.

Independents are the most dissatisfied with over half (55%) saying they are not satisfied with the choices while two-thirds of Democrats (68%) are satisfied. Republicans are more split as half are satisfied (52%) and 44% are not satisfied. But the Republican satisfaction is soft with just 13% very satisfied and 39% saying they are only somewhat satisfied. These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,056 adults surveyed online between February 6 and 13, 2012 by Harris Interactive 

Head to head match-ups

If the presidential election were held today, 46% of Americans would vote for President Obama, 37% would vote for Mitt Romney and 17% are not at all sure. Last month, two in five U.S. adults (43%) said they would vote for President Obama while 39% said they would vote for Mitt Romney.

Among Independents, it’s a slightly closer race with 43% voting for the President and 37% voting for the former governor and 46% of adults in the 2012 Swing States (Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) would vote for President Obama and 39% would vote for Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul may not be in the fight for front-runner, but he actually makes it a slightly tighter race as 45% of Americans would vote for President Obama and 37% would vote for the Congressman while 18% are not at all sure. Among Independents, Paul is ahead 42% to the President’s 40% but in the 2012 Swing States the President is ahead 45% to 41% for Paul.

He may be jockeying for front-runner status but the former Senator from Pennsylvania is more than ten points behind the President. Almost half of Americans would vote for President Obama (47%) while 35% would vote for Rick Santorum and 18% are not at all sure. Among Independents, 44% would vote for President Obama and 35% for Santorum with 20% not at all sure. In the 2012 Swing states, 46% would vote for the President while 40% would vote for Santorum.

Finally, if the election was held today, half of Americans (50%) would vote for President Obama and one-third for Newt Gingrich (33%) with 18% not at all sure. Among Independents, President Obama leads Newt Gingrich 47% to 32% with 20% not at all sure and among people in the 2012 Swing states President Obama leads Newt Gingrich 48% to 36% with 16% not at all sure.

So What?

The Republican primary continues to be a road full of twists and turns and the main benefactor to these constant changing stories is President Obama. In each of these four races the President has expanded his lead. The question is what happens when the primary race is over and the Republicans have decided on a candidate. If that happens quickly, he will have time to make the race close, but the longer the primary goes, the shorter the general election timeframe becomes.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between January 25 and 27, 2012 among 2,099 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.

Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

Image Courtesy of   Jose Gil / Shutterstock.com

The article Republicans Are So Far Losing to President Obama appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The big Republican names were all at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., last week: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin. The three-day conference, known as CPAC and hosted by the American Conservative Union, drew about 11,000 participants and 1,300 journalists, who crammed into the Marriott’s ballroom for the big speeches.

While most attention focused on Republican presidential hopefuls and other party luminaries, we opted to take a spin around panels and events devoted to fundraising. They were a window into how money might be raised this election cycle, through new-fangled super PACs and their even more opaque nonprofit sidekicks, as well as through more old-fashioned tactics.

One conference panel — “What’s Up With Campaign Finance?” — featured some of the lawyers who helped win the recent court decisions, such as Citizens United, that cleared the way for the new, more free-wheeling campaign-finance landscape.

At one point, moderator and lawyer Dan Backer predicted the eventual overhaul of the Federal Election Campaign Act of the 1970s, which he crowed “has been brutalized and made Swiss cheese by the courts, thanks to the folks on this panel.”

At another point, panelist Benjamin Barr, a constitutional lawyer, joked about the hoopla over Citizens United and the worry that it would lead to a campaign-finance “apocalypse.” ”If there’s an apocalypse upon us, I suppose we have the four horsemen of the apocalypse right here,” he said, as a few audience members laughed.

Election lawyer Stephen Hoersting, vice-president and co-founder of the nonprofit Center for Competitive Politics, who has recently joined Backer’s firm, told the audience about the various ways for grassroots groups to be involved in the upcoming election. If they want to be directly involved in a campaign, they can start a traditional political action committee, which puts strict limits on how much they can raise or donate.

If activists want to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, they can form a super PAC, as long as they don’t technically coordinate with a candidate — and as long as their donors are willing to be disclosed.

But to have both unlimited and undisclosed donations, Hoersting noted, activists can form a so-called 501(c)4, named for the section of the Internal Revenue Service code on social-welfare nonprofits. They must convince the IRS that their organization’s primary purpose is social welfare, not politics. And they also must not run afoul of the perpetually paralyzed FEC.

“If you absolutely cannot have any of your donors disclosed, there’s still a way to get an organization up off the ground, by say, April, to get money into it and to run ads that will influence…the election, but isn’t technically something that the FEC gets its hooks into,” Hoersting told the audience of about 75 people. “New organizations that don’t want to disclose, there is a way—but you have to run your ads in a certain way.”

Also at the panel, Bradley Smith, a former FEC commissioner and the co-founder and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, which advocates eliminating campaign-finance restrictions, told the room that he wasn’t particularly worried about foreign money coming into U.S. campaigns. Foreign contributions are illegal in the U.S.

“If the Colombian Chamber of Commerce wants to spend a little bit of money to run some ads saying, ‘Vote for this guy because he supports the Colombian-American free-trade pact,’ I’m like, ‘Yeah, that sounds good to me,’” Smith said. “I’m just not frightened that some English citizens are going to run some ads in the country, and I’m not really terribly concerned that the Syrians run their ads saying, ‘We need stronger terrorist organizations,’ and that that’s going to be just a real winner for anybody. It doesn’t worry me.”

Hoersting tripped up the audience by playing a kind of super PAC quiz game. In doing so, he was highlighting how similar all the groups sounded. He said he wanted a group—and a name—that actually stood for ideological values.

“Right now we have Winning Our Future,” Hoersting reminded the crowd, some of whom were so devoted to the conservative conference, they traveled from across the country. “Whose PAC is Winning Our Future?”

“Mitt Romney,” a few suggested. “Gingrich,” said others.

“Gingrich, OK,” Hoersting confirmed. “Who’s Restore Our Future?”

“Romney,” a few said, correctly. “Ron Paul,” one man announced, wrongly.

“OK,” Hoersting said, without naming the winner. (To see which candidate the super PAC supports, just look at the photos on their front page.)

One super PAC was unveiled at the conference, Hispanicvote.com. About 40 people crammed into a side room for the kick-off party, which featured a tower of cupcakes and a cash bar that may have been a fundraising tactic. A can of soda ran $5.

American Crossroads, a super PAC that has been referred to as the “shadow” Republican National Committee and hopes to raise $300 million with its nonprofit partner this election cycle, threw a cocktail party for bloggers, where president Steven Law made a joke about the group being a “little super PAC.” Here, the bar was open.

The conference, which meandered through the sprawling lobbies and meeting rooms of the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, was no place for so-called RINOs, or Republicans In Name Only. It was a place where Reagan was invoked like a verb, where there was a party called “Reaganpalooza;” where booths sold pink tank tops with the black outline of a pistol and the phrase “I Don’t Dial 911;” where The Great American Tea Party board game asked the question: “Who Says Politics Can’t Be Fun?”

Supporters of Gingrich, Romney and Santorum vied for space, along with a man dressed up in a fat suit and a green T-shirt proclaiming, “Big Govt Gary.” Instead of the Sierra Club, there was the Safari Club, which advocated for accommodating laws for hunters. There was also the Resourceful Earth, which promises to fight “for the right to develop the natural resources that create jobs and prosperity in America.”

Bruce Eberle, wearing a Ronald Reagan lapel button for his panel, “Fundraising Secrets from the Billion $ Man,” said many aspects of persuading donors to give big hadn’t changed post-Citizen United. Fundraisers still have to summon up the nerve to ask for a bit more than is comfortable.

“Donors actually like to be challenged,” he said. “Make them stretch a little bit.”

