Mistake, Apologies

Why isn't Boulder's Mayor proud of CU?

Boulder Mayor Susan Osborne had to recently change both her Facebook profile page and her official profile on the city’s site because, as it turns out, she didn’t truthfully graduate from Vassar College.

The school she actually graduated from?  Boulder’s own University of Colorado.

Why would the Mayor of a very University-oriented town be hesitant to list that University as her own?

She claims it’s because she feels more connected to Vassar then to CU.

"I feel as though it's where my allegiance is," she said. "The reality is it's the college that I claim as my own. But my actual BA degree is from Boulder."

Doesn’t something seem a little off about this?  Though I don’t doubt that the Mayor feels special about her time at Vassar, should any official be able to claim a different school for his or her education?  Facebook is one thing, but the fact that she listed Vassar as her undergraduate education on the official Boulder City website just doesn’t feel right.

Worse yet, the school she actually graduated from, but for some reason she doesn’t want to claim, is at the heart of the town she now governs, both culturally and economically. 

I don’t expect Boulder City Council to be cheerleaders for CU.  But given that the University has been struggling with it’s reputation in some ways lately, I would hope that if anyone on the city council, especially the mayor, was a CU alum, they would be proud of the school, at least publicly.

CU is incredibly important to Boulder, and vice versa.  Though I’m sure the University and the town are at odds often, it would be nice, as a CU student, to see some support from the city.  Mayor Osborne’s choice to not claim CU as where her “allegiance” lies doesn’t show any support or pride for the school at all, and I think it’s something seriously disappointing to both the University and the town as a whole.

Where does America fit in?

On the front page of the Denver Post today (okay, I know reading an actual newspaper is outdated these days), there’s a pretty striking graphic on America’s new political spectrum.

The pie chart that divides America’s political leanings isn’t just divided into three, for liberal, conservative, and moderate, but eight sections.  Not one of each of these sections comprises more than 15 percent of the population either.

The data comes from the Pew Research Center, and provides some interesting insight to the future of politics in America.

Notably, those in the middle have some of the strongest and most well-defined points of view.  The middle of the spectrum is quickly become the largest, and also most diverse area of American political beliefs.  No longer is the middle just for uncertain, or impartial voters.  The findings suggest that just because a voter doesn’t completely associate with the views of staunch liberals or staunch conservatives, it doesn’t mean that they don’t hold strong political values.

Take for instance, two groups the research puts in the middle: the “Post-Moderns” and the “Disaffecteds.”  The “Post-Moderns” genuinely believe that both government and big business can work together, and are fairly supportive of both, while also more hold liberal beliefs on social issues.  The “Disaffecteds,” on the other hand, are  socially and religiously conservative, but remain critical of government and especially Wall Street.

Both of these groups could be considered in the middle compared to staunch liberals or conservatives, perhaps even “independents,” yet they are truly opposite on the political spectrum.  Politicians trying to appeal to the middle are going to soon have to realize that the middle can be just as diverse and ideological as those voters on the fringe.  Moving more towards the middle no longer means an easier path to election or re-election.

The data also shows the rifts growing in both of the parties.  Both the “Disaffecteds” and the “Post-Moderns” show that people don’t have to be against government to be in favor or business, and vice versa. Likewise, there is a growing movement of “Hard-Pressed Democrats,” who are both critical of business and don’t believe in the effectiveness of government either.

The political spectrum of the American voter is changing rapidly, and it’s going to be fascinating to see how this affects future campaigns, and also the direction of the parties.  Voters define themselves much differently than in the past, and it’s going to take very big tents from either party to keep the voters involved and supportive, especially the growing, and increasingly ideological middle.

Seriously?

Late Sunday night, history was made.  The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden is truly an event to be remembered for years to come, both nationally and globally.  It’s brought our nation together, and provided a much needed boost in morale and a victory for the American people.

But it wasn’t long after President Obama announced the news that the pundits, media, and politicians began degrading the event by simplifying it in terms of political debate, to show who won and who lost politically.  Some argued that it would be huge political boost for the President and he deserves more respect now, others argued that other things still matter for the 2012 election, the rally cry “Obama got Osama” has been coined on the internet, new polls have been conducted; it seems like pundits everywhere want to throw their opinion in.

To me, this is simply ridiculous.  Now, I’m not an idiot.  I know this is going to have a huge effect on politics, and on the 2012 election.  But do we seriously have to start talking about that already? Can we not just celebrate this moment as a nation united and for once leave the politics out of it?

I understand this probably all sounds hypocritical coming from a post on a Politics blog. I know that a lot of people are interested in what this means for the upcoming election, and the media is maybe just trying to appeal to them.  It makes sense for people to look at this is political terms, but I feel like that is only because it’s how we are trained these days.

The circus of politics and polling and election has almost overshadowed the actual issues, and I honestly am starting to believe that both the media and the campaigns want people to analyze each little thing, gaffe, mistake, victory, declare someone a winner and someone a loser.  

But I would hope we could rise above all that for once in the presence of such an historical event.  We, as media and as Americans, shouldn’t be looking for political losers or winners in this, we should be proud that our nation and our quest for peace are prevailing.  This should be a time to be united.  This is not a time for politics.

Donald J. Trump for President?

Donald Trump is a master of media exposure. The Trump seems to always have his name in the media whether it is his television show, The Apprentice, or his potential presidential bid. Since he has become a potential presidential candidate he has been nothing but pure entertainment. In the past month Trump has been trumpeting the tune about President Obama and his birth certificate.

