Still Convinced Humans are Better for the Job than Dogs???

So until I find a way to raise campaign dollars to afford to post more often, I have a day job helping to raise my little sister who will be one a month from now. Let me tell you, she is a walking handful getting into everything. She especially loves to get into my water. And because I am a good big sister I never ever bite her. Mostly I follow her around sniffing her diaper. I can't help it.

So back to politics and the Republican race for the nomination. Much has happened since my last post. Perry apparently had a chance and has been blowing it over and over since. Herman Cain actually appeared to have a chance and then blew it enough to drop out. I don't know one way or the other if those women are lying or not. But as a dog, I would never have a friendship that my family didn't know about. And I am instantly best friends with everyone I meet. I want to meet you all!!!!

So the replacement to Cain at this point seems to be Newt. Does he have too much baggage or is his baggage enough in the past that people don't care anymore? For sure Romney and Perry are going to try and remind you all of it as if they have no skeletons to be found. I have no idea but if they have any someone somewhere will find them and pull them out.

Does Perry have a chance still? I tend to think his latest add campaign was not genius. People will see it as a shot at gay people rather than what I think he was trying to portray that the rights of Christians are being picked away at. I admit, it took me a second or third listen to hear that. I don't think many people are hearing it that way. I originally heard it as 'it's a shame gay people can now serve openly in the military.' It comes across as that is what he believes at first so much so that most people won't bother to give it a second or third chance. That is why I think this ad is the nail in his coffin because even though they aren't paying to play it everywhere, people everywhere are hearing it.

Romney....I don't even know what to say about him. Since he won't support the fair tax, I don't like him. Not sure about the health care plan in Massachusetts either. I've heard/read conflicting opinions about success vs. disaster. I don't live there so I don't know how it's working for everyone and for the state budget. I will admit it was definitely interesting 4 years ago. Here's what bothers me about him. I have heard traditionally 'liberal supporting' people say they would be ok with Romney. So that makes me think he's going to be politics as usual. I don't know. I suppose he could surprise me. I hope, given that he looks like a shoo in at this point.

You still think these guys are better than me??? Seriously?!?! Who's more loyal to humans than a dog??? No one I tell you.....NO ONE!!!! Now spread the word.

Does Herman Cain Have a Chance?

Is it possible?? Could it be true?? Are people finally paying attention to what Herman Cain has to say?? The only non-politician in the Republican race? According to this cnn article, he just cleaned Perry's clock in the Florida straw poll with 37% of the votes. Perry came in 2nd with 15% of the votes. All others were relatively close behind Perry.

Is it possible that the annoyance of Perry v. Romney is causing the masses to pay attention to the fact that Herman Cain is offering or pitching actual solutions as opposed to political rhetoric? It's kind of sad that he's forced to run for the Republican ticket because he doesn't sound like other Republicans. He sounds like a conservative who knows what he's talking about and doesn't spit out talking points. Ron Paul sounds similar except his delivery is in the form of grumpy old man.

If you haven't bothered to listen to Herman Cain yet, take the time to listen to his message. Take notice of the fact that he's the only non-politician running.

Side note back on Perry. He's suddenly pitch school vouchers at the 'federal' level, but for someone who talks about 'states rights,' he didn't bother to even mention or pitch school vouchers during the recent Texas legislative session that he had both the house and senate full of republicans. Watch their actions. If they don't match their words, then you have a politician. I thought we were sick and tired of politics as usual.

Rick Perry: An Opinion from the Perspective of a Texan

So Rick Perry is finally in and you're super excited because he sounds so 'conservative.' In fact he sounds so libertarian for that matter with his talk of freedom, no taxes, and secession here in Texas. He brags about how many jobs he's brought to Texas. It's hard to argue that under his 'leadership' the Texas economy has fared better than most.