Eberle has raised money for everyone from Reagan to recent Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain. He described how he might ask a prospective contributor for a big check.

“I would like to ask you, ‘Would you make a gift of $250,000?” Eberle said to his imaginary donor. “And then, this is one of the very hardest things…You make the ask, and then you shut up.”

 by Kim Barker, ProPublica, Feb. 13, 2012, 5:34 p.m.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/n3tel/

The article CPAC Tips: How to Win Friends and Influence appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

With the 2012 election season in full swing, the economy continues to be one of the biggest factors impacting Americans’ choice for president, with 49 percent saying their vote in November will be most influenced by the issue of jobs creation, according to the latest Workplace Insights survey by Adecco Staffing US, part of the world’s largest recruitment and workforce solutions provider.

The omnibus survey, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation International on behalf of Adecco Staffing US, shows 36 percent of Americans believe President Obama has the most successful plan to create jobs in the U.S.

As far as the current pool of Republican candidates, only 15 percent of respondents believe Mitt Romney has the best plan to create jobs and about half that amount (8 percent) believe Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich (7 percent) have the best plan. Only 3 percent of Americans believe Rick Santorum has the most successful plan to create jobs.

“With economic growth and recovery still taking place, job creation is still understandably one of the most important things on the minds of Americans,” said Joyce Russell, EVP and President of Adecco Staffing US. “Given how many people are still looking for work, it should be no surprise that this issue has the power to ultimately decide who will win the 2012 presidential election.”

The survey also shows that Americans want the government’s help in bridging the job skills gap. In fact, 64 percent believe the government should offer job seekers additional skills training or education. Americans also believe the U.S. government could be doing more to create jobs, with 66 percent of respondents saying the government should give incentives, such as tax breaks, to businesses. Only 4 percent believe the U.S. government is doing exactly what it should be doing to create more jobs.

Additional survey findings include:

Perception of Temporary Jobs is Improving:  According to the survey, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Americans view a temporary job more positively that they did last year. In fact, 86 percent of those surveyed believe a temporary job is a good career option for people looking to gain valuable work experience.

Congress and the Federal Government More to Blame for Lack of Jobs than President Obama: Though 21 percent of respondents fault corporations and businesses for the lack of jobs creation in the U.S., Congress and the Federal Government are not far behind with 18 and 15 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, only 14 percent of Americans believe President Obama is most to blame.

Some Optimism about Job Market:  In spite of economic uncertainty, 60 percent of Americans believe there will be more jobs available in 2012 than there were last year.

Job Security Wins out over Perks for U.S. Workers:  Nearly a third (31 percent) of respondents said job security was most important to them—a noticeable increase compared to the 21 percent who felt this way in 2011. Job security is so important that 64 percent of Americans would consider leaving their current job if they had guaranteed job security. This is just slightly lower than those that would leave their job for increased salary or compensation (72 percent).

More Americans Plan to Speak Up about Raises, Promotion: Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of those surveyed plan to ask for a raise, bonus, or promotion in 2012, compared to 20 percent who said they had planned to do so last year. But it seems those plans went by the wayside in 2011: only half that number (13 percent) actually ended up asking for a raise last year.

Regardless of whether or not American workers plan to proactively ask for a raise, bonus or promotion, there is optimism that they will get one, as 41 percent of respondents plan on getting a raise, bonus, or promotion in 2012. This is definitely positive thinking considering only 32 percent of Americans actually received a raise in 2011.

Workers Broadening Their Career Options in 2012: The survey shows that Americans are more open to working in different fields than they were in 2011. In fact, 68 percent of respondents said they’d be more willing to take a job in a field outside of their degree or study today than they would have been last year.

emin kuliyev / Shutterstock.com

The article The Economy: The American Voter’s Determinant for President appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

When super PACs announced their 2011 fundraising numbers earlier this week, it provided an early glimpse into how the new way of financing political campaigns may work in the upcoming election.

The filings showed that super PACs are indeed fundraising juggernauts, pulling in more than $98 million, with an average donation of $47,718. But so far, their sources of funding are largely transparent, not clouded in the kind of secrecy that some campaign-finance watchers had feared, and not relying that much on connected nonprofits that don’t disclose donors.

Instead, it was separate announcements this week from a cluster of politically active social welfare groups, known as 501(c)4s for their IRS tax code, that hinted at how secret money could factor into the upcoming election — and in a more direct fashion than initially forecast after the Supreme Court opened the door to super PACs two years ago.

On Tuesday, Crossroads GPS, the nonprofit arm of the GOP super PAC American Crossroads, announced it raised $32.6 million last year, far outstripping the super PAC itself, which raised $18.4 million.  Priorities USA and American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, the nonprofit arms of the two largest Democrat super PACs, announced they raised $5.1 million. The super PACs, Priorities USA Action and American Bridge 21st Century, raised $8.1 million.

Unlike super PACs, which are required to identify their donors, social-welfare nonprofits such as Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA — also referred to as “dark money” groups — don’t have to disclose contributions to the FEC, although they are supposed to report spending on political ads within a day or two. The nonprofits have to disclose their annual revenue and expenses to the IRS, but often delay such filings. A few have not yet filed their taxes for 2010.

Campaign finance watchdogs had worried that 501(c)4s, or “c4s” as insiders call them, would filter money from unidentified donors through super PACs, but, if the recent filings are any guide, they may spend funds directly. This means c4s could have a more muscular, proactive role than previously anticipated.

“Certainly the Crossroads announcement of their fundraising totals suggest the c4s will be big players, and could be even bigger players than the super PACs themselves,” said Paul Ryan, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center.

Though social-welfare nonprofits have been around for years, they emerged as bigger players in the 2010 midterm elections.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in January 2010 led to the creation of super PACS, the turbo-charged political action committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money from donors, including corporations, unions and nonprofits, as long as they don’t coordinate with a candidate when they spend that money.

The ruling also jump-started a new crop of nonprofits. Fifty-nine social-welfare groups reported spending more than $78.6 million on political ads during the 2010 election cycle, according to numbers provided to ProPublica by the Center for Responsive Politics. That money was spent mainly by Republican-leaning groups, including more than $26 million spent by the GOP-leaning American Action Network and more than $17 million by Crossroads GPS. For a time, those groups shared the same offices. It’s unknown where any of their money came from.

After the 2010 election, Democrats started forming their own super PACs and connected social-welfare nonprofits, such as Priorities USA Action, the super PAC, and Priorities USA, the nonprofit. Both were formed by former aides to President Barack Obama, although he and other Democrats have expressed ambivalence and even anger over the role of anonymous money in politics.

Super PAC filings released Tuesday showed  few donations from social-welfare nonprofits, or from shell companies with mystery owners.

Republicans, engaged in a bitter primary, raised more than 74 percent of the super PAC money that could be attributed to partisan groups, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. (Our “PAC Track” application keeps track of spending and donations to prominent super PACs, and has different numbers.) Of those groups, Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney, raised more than $30 million. American Crossroads, the super PAC led by former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove and other top Republicans, including former party chairman Ed Gillespie and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, raised $18.4 million.

Fourteen conservative super PACs, nine of which supported specific Republican presidential candidates, got the bulk of their more than $67 million in donations from publicity-shy conservative billionaires and companies. Almost 26 percent of donations to Republican super PACs came directly from companies, but two super PACS2014the one backing Newt Gingrich, and one backing former candidate Jon Huntsman2014only collected money from individuals. (About 70 percent of the donations to the Huntsman super PAC came from Huntsman’s father. The major backer of the Gingrich super PAC is Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who gave $10 million in January. That money has not yet been reported to the FEC.)

A 15th conservative super PAC, Revolution PAC, which backs Ron Paul, missed the FEC filing deadline, but so far has spent almost $126,000 on ads and has given another $10,000 to another pro-Paul super PAC.

