But instead, I’m going to suggest you listen to the recent episode on Keeping Up with Gen Y, where I talk to three young people, two from the political parties and an independent, about the importance of the midterm elections to the under-30 voter.

And I’ll leave you with a quote from a fellow Texan, President Lyndon B. Johnson:

“The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.”

Mary Emma and her children raised $17 on that first Halloween. Since then, almost $160 million has been raised to feed, clothe, and educate poor children around the world. No doubt the program has saved the lives of many desperate and destitute children.

This is the 60th anniversary of Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF. For my son, Halloween has become more than just collecting candy (although that’s still important!). He feels good that he can help his less-fortunate peers in third-world countries. And he no longer hesitates to tell homeowners that their donation is going towards three mosquito nets to protect kids from malaria.

So, if you’re in the Clarksville area of Austin tonight, we’d appreciate you giving your pennies to the pirate proudly carrying the orange box. But if you’re not in Austin, my son and I encourage you to give your couch change to the UNICEF trick-or-treaters in your area.

Happy Halloween

The Post and Courier has an interesting article about DeMint alienating himself from both the Tea Party movement and social conservatives at the same time. DeMint hardly ever campaigns in his home state, and when he does he ends up saying something like that? Sheesh! Seems to me like he wants to have his cake and eat it too, that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and some other idiom/cliche that I can’t think of right now. Brian Hicks thinks it’s “ideological hypocrisy.”

So is DeMint a Tea Partier (ugh, now I’m using it) or a social conservative? I honestly think Jimmy LaSalvia, the Executive Director of GOProud, describes DeMint the best:

‘You can’t categorize him,’ LaSalvia said. ‘This is out there in Crazyland.’

GOP Sen. Jim DeMint

As anyone who knows me can attest (and that includes Byron), I regularly go off on rants about things that make my head pop. More often than not it’s political nuttiness that completely stuns me as a rational, reasonable, and responsible person. And, I have to be honest, Republicans aren’t the only ones who dabble in the crazy. Democrats have definitely done things that make my head pop.

The latest incident of head popping was when I read the recent comments of Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina. Speaking at a Greater Freedom Rally in Spartanburg on Friday, DeMint told supporters that the nation’s schoolchildren should not be taught by homosexuals or single women sleeping with their boyfriends.

So many questions, it’s hard to figure out where to begin. It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that DeMint would want to ban openly gay and lesbian teachers from the classroom. He’s never been a fan of gay rights. But what if the teacher’s a closeted homosexual? How does he expect school boards across the country to sniff them out and ban them from the classroom? And equally difficult would be tracking down the after-school activities of unmarried female teachers. Don’t school boards have enough to deal with? Now they have to become the bedroom police?

You’ll notice that DeMint doesn’t question the fitness of single heterosexual males to serve as classroom teachers. Maybe he doesn’t think they exist? Clearly he hasn’t been watching the Lifetime channel.

Now, it’s not unusual to hear such thoughts from a southern Republican. But keep in mind, this guy isn’t some no-name backbencher. DeMint’s power in the conservative movement has been on the rise this year, with some dubbing him a “kingmaker” for backing many Tea Party candidates who went on to beat their establishment-backed opponents.

And just a few weeks ago, DeMint was pointing out that Democrats were trying to paint Tea Party candidates as too extreme for the American public. But he rebutted that notion, saying conservative candidates “are right in the mainstream of where America wants us to be.”

Which leads me to my final set of questions. I thought Tea Partiers weren’t interested in being foot soldiers in the culture wars. Aren’t they focused on tax cuts and smaller government? Am I mistaken? And if not, are Tea Partiers upset that one of their own has gone off message so close to the 2010 elections?

Gay Politics has an excellent article:

“The past 10 years have proven to be tough on LGBT Republicans across the country.  The GOP’s rightward tilt in the past decade led many pro-LGBT Republicans to retire from office, lose reelection contests, or back away from their previous support of the LGBT community.

The party has also seen a drop in the ranks of those out Republicans holding elective office.  But in Massachusetts, LGBT Republicans have an embarrassment of riches in this year’s contest for governor.

The GOP ticket is led by Charlie Baker, a fiscal conservative who supports marriage equality, and State Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei, an openly gay candidate for lieutenant governor.  Not only is the GOP ticket in Massachusetts the most LGBT-friendly the Republican Party has ever fielded, but in this liberal bastion they’ve provided the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) with a real pick-up opportunity.”

