Politics Daily #11 – Republicans Shying away from Losing the Student Loan Debate

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have frozen student loan interest rates before they are set to double on July 1.

Read more on the Huffington Post here.

Republicans claim that while they are also keen on keeping the student loan interest rates low, the disagree with the Democrats on how to pay for it, opposing the Democrats’ proposal of raising Social and Medical payroll taxes on certain high income earners while suggesting to cut a preventive health fund.

This speaks to a larger issue relating to the upcoming general election.  I can’t help but guess that the Republicans, knowing that the younger voting demographic have never been big supporters of their party, is trying to put the student loan issue to the wayside, minimizing its power to galvanize young voters to vote for President Obama.

Republicans are seen as being in an uphill battle as polls have shown that Mitt Romney has a clear edge on Obama in only one demographic, the old-wealthy-white-men, and is either behind or in a statistical tie with the President in all other groups.  They are trying to downplay the student loan issue by blaming Democrats, as usual, even though it blows my mind when Republicans say that raising taxes on the wealthy ‘job-creators’ will cause them to create less jobs (if they were creating any in the first place).

 The young needs to come out and vote if they would like President Obama to have a decisive win, and the President needs to put the student loan issue on the forefront in order to get out the vote.

Politics Daily #2 – “I Will Repeal Obamacare”

“If I were elected President, I will cut spending and eliminate our debt [Crowd Cheers].  I will repeal Obamacare [Crowd Cheers].” – Mitt Romney.

In a way, I want to compare this little piece political rhetoric to when Newt Gingrich called John King’s question regarding him asking his second wife about having an open marriage ‘despicable’.  They both were examples of ways to get the crowd on their side, but when one actually give those statements some thought, they would notice that the people who cheered after those comments have no idea what they are cheering about other than a rousing sound bite.

I won’t talk about the Gingrich comment here, as anyone reading this probably knows the incident I am referring to.  Suffice to say that upon another look, CNN’s John King had every reason to ask Gingrich that question because it puts the presidential nominee’s personal character and morality into question.

What I want to focus on is the statement “I will repeal Obamacare.”  Romney often makes this claim during this campaign stump speeches as well as his victory and pretend-victory) speeches after primaries and caucuses.  But what does that even mean? Even if one were to assume that Obamacare is doing more harm than good (which a majority of Americans as well as economists and academics do not), the ultimate question then becomes: what if it helps just one person in America to get the care he needs, but that care will be taken away if Obamacare is repealed?

Furthermore, even if we suppose that the Romney health care plan is better (which many claim that it isn’t), what if it the same person falls through the cracks and does not provide the care that Obamacare have been giving? Should a utilitarian principle apply whereby more people would benefit from the new Romneycare but some people who are benefiting from Obamacare are abandoned?

My point is, Romney isn’t really aware of the implications of repealing Obamacare.  And, while it certainly sounds invigorating on the campaign trail, he’s going to have to face some tough questions from many Americans if he were to follow through with this promise.

Plus, repealing something like the Affordable Care Act isn’t as easy as Romney seems to imply; unless the Republican gain or regain control of the House, the Senate, as well as him (or another candidate) becoming President, it’s never going to happen.

Health Care Repeal Vote Fails In Senate

Read the HuffPost & AP report here

Are the Republican­s making the same mistake that Obama did when taking power, focusing on (repealing­) health care instead of the economy? What were they expecting to get out of this, that hopefully some conservati­ve Democrats would by a small chance vote with them? All they did was take up more time in Congress when they could get other stuff done.

The article points out that Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell wants to force the Senate Democrats to vote along party lines, which potentially gives them leverage in the upcoming 2012 election.

Melissa Bean Floated As CFPB Head

Read the brief article on the HuffPost here.

The good news is that it will not be a Republican who will run the CFPB. The bad news is that we might get the next worst thing, a “Wall Street’s favorite Democrat”, might.

Why is anyone other than Elizabeth Warren being considered to head the CFPB?

Rachel Maddow schools Fox News in light of Olbermann’s Suspension

Rachel schools Fox News again, this time in light of Keith Olbermann’s suspension following the news that he made donations to Democratic candidates in the past election, pointing out that several of Fox’s hosts, but mainly Sean Hannity, have openly made political contributions to Republican candidates, and have endorsed Republicans on the air.


Watch Rachel’s segment here:
Maddow: Keith Olbermann Suspension Proves Difference Between MSNBC & Fox News (VIDEO)

In my opinion, this has got to be something personal between Keith Olbermann and his boss Phil Griffin, something Keith did that ticked off Griffin to the point where he had to dig up an unnecessary company rule to ‘punish’ Keith.

Only a personal vendetta can explain Keith’s suspension because we all know that MSNBC is liberal-leaning news organization. But as Rachel says in her segment, the hosts at MSNBC mostly (or none) never come out to support a democratic candidate outright on air. They do, however, say everything short of endorsing a Democrat by making it clear not to vote for the Republicans.

This also reflects a laziness on the side of Fox News, whose hosts don’t even bother to try to persuade their audience to vote Republican in ways other than supporting them outright, on air.

Maddow a tad displeased at Evan Bayh


Here’s the article: Rachel Maddow Rips Evan Bayh Over Dan Coats Indiana Win (VIDEO)

Wanna see Rachel Maddow pissed off (or pretty close to it)? Here it is. Rachel is mad that not only did Evan Bayh not give away his campaign money to support the Democrat running in Indiana as a result of him stepping down, he didn’t support anyone at all.

Lawrence O’Donnell quickly made an insightful comment, saying that Bayh can keep the money and run in any federal election, hinting at a possible bit for President (or governor?). Rachel’s response that Bayh will not be elected if he keeps on trashing his own party (for now). I think what Rachel wanted to imply, in the midst of her anger, is that “if Evan Bayh wants to run for public office, he better not run as a Democrat. He’s better off as an independent, or with the Republicans, for that matter.”

Is net-neutrality a facade?


House Representative Henry Waxman abandoned an effort to sort of enforcing net neutrality facing Republican opposition.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Has there ever been net neutrality? I am not entire sure if the internet has always been as ‘fair’ as people claim it is. The free-ness of the internet is essentially an anarchic arena for anyone to do anything. What Rep. Waxman is proposing is basically to apply minimal containment to an uncontainable force. I’m doubtful if it’s even possible to regulate these companies a few years down the road.