The four best-known Democratic super PACs didn’t raise nearly as much2014perhaps because President Barack Obama is relying on more traditional sources of funding, or because Democrats don’t have to worry about a primary. They raised more than $13.7 million, getting the bulk of their donations from unions, liberal PACs and Hollywood types. Almost 36 percent of the donations to the liberal super PACs were from unions and union PACs.

Tuesday’s filings included only a handful of donations that raised questions about transparency.

A social-welfare group called the League of American Voters, Inc. gave $25,000 to American Crossroads on Dec. 12. The league, formed in the summer of 2010, is likely related to a better known Republican-leaning nonprofit, Americans for Tax Reform, run by strategist Grover Norquist; it rents office space from the group, and gets calls through its phone line.

But it’s not clear what the League of American Voters actually does. An intern who answered the phone said she was told the man who ran the group, Bob Adams, a longtime GOP activist, rarely came to the office. Adams did not respond to an email from a ProPublica reporter.

A Democrat-leaning super PAC, Citizens for Strength and Security, reported that almost all of its $72,000 came from a social-welfare nonprofit, also called Citizens for Strength and Security. Both are run out of post-office boxes at a UPS store on M Street in Washington.

The New York Times also reported on Thursday that $500,000 of the donations to Restore Our Future came from two companies with questionable backgrounds: Paumanok Partners LLC and Glenbrook LLC.

Some campaign-finance watchdogs had a problem with super PACs that reported receiving large payments from affiliated nonprofits for overhead and administrative expenses. A conservative super PAC, Freedomworks for America,  reported getting almost half its total contributions–$1.34 million2014as “in kind” payments from a linked social-welfare nonprofit, Freedomworks.  The two leading Democrat super PACs, Priorities USA Action and American Bridge 21st Century, reported that they received a total of $438,000 from their affiliated nonprofits, for rent and other expenses.

Other Republican super PACs reported getting much less money from their affiliated nonprofits for operating expenses. Two Republican super PACs, Club for Growth Action and the Congressional Leadership Fund, reported getting less than $30,000 from their affiliated nonprofits for shared expenses. American Crossroads reported getting nothing from Crossroads GPS.

“Bottom line, you still have a problem that secret money is being channeled into the super PAC to help it function without the name of the donors ever being known ,” said Fred Wertheimer, who runs Democracy 21, which advocates campaign-finance reform. “In essence you are hiding the donors.”

The most prominent c4s seem to be saving their money for the general election. Crossroads GPS has spent less than $61,000 on political ads in the last year, paying for one anti-Obama ad in December and another released Wednesday. Other conservative social-welfare nonprofits, such as American Action Network and the National Organization for Marriage, have reported spending nearly $300,000 on ads for this election cycle. It’s not clear how much either group raised in 2011, as that amount of money does not have to be made public.

Liberal social-welfare nonprofits also appear to be waiting to spend their money. Priorities USA has not reported spending anything; American Bridge 21st Century Foundation has spent only $5,089 on an ad opposing Mitt Romney on Jan. 20.

UC Irvine professor Rick Hasen, an election-law expert who runs a popular blog, said early reports indicated that people and groups that didn’t mind being publicly identified gave to super PACs, while those preferring anonymity gave to c4 groups. But it was too early to say what might happen in the coming months, he added.

“Whatever conclusions people are tempted to make right now, you have to be tentative, it’s a moving object,” Hasen said. “Campaign finance is changing so quickly, it’s difficult in the midst of the election to get a handle on what’s going on.”

By Kim Barker, Al Shaw and Ariel Wittenberg ProPublica, Feb. 3, 2012, 6:02 p.m.

Image Courtesy of  Gage Skidmore

The article With Spotlight on Super PAC Dollars, Nonprofits Escape Scrutiny appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Hispanic Leadership Network (HLN), a center-right advocacy action group, announced that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Senator Rick Santorum will address its “Inspiring Action” conference to be held January 26-27 at the Doral Golf Resort & Spa in Miami, Florida. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez will serve as conference co-chairs.

“We are incredibly honored to have such a stellar group of leaders addressing the diverse and vibrant Hispanic community that calls Florida home. Our conference is a chance for center-right Hispanics to take an active role in the policy debate currently taking place around the country,” said HLN Executive Director Jennifer S. Korn.

The conference kicks off on Thursday night with a welcoming reception and debate watching party. HLN is co-host with CNN and the Republican Party of Florida of Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate in Jacksonville. CNN will provide live coverage from the HLN debate watching party. Speaker Gingrich, Governor Romney and Senator Santorum will address the HLN conference on Friday.

“America is in a jobs crisis and Hispanic Americans have been hit especially hard. I look forward to outlining how a conservative jobs and growth strategy of lower taxes, less regulation, a stable dollar and more American energy will help us rebuild the America we love,” said Gingrich.

“Over 2.5 million Hispanics are unemployed today, with the unemployment rate at 11% for Hispanics. In order to free the private sector and provide jobs and opportunity for Hispanic families, we must getWashington out of the way of the American entrepreneurial spirit,” said Romney.

The conference’s Friday program also features discussions on job creation, immigration, and the power of the Hispanic vote. In addition, there will be three training sessions focusing on grassroots advocacy, media, and policy issues. Overall, the two-day gathering will bring together more than 20 distinguished speakers and panelists.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Gingrich, Romney & Santorum to Address HLN’s Conference in Miami appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Even as presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, readies for the South Carolina primary after soundly winning the New Hampshire primary, both the Obama reelection campaign and the Occupy Wall Street crowd he hopes to capitalize on are sharpening the knives of wealth envy.

As the 2011 year closed, the media remained obsessed with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Not a day went by without video of the protesters camping out, clashing with police, or some soft-peddled story on the merits of the protests. Absent are all the admonitions hurled toward the Tea Party for loudly denouncing the Obama Care Law or the president’s insistence on spending more and more money in debt to somehow magically create a positive economy.

Make no mistake, however, just as the Tea Party galvanized opposition against the policies of the Obama administration from fiscal conservatives, so too, does the president hope to utilize the Occupy movement in a similar fashion in the 2012 presidential election. The contrast between the two movements is stark.

There were hundreds of Tea Party rallies, marches, and protests throughout the country in 2010. Yet, not a single venue was trashed, the streets, avenues, and parks were left in pristine condition, and the only reported police arrest occurred in the beginning of the movement, when three white Union members attacked an African-American male in a wheelchair.

Occupy Wall Street, however, has had rapes, shootings, drug use, assaults, and have pretty much used the parks as their own private bathrooms. There has been violence in every city in which an Occupy movement has occurred, and the only word from the mainstream media has been the talking point of not unfairly assessing the Occupiers through the actions of a few bad apples. The hypocrisy is larger than the increase in the national debt, but is not even the worse problem.

There is no single overwhelming theme or idea from Occupy Wall Street, but the one thing they do seem to hate is what they consider to be income inequality. That they are the 99 percent versus the 1 percent has become the mantra, and the 1 percent are not paying their fair share. There is a call for a more even distribution of income and assets.

The ideas for this range from higher taxes to socialism and to out-right communism. What I find annoying is the idea that there should be income equality to begin with and the underlying idea that the rich have an unfair advantage. The reality, of course, is that life is not fair. We are not all given the same or equal attributes.

Some people are born ugly and others beautiful. Some people are born smart, others have average intelligence, and some people are just born dumb. Some are tall; some are small. And yes, some people are born rich, and some are born poor. It is a fact of life. What is also a fact, however, is that the vast majority of people in the top one percent of income earners were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

In the 1920′s, well over 80 percent of the wealth in the country was gained through inheritance. A person was born, and if they hit the cosmic lottery, their parents were a Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, or a Kennedy. In 2010, the percentage of wealth gained through inheritance is two percent. The vast majority of the people in the top income and asset brackets were not born that way. They earned it in their lifetimes.