But here's the deal. The lieutenant governor has more responsibility for that than the governor in this state. This state has the ideal structure in that it has a weak governor. The most power he has is to veto legislation or not. He just gets to tout around the united states making speeches and taking credit for the positives. What's he's not telling you is that we faced a huge legislative short fall this last session that just ended. They made up for it with accounting tricks. Meaning we (state government) are only funded through the first half of the fiscal year 2013. (Texas operates/budgets on bienniums as the legislature meets once every 2 years). So there are 6 months that we're not funded for yet. They also deferred payment of many bills to the next biennium. Meaning the next legislature will have to find the money to pay for it. How convenient since Perry supposes he will be president by then and this fiasco will 'blow up' under someone else's watch.

These accounting tricks are all so he can run for president and tell people that Texas balance the budget unlike Washington. We might not be in as much trouble financially as Washington, but the political budgeting isn't all that different. And Texas isn't out of the hole yet.

What else has he done while here. One of the big recent items is that he's committed state funds ($25M/year to the owner) during a major budget shortfall to pay for the rights to have the formula one race come to Austin. Not really Austin but outside of Austin where there's a 2 lane road that is not prepared to handle the traffic for 150,000 people (more or less). Well maybe less if some people helicopter in from the airport. They originally planned the race during June or July. But I suppose the record triple digit heat during both of those months helped race organizers think better than to have a summer race.

He mandated the HPV vaccine for school girls. Not very libertarian of him. Luckily that fell through. He failed to veto a steroid testing bill which is testing high school kids for steroids, when there is clearly physical evidence to give clues to the abuse of steroids. The program is costing the state $6 million with about 24 in 150,000 kids testing positive. He also failed to veto a bill taxing tanning. Tanning is now a sin and deserves a sin tax associated with it. He had the chance to take a hard stance against illegal immigration and just kind of avoided it. He (and the legislature) also had the chance to stand up against the TSA airport searches but backed down when the federal government bullied their way in to that bill.

As you should know by now he used to be a democrat, running Al Gore's campaign here in Texas. Many of us would call him a RINO (Republican in name only) which I believe was formerly referred to as a 'country club republican.'

But here's the deal with politics. We the people (as a whole not every individual) vote for good looks and what we want to hear. I'm not sure how I don't fit that mold yet as I'm cute as can be and am saying what perhaps I wish you wanted to here. Though I'm sure it has to do with my thoughts on Social Security and Medicare. So Rick Perry has mastered the art of telling us what we want to hear. Don't believe me? He keeps getting re-elected in a state full of people disgruntled by him. His big opponent last election was supposed to be Kay Bailey Hutchinson and she barely made a showing because he was running against Obama and Washington the whole time. And she represented Washington. Even then when he 'wasn't running for president' (well he was claiming he wasn't going to run) he was running. As evidenced as he barely acknowledged Kay Bailey and didn't need to his whole campaign. Though unless you live in Texas you probably won't remember that he said he had no plans to run for president during that campaign. He said that because he knew most of Texas wasn't paying attention or didn't care. He's the ultimate politician which should make you all wary of him. He's better at being a politician than even Obama was. And I'd say Obama was a pretty good politician while he was running for president. You should be wary of such politicians. We all should be. What happens if our options are one formerly great politician against another even better politician??? Trust me, nothing good.

So get out in the primaries and vote for Lola!!! Because I'm not in the news so apparently I'm a sucky politician. Which is what you should want. Wake up People!!

The World Must be Coming to an End

Why such a dramatic title to this post? For once I found an opinion of Roland Martin, CNN contributor, that I agree with. His August 12, 2012 article, Bachmann 'submission' question was offensive. Her response to the question was correct. And he is right that 'they' don't put religious beliefs of other candidates on trial. They picked a woman who has used the term submission and tried to trip her up with it because there's no room for 'submission' in leadership positions or in the White House. That has nothing to do with her or any other woman's religious belief about submission.

So to Roland Martin, kudos to you for expressing an opinion that might, just might be, the only opinion I will ever agree with you on. Let's take this one moment to celebrate that! Perhaps there's hope that you could agree with a young dog once.

Balance

Am I the only one that finds the new Washington definition of balance to be ironic? Increase taxes and increase spending.

Mind you this is on both sides of the aisle. Because when $900 billion in cuts over 10 years is meant to offset an immediate $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling, the result is a net increase isn't it? Or did the laws of math change while I was sleeping?