On April 25^th, the Trump went further in his smear campaign against Obama by saying that he was too dumb for the Ivy League. It’s hard to take an objective stance on this issue without seeing his admission records from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, but something tells me there is no conspiracy theory here, as much as I’d like there to be.

Can the Trump win the presidency after making all of this noise? He certainly didn’t endear himself well to the CPAC audience.

The Trump has the cash needed to fund a political campaign. According to Forbes the Trump is worth $2.7 billion. Senator John McCain raised $368 million but lost. President Obama raised $745 million during his presidential campaign, so money is not a problem for the Trump.

The question then becomes what can stop the Trump from trumping Obama if he receives the Republican bid? I believe only one person can stop the Trump from winning.

Trump.

Trump’s aggressive, matter-of-fact demeanor won’t win him any allies, especially comedian Jerry Seinfeld. Needless to say Jerry will not be contributing to his campaign should he win the primary.

And this isn’t Trump’s only instance of insensitivity. Trump recently responded to Gail Collins in the New York Times. I think it is refreshing when someone drops the sugarcoat and just says it like it is. Could you imagine if Obama became fed up with Fox News and blasted them in a letter like Trump did to this editor?

As a Republican I have mixed feelings about him. As a foreign diplomat he would scare the hell out of a lot people. I’d be interested to see how he reacts to someone like Vladimir Putin. Both the Trump and Putin are exceptionally stubborn, plus Putin is one of the shadiest prime ministers in power today. Imagine if the Trump ever got on Putin’s bad side. If nuclear war was ever possible, I believe those two responsible for it.

One thing I have to say about the Trump is that he can turn any situation into a success. Today Obama released his full birth certificate, and Trump says he is proud that he could make Obama show it. Only Trump can turn tin cans into gold like this, which is what he’s been doing since the 80’s.

Overall, the Trump presents an interesting quagmire. He, for lack of a better word, has the balls to stand up and say anything. He wouldn’t pussyfoot around an issue; instead he’d mount a full frontal attack. I would think he would do his best to solve our country’s economic issue by helping businesses with tax breaks and other business friendly legislation.

His downside is his lack of political experience. I’d be more inclined to vote for him if he ever held a political office. I don’t know how much this hurts him in the eyes of America, but I could see him becoming president in the 2016 election after becoming a congressman or governor first.

Is the Tea Party willing to support Romney?

The 2012 Presidential Election is still very, very far away.  Even the primaries are close to a year from now.  Yet, for better or worse, the 2012 Election is already dominating political discussion, and I’ll admit, I’m one of those people that always fall prey to the hype that surrounds the election.  It’s fascinating to see how the election progresses, how the issues evolve, and especially how the individual campaigns shape up.  It’s an addicting two-year long political drama.

Realistically, there’s no absolutely clear front runner for the Republican field, but barring any surprise announcement or dark horse candidate really catching steam (N.J. Gov. Christie, for example), the field of candidates has probably been pretty established.

The general  discussion so far has been that there’s a rift in the party between those on the far right and the Tea Party and those more aligned to the center.  Many on the further end of the spectrum prefer a candidate like Huckabee  or Bachmann who better represent their ideals, while those more towards the middle feel candidates like Romney and Pawlenty have more of a chance of beating President Obama.  

On one hand, the GOP wants to elect the candidate with the best possibility of beating an incumbent President, yet there’s a strong fear that a candidate like Romney (whose healthcare reform in Massachusetts is considered to have been the model for Obama’s national plan) would make the far right factions feel disconnected and angry, possibly throwing support behind a third candidate or not voting at all.

Just recently, Romney had an impressive showing in a New Hampshire poll, as the only Republican candidate that would beat Obama.  If this is a start of a national trend, is Romney starting to gain support from the Tea Party?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 70 percent of Tea Party voters would favor Romney, and he actually beat out Huckabee and Palin.  The issue of “Romney-care” is a big one for sure, but its beginning to seem like it’s not going to be the deal breaker for the Tea Party as was previously thought.

Could this be the start of a true front runner emerging? Or are we still in for some surprises?

The Budget Debate

On April 14th Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-09) went on MSNBC to defend his position on the budget debate, and aside from the standard Republican rethoric, the false claim that taxes are too high and keep getting higher, he also belives Obama started class warfare. 

Graves was referencing Obama's April 13th speech from George Washington University where he revealed to America his apparently divisive opinion that when poor Americans are taxed harder than rich, something is amiss. 

It's not much of a mystery to those who do a bit of fact checking, which apparently Graves is not a fan of, that taxes are lower than they have been in 50 years.  This is especially true for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. 

But someone has to pay for things like Medicare, Medicade and Social Security.  Someone has to pay for two and a half wars.  Someone has to pay for roads and buses, cops and firefighters and teachers.  And slashing and burning the salaries and payouts of state funded workers and programs is, for some reason, the only foreseeable way Republicans can find to solve the budget problem. 

They have also somehow turned raising taxes on the rich into a socialist agenda, making the patriotic thing to do carving out as much from the public sector and middle/lower class as possible. 

But Republicans are certain about one thing.  We should never punish the rich, and especially Wall Street, for their success. 

After all, according to Graves, none of our current debt and economic stagnation can be contributed to Wall Street.  None.  It's all high spending on things like middle school teacher health benefits, and making sure another generation of Americans is able to retire. 

Anyone who says otherwise is just conducting class warfare.