They did this through opening businesses or obtaining professional degrees, like becoming doctors (doctors make up most of people in the top one percent), or by savvy and patient investment. Any way you cut it, they were not handed their incomes and wealth through some lotto ticket. However, the occupiers, which are more like ‘whiners’, act as if someone handed these millionaires and billionaires their money.

They never stop and ask themselves whether they are willing to do the things, make the sacrifices, risk their capital, their health, and or their marriage in pursuit of a business or profession that leads to wealth. The answer to that question is clearly no. If they were willing to do those things, they would not be camped out in a park, defecating in the street, and bitching about someone else’s money.

Yet, it is obvious from the calls for “income equality” that these people want the money that the one percent have. Thus far, none have given a single logical reason why they deserve it. Sure, the general idea of fairness can make many people sympathize with the protesters. After all, no one feels sorry for a billionaire.

However, what is fair about someone working 70 hours a week to start a business that takes ten years to build, having to shell over their money to a twenty-something or thirty-something year old that does not want to make the same sacrifices?  If you use a sports analogy, why would an NFL team with the worse record deserve a part of the Super Bowl trophy? We all know the answer is a that they do not deserve it. Yet, many are duped into thinking that they have some divine right to the fruits of someone else’s labors.

It is unimportant that the top 1 percent owns upwards of 25 percent of the wealth in the country. They deserve it, and they own it because when you “own” as opposed to being a worker bee, your wealth and income are magnified. The beauty of America is that if you do not like what you earn, you can do things to earn more. Nowhere else in this world is it so easy to move up in both income and class without the right political or social connections.

Can you do that in China, Cuba, Russia, or India? No! In America, you can, and the proof of that is the people who make up the one percent. Go back 10 or 15 years, and the people there today were not there back then.

If you are part of the 99 percent, then the question is, “What have you done today, this week, this month, and this year to increase your wealth? What have you done to affect your income level?” If the answer is nothing, then Herman Cain is right, and you are poor because of yourself. It is no one’s fault, but your own.

As we have seen over the last few years, personal accountability has become a lost value for many in this country, especially for the spoiled children of baby boomers who expected the world to give them a silver spoon- even if it means taking it by force from someone else.

Image Courtesy of    http://www.flickr.com/photos/atomische/

The article The Occupy Wall Street Lie appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Socialbakers announced that it has launched a campaign to identify the most (and least) influential, engaging and popular presidential candidates on Facebook, including President Obama, via public information on the world’s largest social network.

Socialbakers’ social media analytics tracked more than 10 million Facebook Pages and Places and billions of individual user interactions. All findings are available through a new political infographic and microsite about each candidate on Facebook. With the upcoming Iowa caucus, this groundbreaking research reveals what drives engagement, influence and conversations for all eight Democratic and Republican presidential political candidates on Facebook.

Socialbakers tracked interactions between December 1-31 to measure engagement and changes in online candidate popularity. Socialbakers will also track the same information for January’s New Hampshire primary and upcoming debates and other newsworthy events. According to a recent Pew study, Facebook users are more politically engaged and are more than twice as likely to participate in political meetings or rallies. Socialbakers new infographic outlines which candidates are leading, and which are lagging.

“Politicians and brands have a tremendous opportunity to go beyond counting the number of ‘fans’ or ‘likes’ – they must pay attention to why people are talking about them and what they care about,” said Jan Rezab, Socialbakers CEO. “Fan and community engagement is the key to success. Politicians today can measure public information about Facebook user engagement to make more intelligent decisions about what to post, when to post and how to best stimulate conversation.”

Key Finding: User Engagement, Viral Reach and Popularity:

Viral Reach (The total reach for each candidate when people “like” and comment, multiplied by the average number of friends per Facebook user to provide a comparable number)

• Ron Paul has the highest overall viral reach, followed by Mitt Romney and Rick Perry
• Ron Paul leads with 59,554 “people talking about” him this past week (second to Obama)
• Rick Perry has the most engaging single-post amongst all candidates, followed by Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich
• Obama’s most engaging post was a family portrait, yet had the lowest overall engagement rate* when compared to the other candidates
• Ron Paul increased engagement rate by 69 percent, followed by a near tie between Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, with a 58-percent increase and 57-percent increase respectively
• Rick Santorum decreased engagement rate by -7 percent

Peer-to-Peer Interaction (all debates, comments, conversations to each other’s posts on candidate’s page)

• Michelle Bachmann leads in person-to-person interactions among Facebook users, followed by Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman
• Obama leads with 50 percent of the total interactions. Ron Paul leads the Republican Party with 19 percent, which is 2x and 3x higher than Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Candidate’s Facebook Fans:

• Obama is leading with the most number of fans at 24 million, followed by Mitt Romney at 1.3 million, Ron Paul with 672,483 and Michelle Bachmann with 460,336.
• Rick Santorum has the fastest-growing fan base throughout the last 30 days (23-percent growth) surpassing Jon Huntsman’s growth (18-percent growth).

*Engagement rate: The number of “likes” and comments per post divided by a candidate’s number of fans.

Rich Koele / Shutterstock.com

The article Most Engaging and Influential U.S. Presidential Candidates on Facebook appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

After 31 years of torture and terror, China’s One-Child Policy has finally been brought up as an important issue in a U.S. presidential race. The reference to China’s coercive birth control policy surfaced in a new 30 second “super-pac” ad entitled “Happy”. The ad points out that Newt Gingrich co-sponsored a bill that gave $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s One-Child Policy.

With so much recent research highlighting the policy’s threat to America’s security and economy, and with abortion taking its place as a top issue in the 2012 debate, many have asked why this ad is the first mention of an issue of such critical importance to millions of Americans.

“It’s becoming clear that America wants to know where its next leader stands on China, its relationship to the U.S, and its brutality towards women,” says Chai Ling, former commander-in-chief of students at the 1989 Tiananmen Square Student Movement and founder of All Girls Allowed.

She continues, “Both pro-choice and pro-life groups have interest in this issue and it should be highlighted in upcoming debates. Mothers in China are given no choice and 400 million lives have been “prevented”, according to Chinese government statistics. Unfortunately, because of son-preference, most of these lives were girls, leading to a gender imbalance that deeply affects the U.S.”

The Economist recently reported that in China, today’s unmarried young men know there are five women for every six men (largely as a result of the policy and cultural preference for sons), and tend to save money to attract a wife. Unmarried men are un-spending men, leading to artificial inflation of China’s currency. This has helped generate the current trade imbalance and daily impacts the U.S. economy.

Historically, countries with an excess of men have attacked other countries, says this Newsweek article, which first brought China’s problem to national attention.  Just weeks ago, Chinese President Hu Jintao’s call  to “prepare for war” has propelled it to national concern.

“For years, it should have mattered in national presidential debates that millions of mothers were forced to abort, and that whole villages were being sterilized in China,” says Ling.  She points to two horrific and recent stories: the killing of Ma Jihong, second-time mother (at the hands of Chinese officials) and the kidnapping of infants (by Chinese officials) for sale to U.S. adoption agencies.

“But with the danger facing America in this hour, we cannot remain ignorant.  The One-Child Policy must be brought up as an issue in the U.S. Presidential election, ” says Chai Ling.  “Everybody wants to know what is going to be done with China, and where each candidate stands on the human rights atrocity that many have deemed ‘the greatest crime ever committed against humanity.”

The economy, foreign policy and abortion are in the top 5 issues for candidates.  Questions about the One-Child Policy in China and national security are absolutely vital for each of these three categories.

The article China’s Brutal One-Child Policy Becomes an Issue in US Presidential Debate appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

2012 Presidential Candidates are answering the calls from thousands of Alzheimer’s disease advocates around the country asking leaders how they would stop Alzheimer’s, a disease that affects 5.4 million Americans and cost the nation $187 billion last year.

