Post by Mutanatia on Mar 3, 2012 22:37:54 GMT -5
Okay, so there are three points from this week (again using NPR's it's all politics-- you should know where to go by now to look it up ) that I want to touch on using my own personal observations. And no, sadly, this podcast was released BEFORE Gingrich's comments, so hopefully that will be next week.
Here are my points (Taken from handwriting. This should be interesting XD):
I do not necessarily believe that Mitt Romney had had a comeback that is complete. If Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney ALL split Super Tuesday, then the problem of capturing the majority of the total number of delegats becomes unlikely. Ohio may be the key to the whole primary. It helps, when you take away home state advantage, to really "See what a candidate has" without the safety net of home state. If Santorum takes it, the race then becomes wide-open. However, again, I do not believe that Ron Paul will have any say in this matter. Romney continues to have problems with the right-wing religious base due to his sort of implicit disapproval of the Blunt Amendment (The contraception one), though he did come back afterwards and say pretty much "haha, I was wrong, I do support it."
Which brings me to the next topic I'm going to cover, SuperPACs. The SuperPACs weem to me to have a bit too much power. The reason for this is because, though it helps get the message out, they somewhat anonymously pull the candidate's strings, becoming virtually a faction in itself. Bill Maher's contrbiution has added to this in the other direction, possibly making Obama beholden to the SuperPACS' wishes, taking away his ability to think/speak/take action for himelf.
Which brings me to the topic of the extreme politicians in Washington. With the resignment of Snow, as "The Onion" chided, thus conludes the extinction of moderates in the House and Senate. I think that this is a shame because moderates tend to do more "Thinking for themselves" and do not always subscribe to dogmatic views.
Here's the question: Does pandering to ANY faction limit what candidates say or do TOOmuch?
Discuss any or ALL of the above. HAve fun ;D
Here are my points (Taken from handwriting. This should be interesting XD):
I do not necessarily believe that Mitt Romney had had a comeback that is complete. If Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney ALL split Super Tuesday, then the problem of capturing the majority of the total number of delegats becomes unlikely. Ohio may be the key to the whole primary. It helps, when you take away home state advantage, to really "See what a candidate has" without the safety net of home state. If Santorum takes it, the race then becomes wide-open. However, again, I do not believe that Ron Paul will have any say in this matter. Romney continues to have problems with the right-wing religious base due to his sort of implicit disapproval of the Blunt Amendment (The contraception one), though he did come back afterwards and say pretty much "haha, I was wrong, I do support it."
Which brings me to the next topic I'm going to cover, SuperPACs. The SuperPACs weem to me to have a bit too much power. The reason for this is because, though it helps get the message out, they somewhat anonymously pull the candidate's strings, becoming virtually a faction in itself. Bill Maher's contrbiution has added to this in the other direction, possibly making Obama beholden to the SuperPACS' wishes, taking away his ability to think/speak/take action for himelf.
Which brings me to the topic of the extreme politicians in Washington. With the resignment of Snow, as "The Onion" chided, thus conludes the extinction of moderates in the House and Senate. I think that this is a shame because moderates tend to do more "Thinking for themselves" and do not always subscribe to dogmatic views.
Here's the question: Does pandering to ANY faction limit what candidates say or do TOOmuch?
Discuss any or ALL of the above. HAve fun ;D