I’m so pleased that Republicans are beginning to field gay candidates, and that they are doing well in races such as this. However, I’m curious to see what others’ opinions are of the noticeable difference in the GOP’s attitude (in general) towards the GLBT community. Is this the beginning of a new era for Republicans? Are Democrats losing their “grip” on social issues? Leave your thoughts in the comments!

Contrary to popular belief, I don’t agree with elected Republicans on everything.

Why, do you ask? Because this timing does not coincide well with the “Stimulus helped the economy to recover” rhetoric. According to the White House’s own stimulus report, only $6.5 billion of the stimulus funds had been issued by then (less than 6%). This isn’t surprising, since this was just 5 months after The Chosen One took office. Can his administration really say that they did “everything they could” to stop the recession when a full stoppage was just around the bend AND by the time it had ended such little of these funds were in circulation in the American economy?

I think this also damages Obama’s, “I was handed a terrible economic situation” argument as well. (Does it bother anyone else that he seems as if he was forced in the recovery job? My memory may be a bit faulty, but it seems as if he volunteered and even fought for the job. Just sayin’…) No longer can he blame President Bush for the faulty economy while touting his record on the recovery. The recession has been over for 15 months, and is our economy any better? Slightly, but not really.

Even more bad news for the Big O – over at AOL John Merline points this out:

“The bigger problem for Obama, though, is that now that we have an official end date for the recession, we can compare the current recovery to previous economic recoveries. And that picture is not particularly flattering at all.

The most comparable recent recession in terms of length and severity was the one that started during the Reagan administration in 1981…Fourteen months after the 1981-1982 recession ended, the unemployment rate had dropped to 8 percent, the Consumer Confidence Index had soared to more than 103, and the economy was cooking along at an average 7.7 percent quarterly growth.

This time around, unemployment is stuck at 9.6 percent, consumer confidence is at a depressing 53.5, and economic growth since the recession ended has averaged a comparatively paltry 3 percent (see chart).

The fact that President Ronald Reagan pursued a very different policy course — one focused on across-the-board tax cuts, spending restraint and deregulation — will only fuel questions about whether Obama’s economic policies are helping or hurting this recovery.”

(Emphasis added, btw.)

Sorry for the long post, but this really interests me. I don’t claim to be an economist, in fact I fully admit that’s my weakest area of knowledge in the political area. Is it just me (and John?), but doesn’t it seem this news is much, much worse for Obama and the Democrats than anyone in mainstream media is willing to admit?

]]> http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/obamas-failed-recession-policies/feed/ 0 byronbradshaw 1285020364625 http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/quite-frankly/ http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/quite-frankly/#comments Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:21:22 +0000 byronbradshaw http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/?p=169 Continue reading →]]> Wow. I don’t think I’ve heard someone express their disappointment to a sitting President in such an eloquent, thoughtful, and respectful way.

I think this speech reflects the opinion of a growing sect of Americans. She expresses her frustration with the Obama Administration failing miserably at the ideas of Hope and Change that were the pillar of his campaign. (I’d like to say Nope and Derranged…but I was told it was a bit too harsh and way to corny.) She’s concerned about her future, and exhausted at defending Obama and his Democratic cronies.

I think I’ll let her speak for herself. And can’t say I blame her.

What are your thoughts?

]]> http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/quite-frankly/feed/ 1 byronbradshaw http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/stirring-the-caldron-one-last-time/ http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/stirring-the-caldron-one-last-time/#comments Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:11:42 +0000 Tamara Bell http://redvsblueblog.wordpress.com/?p=163 Continue reading →]]> Before moving on to more pressing topics, I want to make a point of clarification to Byron’s post below. When I asked if Christine O’Donnell’s “dabbling in witchcraft” might be a “youthful indiscretion,” I was questioning the pattern of politicians blaming “youthful indiscretion” any time their past words or actions are deemed inappropriate, controversial, or illegal (see Bush, George W., DUI).  Especially when the statements or behavior happened in their 30s or older.

I am in no position to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t believe when it comes to deciphering the mysteries of the universe. But I am curious about what y’all think should be the age at which we hold our elected (and nominated) officials accountable for past misdeeds. At this point in your life, do you think you’re responsible for your actions? And in the next 10 or 20 years, should you still be held accountable for what you say and do today?

I’m all for people growing and maturing and recognizing that something they did a decade ago was misguided. But why can’t our politicians simply say, “I was wrong”?