Three presidential candidates – Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann – are the first to release videos discussing how they would address the Alzheimer’s crisis and lead a national effort to stop the disease. The videos represent the first indication that the fight against Alzheimer’s will be an issue in the 2012 Presidential race. To view all three videos, please visit:http://www.usagainstalzheimers.org/alz2012/.

“Alzheimer’s disease will cost our nation $2 trillion over the next decade if we don’t act,” said George Vradenburg, co-founder and chair of USAgainstAlzheimer’s, who led the effort to gather comments from all 2012 candidates. “These three candidates emphasize that a strategy of curing Alzheimer’s disease can be a critical driver in reducing health care costs, with the proper regulatory environment and private and philanthropic partnerships and investment. We look forward to hearing from the other candidates, including President Obama, on how they would address Alzheimer’s.”

In the past month, USAgainstAlzheimer’s reached out to the campaigns of all 2012 presidential hopefuls, including President Obama, seeking a video response to how they would address the Alzheimer’s crisis. The following are excerpts from the videos received thus far:

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has long made Alzheimer’s disease one of the centerpieces of his campaign, outlining a series of proposals in his new “21st Century Contract with America” that emphasize the need for greater brain science research, medical innovation and a more agile Federal Drug Administration. “Alzheimer’s affects millions of people, and it affects the families of millions of people because an Alzheimer’s caregiver is twice as likely to have a health problem as somebody who’s not a caregiver. Alzheimer’s is going to cost us between now and 2050, as much as 20 trillion dollars, and that’s why it’s very important that we take steps such as I’m proposing in my brain science initiative,” Gingrich said. To see Gingrich’s video, click here: http://bit.ly/snq9k7.

Ambassador Jon Huntsman aims to increase funding for research and bolster public-private partnerships to develop a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. “[Alzheimer's] carries a tremendous human toll, but also a financial toll, driving up health care costs by hundreds of billions of dollars a year. It is a disease with no treatment and no cure, but that doesn’t mean there is no hope. Experts believe a cure is possible by the end of this decade, but only with a sustained, targeted, and national commitment,” said Huntsman. “Now it is time for us to declare a War on Alzheimer’s, and rally the American people around the belief that this disease is beatable.” To see Huntsman’s video, click here: http://bit.ly/tQuvTf.

In her message, Rep. Michele Bachmann referenced the development of the polio vaccine and how this cure gives hope to those seeking a cure for Alzheimer’s. She said, “It was once predicted we would spend$1 billion a year on polio, maybe even more. Today, polio costs us virtually nothing, because Jonas Salk found a vaccine — a cure — and I’d like to see that same thing happen with Alzheimer’s. Because I believe a cure is always better — and cheaper — than more care.” To see Bachmann’s video, click here:http://bit.ly/v1WAHN.
Currently, 5.4 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer’s and the disease impacts 14.9 million caregivers nationwide. In the coming decades, the number of Americans suffering from Alzheimer’s will triple. Without a cure, over 10 million baby boomers will die from the disease.

Alzheimer’s is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S. and remains the only disease in the top ten with no means of prevention, treatment or cure. It is a disease that destroys not only one’s memory and shortens one’s life, but disables one’s physical capacities as well. Despite the personal and financial toll Alzheimer’s inflicts, the National Institutes of Health invests only about $450 million per year toward Alzheimer’s research — less than $90 per person living with the disease.

USAgainstAlzheimer’s is a national advocacy campaign and advocacy network committed to stopping Alzheimer’s by 2020. An independent non-profit organization working in partnership with the Alzheimer’s community, USAgainstAlzheimer’s works to advance policies and elect candidates dedicated to stopping the disease by supporting research for a cure.

For more information about USAgainstAlzheimer’s, visit http://www.usagainstalzheimers.org/.

Image Courtesy of  Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The article 2012 Republican Candidates and The Struggle for Alzheimer’s Desease appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As the Republican primaries near, Zoosk, a romantic social network, recently surveyed more than 4,000 U.S. singles to gather their thoughts on the presidential candidates.  Questions ranged from which candidate has the best hairdo, to which contending couple would make for the best double date, and to who has the best sense of humor.  The survey findings resulted in the following:

Singles say the Obamas would be their first choice couple for a double date.

• 38% of singles say they would choose a double date with the Obamas over any of the other presidential candidate couples.
• 16% of singles would choose to enjoy an evening out with the Bachmanns for a double date.
• 9% of singles would pick the Pauls.  The Gingrichs, Perrys, and Romneys each received 8% of singles’ vote for double date companions.

Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney have the “best hairdos” among the Republican candidates.

• 35% of singles give Michele Bachmann their vote for best hairstyle. She is followed by Mitt Romney (21%) and Rick Perry (15%).
• Rick Santorum received the fewest votes for his “do,” nabbing just 4% of the vote.

Republican men prefer Newt Gingrich, while Republican women prefer Mitt Romney for the GOP nominee. When asked, “If you were to vote today, who would receive your vote?”…

• Republican men gravitated towards Newt Gingrich with 33% of men saying the former Speaker of the House is their top choice compared to 18% of men who would choose Romney.
• Republican women have a slight preference for Mitt Romney with the former Governor of Massachusetts gathering 25% of the Republican female votes compared to 24% of women who would chose Gingrich.

Who is the “sexiest” candidate?

• Clearly, Michele Bachmann gets the sexiest female candidate vote, but 41% of single women say President Obama is the sexiest candidate among the 2012 contenders.

Singles vote President Barack Obama as having the “best sense of humor” among the candidates.

• 30% of singles say President Obama has the best sense of humor among all the presidential candidates.
• 15% of singles prefer Newt Gingrich’s humor.
• Tied for third place with 12% each of the “best sense of humor” vote are Rick Perry and Ron Paul.

Singles wish Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were on the ballot.

• When asked who they wish were on the ballot in 2012, 57% of singles who identify themselves as Democrats and 30% of singles who identify themselves as Independents say Hillary Clinton.
• 30% of single Republicans say they wish Donald Trump were running for president in 2012.

More singles than ever plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election.

• Compared to 64% of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election, singles are a politically active group. An equal percentage of single men and women (87%) say they plan to vote next year.

The data for this report was conducted online in December 2011 and fielded 4,218 responses from singles in the U.S. who use Zoosk.  Respondents were equally divided among political parties with 30% being Democrat, 34% being Republican, and 36% being Independent.

The article Survey Finds Obamas Are America’s First Choice for a Double Date appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

This January, the Republican Party will choose their nominee for the Presidential candidacy of the United States for the 2012 elections. The battle is getting stiffer, deeper, and more fierce within the GOP for front place in the primaries.

The battle to bypass the on-field verbal attacks among candidates with their so-called campaign related flip-flops, finger pointing and mind-wavering comments along with loads of unhealthy criticism has been going on between the Republican candidates as they struggle to reach the height of US politics.

These are the brave individuals who are ready to step in and potentially navigate the country through the rough tides that the Republican Party has been experiencing. One candidate who has entered the foray is former speaker of the house, Newton Leroy Gingrich, who announced his candidacy for Republican Presidential nomination for 2012 in May of this year.

Michele Bachmann, another Republican Presidential candidate who is a three-term Minnesota Congresswomen, is the current chair of the congress Tea Party caucus.

Ron Paul, US Representative from the State of Texas and a former medical doctor, is also a candidate for the Republican Presidential elections. Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is a serious contender and a clear favorite for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and their fellow contenders for the presidential nomination will be facing state-by-state battles that will eventually decide their fate and mark an end to the intra-party race. As the Iowa Caucus approaches, Republican Presidential nomination hopefuls are getting desperate to out-smart each other.

Linda Upmeyer, Mr. Gingrich’s Caucus co-chair women, denounced the Romney campaign for buying 3 million dollars’ worth of ad buys in Iowa intended for negative ads against the Georgia Republican. She further said that it is Romney’s desperation and panic and she believed that it is not going to be comfortable for those who want to move forward.

Recently at the latest Presidential debate hosted in Des Moines, Iowa, Newt Gingrich received character-based aggression from his Republican opponents. Bachmann and Paul criticized Mr. Gingrich as “hypocrite” who profited from his contacts. Mr Gingrich shot back at Mr. Romney and said “the only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994”.

Gingrich rose to the top of the polls largely because of how he performed in the other debates this year. However, a few days ago Gingrich’s criticism of Paul Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” and then his denial of his own attack, is typical of Washington politics, and has led his competitors to question some of his platforms.

Politics has been the center-stage for this type of verbal war and an instrument to prove self-worth from a very long time. Perhaps what matters the most, keeping aside all of the “va-va voom”, is the articulation of promises made during the campaigns.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowapolitics/

The article Final Debates Within the Republican Party appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Herman Cain, the Republican presidential candidate, said he would no longer answer any questions regarding the sexual harassment accusations towards him that deal with events from about ten years ago and he placed blame on the media for the claims that have followed his campaign.

When the reporters asked Cain questions about the harassment allegations during a debate with Newt Gingrich, he became angry and told them the questions they were asking were unethical. The reporters then asked him if he would never answer questions about the accusations, to which he vehemently replied, “You got it.”

The alleged incidents have created much doubt in regards to his candidacy. On Friday, a lawyer for one of his alleged victims said that his client filed a complaint “in good faith” during the 1990s. In the complaint, she accused him of “several instances of sexual harassment” for which she received a financial settlement.

Attorney Joel Bennett believes that Cain is not telling the truth about the incidents, though he has denied them repeatedly. Cain insists he respects women and has never sexually harassed anybody. His campaign said that it wants to “put this issue behind us”.

During the debate in Houston with Gingrich, Cain was given the opportunity to discuss the accusations brought against him and was asked what has surprised him during his run for president. Cain responded, “The nit-pickiness of the media. It is the actions and behavior of the media that have been the biggest surprise.

There are too many people in the media who are downright dishonest. They do a disservice to the American people.” His comments brought the room to their feet. Gingrich cannot gain anything by bringing up the allegations against Cain. He has been divorced three times and is now married to a woman with whom he had an affair during his previous marriage.

Cain blamed the media for letting the alleged incidents come to light. “If I were running this campaign the way the pundits thought I ought to be running this campaign, I would have dropped out in August. When people get on the Cain train, they don’t get off,’’ he said.

A Washington Post-ABC News survey showed that seven in ten Republicans do not care about the reported allegations when it comes down to choosing a presidential candidate. Republican women, however, have said they were less likely to support Cain because of the allegations. The questions about the alleged sexual harassment show no signs of ceasing.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.facebook.com/THEHermanCain

The article Herman Cain Refuses to Respond to Harassment Allegations appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Health care was a major issue at the November 9 Republican presidential debate hosted by CNBC titled, “Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate.” With each Republican presidential candidate stating that they would repeal ObamaCare, the debate gave them the opportunity to address the steps to reform health care once elected to office.

Ron Paul, who has had previous experience in the medical field as a doctor, addressed the issue by stating that the solution to heath care was to get the government out of the business altogether. He stated that there should be the right to “opt out of ObamaCare,” as well as any health care program to bring health care back to patient-doctor relationships.

Paul also discussed the need for patients to have medical savings accounts, which would drive down the prices on major medicines. Rick Perry believes that Medicare should allow more options for people to choose from. He also said that the best solution was to send money to the states and have them decide on what program fits best for their state.

Mitt Romney, who is currently taking the lead in recent polls, has received criticism in the past on his stance on health care. His plan is often referred to as “RomneyCare” because of its similarities with ObamaCare. During the debates, he responded that he would appeal ObamaCare and the solution would also be to send money to the states and allow them decide which health care plans are best for their state.

Romney also stated that Americans should be allowed to purchase their own insurance, instead of being forced to receive it through their company. He also agreed with Paul, saying that health care should work like a market so that Americans have a stake in the quality of their insurance. Michele Bachmann also held the same stance. She also maintained her true “malpractice liability reform” stance.

Newt Gingrich stated that there was a need to restore patient-doctor relationships, as well as turn over the funds to the state level so that they can craft a plan, similar to what John Huntsman indicated. Gingrich then stated that there has to be more concentration and funding for research on brain science.

By finding cures for many leading diseases and illnesses, people wouldn’t have to pay for such federal programs. Senator Rick Santorum thought that many other candidates lacked his experience in the health care field, and that other candidates such as Romney were not consistent in their plans.

He stated, “I was always for having the government out of the health care business and for a bottom-up, consumer-driven health care, which is different than Governor Romney and some of the other people on this panel.” Though each candidate has different plans for repealing ObamaCare, health care will continue be a hotly debated topic in future debates.

The article GOP’s Alternative Solutions to Healthcare appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The second Republican debate of this month was held on Monday night in Tampa, Florida. Candidates spent much of the night attacking frontrunner Texas governor Rick Perry. Perry defended his controversial views on social security despite attacks from Mitt Romney.

“We have not had the courage to stand up and look Americans in the face” to tell them that “this is a broken system,” Perry said of Social Security in the opening minutes of the debate among eight Republican presidential contenders at the Florida State Fairgrounds.

When asked if he believed states should run social security, instead of the federal government as he proposed in his book last year, Perry skillfully dodged the question. Perry said it was time for “thoughtful conversations with Americans, rather than trying to scare seniors, as you’re doing.” “The term ‘Ponzi scheme’ is what scared seniors,” countered Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

Former Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania criticized Perry for his views on immigration. Perry defended his policy of allowing undocumented immigrants to pay in-state college tuition in Texas. “No matter what the sound of your last name, we believe in you,” he said, drawing some boos from the crowd.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is currently struggling to stay in the race, attacked Perry again for his controversial executive order of requiring the human papilloma virus, or HPV, vaccination for young girls in Texas. “If I had to do it over again, I would have done it differently,” Perry said, saying he should have consulted the Legislature on the issue.

Bachmann suggested that Perry passed the order because of campaign contributions. Perry stated that the pharmaceutical company, Merck, had given him only $5,000 of his $30 million campaign war chest.”If you’re saying I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended,” Perry said. “I’m offended for all the little girls who didn’t have a choice” to receive the vaccine, Bachmann replied.

Other participants tried to maintain relevance in the debate. Romney and Perry debated about who can create the most jobs as president. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich pointed out that the government does not create jobs, but that people do. Other participants included former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Herman Cain, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, and Rep. Ron Paul from Texas.

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The article 2011 Republican Debate: Attack on Rick Perry appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Newt Gingrich likes to believe he is some kind of Washington “outsider” despite holding one of the most powerful positions in the capital for most of the 1990s. I think he is the only one that believes he is a political outsider, but he has clung to that belief.

Gingrich gave a speech on Tuesday criticizing the new “super Congress” and “Washington elites,” but he chose to give his speech in Washington and not in the heartland of America he pretends to be a part of or even early primary states that will be crucial if Gingrich is really running for president like he claims.

“I’m going to say some things that are very bold. I’d like to somehow get across, particularly to the Washington elites, that boldness is sometimes exactly what we need,” the former House speaker said just one minute into his speech.

“I want to start with what I think the biggest mistake that both the president and the Congress are making; it’s something that Reagan really understood and taught me,” Gingrich added a few minutes later. “You lead Washington by leading America. You don’t lead America by leading Washington.”

The event, held by conservative group The Heritage Foundation, was apparently requested by Gingrich’s staff. The late organized event was pulled together on Monday for Gingrich’s Tuesday speech.  Gingrich has spoken at the Heritage Foundation on numerous occasions.

Many Republicans in office cite Gingrich as an influence and an “idea factory” within the party. However, his half-heartened bid at the GOP presidential nomination has been fraught with problems and other Republicans have been critical of the former Speaker of the House. He is apparently trying to change that.

He spent much of the GOP debate last week criticizing the new “super Congress,” the 12-bipartisan member committee that will cut projected deficits by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. During his speech, Gingrich continued blasting the new committee. “This super committee will become an excuse to do nothing,” he said.

“The Washington press corps will focus all of its attention on the super committee, and the lobbyists will focus of all their attention on the super committee. It’s truly a bad idea.”

Gingrich’s solution to Washington’s spending, he said, is to implement Lean Six Sigma business-streamlining techniques. Texas businessman Mike George came up with the controversial waste-cutting strategies 20 years ago.

Many corporations have since adopted them, and they are now gaining steam with the 2012 presidential field.

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The article Newt Gingrich Criticizes “Washington Elites” appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman from Minnesota, was victorious over the weekend in Iowa. Winning the coveted Ames straw poll by nearly 5,000 votes, Bachmann immediately went on the defensive as attacks came from all sides of the party. Meanwhile, Bachmann’s main rival-Rick Perry- officially announced his presidential bid. Texas congressman Ron Paul took second place in the poll.

Former George W. Bush advisor Matt Dowd said the results show that the field is wide open in Iowa and elsewhere, especially since Ron Paul — “a pro-drug, apologize-to-Iran guy who could never win the nomination” — finished such a strong second.

“Nobody is in that strong a position, and Paul can’t win. So people are going to have hungry ears to listen to Perry,” said Dowd, who was Bush’s pollster and a top advisor in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, was deemed the biggest loser of the day. Pawlenty only garnered 2,293 votes compared to Bachmann’s 9,000 votes.  ”Pawlenty’s going to have a very hard time next week justifying to his contributors how he can carry on,” said Scott Reed, a long time Republican strategist.

In a statement, Pawlenty said that his campaign had “made progress in moving from the back of the pack into a competitive position for the caucuses, but we have a lot more work to do.” He also said he was “just beginning and I’m looking forward to a great campaign.”

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) got 1,657 votes, former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain got 1,456 votes, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) got 385 votes, former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman got 69 votes and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich) got 35 votes.

Bachmann defended her apparent contradiction of government money on Sunday.  Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Bachmann stated that when she accepted funds from President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus bill that was not in conflict with her vocal criticism of the legislation.

Bachmann repeatedly sought stimulus funds from federal agencies, claiming that the funds would create jobs and improve the economy. However, in public, Bachmann decried the stimulus calling it an act of “overspending” and “fantasy economic” that could hurt jobs. When asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace about this discrepancy, Bachmann claimed there was no conflict.

“I voted against the stimulus and I was very public against the stimulus. After the stimulus was passed and the money was there, why should my constituents or anyone else be disadvantaged?” Bachmann said.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.facebook.com/RepMicheleBachmann

The article Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Republican presidential debate on Thursday involved lively exchanges moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace. The most contentious debates were between Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota and Minnesota former governor Tim Pawlenty.

Pawlenty has criticized Bachmann for weeks stating that Bachmann lacks executive experience that he has. During the debate, Pawlenty stated that the congresswoman has “done wonderful things in her life, absolutely wonderful things, but it’s an indisputable fact that in Congress her record of accomplishments and results is nonexistent. That’s not going to be good enough.”

Bachmann, not one to shy away from confrontation, blasted Pawlenty’s record as governor. “Governor, when you were governor in Minnesota, you implemented cap and trade in our state, and you praised the unconstitutional individual mandate, and you called for requiring all people in our state to purchase health insurance,” she said.

The two continued to debate and Bachmann praised her own record of fighting Democratic proposals, such as health care. But Pawlenty pointed out that she did not stop the health care bill, increases in spending or the 2008 bailout of Wall Street banks. “She said she’s got a titanium spine. It’s not your spine we’re worried about, it’s your record of results,” Pawlenty said. “If that’s your view of effective results and leadership, then please stop because you’re killing us.”

Minutes later, the two lawmakers argued again over a cigarette tax that both appeared to agree with. Bachmann, who voted for the tax, stated she only voted for it because it was tied to an anti-abortion measure. Pawlenty called her arguments “illogical.” Most observers and pundits declared Bachmann the winner in the debate. Kent Sorensen, a Republican state legislator who is supporting Bachmann, certainly felt that way.”She exposed [Pawlenty] for the phony that he is,” Sorensen said. “He came out with the first punch and she came back with a roundhouse.”

Mitt Romney appeared to skate through the debate unscathed, mainly because other participants were too busy arguing with one another. It was Jon Huntsman first debate but he did little to stand out. An interesting portion of the debate came as Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas, and Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, discussed Iran. Paul said he did not have a problem with Iran trying to obtain nuclear weapons.”Why wouldn’t it be natural that they might want a weapon … Why should we write people off?” he asked. “What’s so terribly bad about this?”

“Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979,” Santorum replied. Paul stated that the U.S. has intervened in Iran since the CIA was involved in the 1953 coup of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister.”We just plain don’t mind our own business … that’s the problem,” Paul said.

Paul became more agitated as he pointed out the “trillions of dollars” being spent on foreign wars to a crowd of cheering supporters.

NewtGingrich, the former House Speaker from Georgia, complained that the questions about his staff shake-up earlier in the year were “Mickey Mouse games.” “I took seriously [fellow host] Bret [Baier]‘s injunction to put aside the talking points. I wish you would put aside the gotcha questions,” he said. Gingrich then went on to compare himself twice to Ronald Reagan, who had staff departures during his run for the White House in 1980.

Wallace didn’t take it lightly. “If you think questions about your record are Mickey Mouse, I’m sorry,” he said, with disdain. “I think those are questions people want to hear answers to.”

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/teambachmann/

The article Bachmann Vs. Pawlenty: GOP Debates appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Newt Gingrich’s epic campaign implosion is not entirely unexpected, but is delightful to watch. Gingrich attempted to explain the mass exodus surrounding his campaign after several key aides resigned. Speaking outside of his house in Virginia, Gingrich said the differences involved campaign strategy. He told reporters, in his words, “There is a fundamental strategic difference between the traditional consulting community and the kind of campaign I want to run.” He also said that “we’ll find out over the next year who’s right.”

The Republican hopeful said in an interview with ABC News, “I’m prepared to go out and to campaign very intensely but I want a campaign on ideas and on solutions and I want to do it in a way that brings Americans together into a large movement.” Despite Gingrich’s assurances, the other GOP hopefuls took advantage of the chaos in the Gingrich campaign.  Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty announced that some of Gingrich’s supporters, including big name supporters, have thrown their support behind the T-Paw campaign now.

In a statement, Gingrich maintained he’s still in the contest. “I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring,” he said shortly after word broke of the mass staff exit. “The campaign begins anew Sunday in Los Angeles.”

In addition to losing his campaign manager, senior adviser and longtime press aide, he also saw key staff in the pivotal early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina head for the exits. Gingrich’s campaign has been besieged by problem after problem since it began. The latest controversies came as Gingrich continues to try to be some down home common candidate.  The media reported that the Gingrich’s have a $500,000 line of credit at the upscale jeweler Tiffany’s creating a public relations nightmare for the campaign. And then, inexplicably, Gingrich suspends the campaign to embark on a long-planned cruise in the Greek Isles with his wife, Callista, aboard a luxury ship where former supermodel Twiggy reportedly was among the passengers. Doesn’t seem much like someone who knows how to cut spending, eh?

Many insiders believe that Gingrich was never serious about the campaign to begin with, instead using it ala Donald Trump as a way to promote his books and DVDs.  His promotional appearances often seem to time with some new product that his wife and he are promoting.  If that is the case, then these controversies and gaffes will not diminish the Gingrich Empire at all.  His name will become more relevant and sell more books.  Meanwhile, though, Republicans have yet to find a candidate that can even sort of stand toe to toe with President Obama. Seems like it may be a rough season for the GOP.

The article Newt Gingrich’s Aides and Supporters Flee from the Newt Ship appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

It has been a rough first week for Newt Gingrich and his presidential campaign. The Republican candidate believes that because he is calling for “real change,” he will cause controversy.   The controversy that Gingrich is talking about includes his own party.  His comments earlier in the week about U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) dramatic Medicare overhaul caused outrage among Republicans, suggesting that Newt may be running against President Obama on his own.

On Sunday, Gingrich created the controversy on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “What you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose it,” he said. “I am against Obamacare imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.”

The House GOP plan, proposed by Rep. Ryan would turn Medicare into a voucher system.  Seniors would be given money to purchase private insurance. Gingrich said he prefers the current Medicare program in addition to a private alternative.  “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said. “I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare solution for seniors.”

Following the comments, the backlash was fierce from all directions. Democrats have since launched a website thanking Newt for pointing out that Rep. Ryan’s plan is radical. Gingrich was forced to apologize to Rep. Ryan for his comments.  He also retracted the remarks and told Fox News that any news outlets that quote those statements from him would be misquoting him.  “Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate,” he said. “When I make a mistake — and I’m going to on occasion — I’m going to share with the American people that was a mistake, because that way we can have an honest conversation.”

The former speaker of the house returned to Iowa after the controversy for a three day trip throughout the state.  His first stop in Waterloo was to speak in front of a crowd of about 150 enthusiastic followers.

The Des Moines Register reports that Gingrich asked supporters to appear in a video aimed at keeping his presidential political operations alive after a tough first week.   “Any of you who are willing to do just a brief video with him [an Iowa campaign staffer] of why you’re for me it would be very helpful ’cause we have to sort of convince the Washington news media that actually the voters will decide when this election is over, not five or six pundits,” he said.

The article Newt Gingrich and His Rough Week appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Oh Sarah Palin.  I have been out of the loop enough to miss her and her crazy “I am a victim, the media is horrible” rants.  Yes, it has been that long.  Her latest crazy rant was about David Gregory, the mundane and most uncontroversial host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Speaking on Wednesday’s edition of “Hannity”, on Fox News (where else?), Palin said that Gregory asked a “racist-tinged question” when speaking with GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

Last week, Newt suggested that the presidential election in 2012 may be the most important election since the before the civil war.  Speaking to the Georgia Republican Party’s convention, Gingrich said the nation is at a crossroads and that the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama would lead to four more years of “radical left-wing values” that would drive the nation to ruin.  Gingrich also criticized Obama as “the most successful food stamp president in modern American history.”

During “Meet the Press,” Gregory pressed Gingrich on his remarks.  “First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president,” Gregory said to Gingrich during the show.  Gingrich tried to deflect the question but Gregory kept pushing.  Gingrich then became defensive.

“That’s, that’s bizarre. That — this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that — and what I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have — I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist,” Gingrich told Gregory.  Except for the whole Kenyan anti-colonial nonsense, right?

And then the victim weighs in with her two cents.  “Well, talk about racism, that was a racist-tinged question from David Gregory,” said Palin of the exchange. “He made it sound like if you’re black you’re on food stamps and the president is referring to you as being on food stamps. I think that’s racist. And, you know, enough is enough of this calling out, this racism, these false charges.”  Enough is enough Palin.  Take your own advice and quit calling out your own false charges of sexism and problems with the “lamestream media.”

The article Palin Attacks David Gregory for “Racist-Tinged Question” appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Although no major candidate has declared their intention to run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, there are plenty of possible contenders to speculate over.  Numerous Republican heavy hitters and outsiders have expressed some interest in possibility challenging Barack Obama in 2012.  Here are some of the potential candidates.

First, we have Sarah Palin.  She is the leader of the pack because other likely candidates appear to be waiting to see if she will throw her hat in the ring or not.  The former Alaska Governor seems to know that others are waiting and she enjoys it.  Palin has huge star power, a strong fan base, and an ability to fundraise like no other.  But, she hasn’t spent much time courting the all-important Iowa vote, her likability rating in polls have been tanking, and she makes boatloads of money which she would have to give up if she were to be president.  She also scheduled a speaking engagement on the day of the first scheduled primary debate.  I am convinced that she may never officially announce one way or another leaving the Republican Party in complete confusion and chaos right up to the Republican convention.

Next up is Newt Gingrich.  The former Speaker of the House announced last month that he will begin raising money to test whether he should try to run for the GOP presidential nomination.  He also set up a website for the potential run.   Gingrich was suspended from his gig at Fox News because they clearly expect him to run.  Gingrich, who continues to be indecisive about entering the presidential race, is giving signs that he is serious this time.  Talking about his past affairs and disconnecting himself from various side projects in order to be compliant with campaign law suggest he really might do it.

Rep. Michele Bachmann may be the most surprising “maybe candidate”.  But, she is increasingly giving signs that she is considering a run.  The Tea Party darling has made recent trips to early primary states and has more travels scheduled.  Sources close to the Minnesota Congresswoman also suggest that she is feeling pretty confident after visiting the states and talking to potential voters.  Bachmann said she would make her decision in spring or early summer and that she would use prayer to help guide her in the decision.  She also has huge fundraising abilities and if Palin didn’t enter, Bachmann could garner would-be Palin voters because they have similar styles.

Mike Huckabee is also a name mentioned as a likely candidate.  Recently, Huckabee has been everywhere to promote his book.  Whether his press run also means he will attempt a presidential bid is not clear.  He has said it is “stupid” to enter the race too early.  The former Arkansas governor has suggested that he will run, but more speculation points to a non-existent campaign.  Huckabee is still insisting that people take the campaign very seriously, and is bragging about being an early season front-runner. “Virtually every poll in America has me leading,” Huckabee claims.

There are more possible candidates.  Check out our other parts to this growing series.

The article Possible Contenders of the 2012 Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

It has been my belief for the past two years that most prominent Republicans simply assume the opposite position of President Obama.  This was clearly displayed during the health care debate.  The individual mandate that so many Republicans claim is unconstitutional was once something Republicans really liked.  But last week, Newt Gingrich took the flip-flopping to a whole new level.

Earlier this month, the former Speaker of the House attacked Obama for not intervening in Libya.  Gingrich was on Fox News on March 7^th with Greta Van Susteren.  Van Susteren asked Gingrich what he would do about the Libya situation.  “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … It’s also an ideological problem. The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations,” Gingrich responded. “All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.”

During appearances that same day, Gingrich also said that he would provide help to the Libyan rebels on top of the no-fly zone: “This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.”

Inexplicably, Gingrich switched positions less than 24 hours after Obama initiated a no-fly zone.  He told Politico, very shortly after Obama announced the plan, that “it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity.”

On March 23^rd, Gingrich went on the Today Show to further his new position.  “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces,” Gingrich announced on the show.  And of course, typical of the media, Gingrich’s abrupt switch of positions went unchecked by host Matt Lauer.

Gingrich halfheartedly attempted to explain his changing positions on his Facebook page but it really didn’t work.  This flip-flopping is especially troublesome for Newt. In 2004, Newt repeatedly criticized then Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president.  So, I guess Newt’s flip flopping disqualifies him?  We could only hope.  This is just the tip of the ever changing positions of Newt.  There are plenty more.

The article The Flip Flopping of Newt Gingrich appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.