But Who Wore it Best?

From  the Washington Post's Reliable Source column:
Michelle Obama has been criticized for not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game Friday night at an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace. The first lady wore a very fancy J. Mendel capsleeve jacket — “white viscose techno crepe tailored jacket with overlapped side panels and silver embroidery” from the 2013 Resort collection, according to a press release from the company. It’s not in stores yet, but high-end retailer Moda Operandi listed the jacket at a princely $6,800. The White House declined to comment.


From the Washington Post's "She the People" column when Ann Romney wore her shirt:
The very wealthy Mitt and Ann Romney have often been painted as out of touch with average Americans. Ann’s pricey shirt will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s daily itinerary.
On Tuesday Ann wore a colorful silk T-shirt with a large bird print by Reed Krakoff during an interview with her and her husband on CBS’s “This Morning.” Fashion blogs quickly tracked down the “The Reed Audubon Silk Shirt” and noted the whopping price tag.
A representative of the fashion house told ABC News that the shirt is off-the-rack and it had not been a gift to Ann Romney from Krakoff...
Some Americans might be thinking that the $1,000 spent on one shirt could help them out with a house payment or buy necessities at Walmart. Others are counting exactly how many T-shirts that amount would buy at Target, where first lady Michelle Obama said she often shops.


Just a little case of media bias maybe??

And could no one have at least mentioned that the $6,800 jacket is not doing Mrs. Obama's back end any favors??

Shame on MSNBC!!

I was about to claim that I have never used MSNBC as a source on this blog. But I wanted to make sure, therefore, I utilized incredibly simple research methods of typing "MSNBC" into the top left search box.
As it turns out those combinations of letters have been used 7 times on this site. Four of those times it was to draw attention to anti-Romney pieces they ran. Pieces that showed so much bias that the news network itself became the news story, and not Mitt Romney.
My point is that it is not hard to be honest and truthful. Someone needs to explain that to MSNBC!
After seeing the following clip that is so doctored and biased to the point of being fiction, I don't know how anyone can ever trust MSNBC again. It gives a bad name to all of journalism, and digs a hole so deep, they will never climb out. What could they possibly say to justify this editing?

Do Political Gaffes Matter?

Do political gaffes matter?
I was about to say no.
But then I thought, "What would Rick Perry say?"

President Obama said on Friday that “the private sector is doing fine.” Was this "gaffe" taken out of context for cable news ratings?
Let's go to the tape and hear what he said in context-




Nope, I'm going to go with- he completely meant what he said, and he wasn't taken out of context. (As compared to, let's say, the Romney "gaffe," where he said he "likes to fire people." Watch the link, and you realize that that is only a gaffe when taken out of context. In context, I think what he said is something nearly every single American agrees with! We like being able to fire service providers who do a bad job and hire better ones!)

Now, President Obama would like us to believe he didn't mean what he said. And maybe he didn't. I mean, he only explained himself quite well for over a minute.

It's not like very specifically suggested that the people need to give more money to the government.  Because that just sounds a little bit too much like Prince John and Robin Hood, doesn't it?






Do political gaffes matter?
"You betcha."

Media Bias and What Happens Next

A look at this evening's "top of the fold" cover on the Huffington Post is a sad look at media bias in politics. From the "Hiel Hitler" pose to the "hostile takeover" headline, there is nothing but bias in this image. And since when was a five year bid a "hostile takeover?"

I stopped watching Fox News years ago because of the hatred and vile on the network. Sure, maybe it is conservative friendly (it isn't fair and balanced, that's for sure), but I don't care to hear hatred for any party. I only read the Huffington Post to get a true liberal slant on stories for something to compare my own beliefs against. I prefer CNN because I think they actually spend more time on looking pretty and sleek graphics and theme music than they do on bias. (And because they are the only American network I can rely on to give me human rights stories.)

But if there is one thing to be learned from this political cycle it is that Mitt Romney has not won over the media. The news stories today have all been about how Romney has failed to win all Republicans. Or how the base is not yet behind him. And if I hear one more story about how the GOP doesn't have a strong candidate and may have to go to a brokered convention, I may pull my hair out.

Let's look at the straight up facts.
Romney now has 429 delegates, compared with 169 for Rick Santorum, 118 for Newt Gingrich and 67 for Ron Paul. Add it up, kids. That is 429 delegates for Romney, 354 for the other three guys combined. That is a majority of Republicans behind Romney. The other three guys put together can't outdo him. Yes, I've seen the stories about not getting enough delegates and a potential brokered convention. And if that happens, so be it. There's no point in saying "Well, historically..." anymore. This campaign cycle hasn't followed any historic patterns, so we can stop pretending it will in the future.

The plain and simple truth is that Gingrich needs to step down. He has 118 delegates, which in theory is impressive. Except 53 of those came from his own home state last night. He only got 79 delegates total last night. He came in third or fourth place in every single state except for his home state! He's not winning. His money is drying up. And he will have no momentum to move forward. He has no chance of suddenly winning at a brokered convention, although I suspect that a brokered convention would be a daydream of his. He loves history. He probably relishes the idea of a shouting match on the convention floor and the thought of being carried on the shoulders of his men through the room to the stage. But the truth is, if he hadn't been absolutely vile to the competition up to this point, if he were to drop out now, he would make a good VP. But he shot himself in the foot when it comes to that.

No one is more surprised than I am that Rick Santorum is a strong contender. And the truth is, I don't actually think he is that strong on his own merits. I think what he is is the poster child for the anti-Romney vote. I don't believe people are behind Santorum as much as they are against Romney. I believe if anything were to happen at a brokered convention that it would be a dark horse who could usurp Santorum support. And if that person were charismatic and surprising enough, he/she could really compete against Romney.

(As for Ron Paul, do I think he should bow out? Yes. But I don't think it would make any difference. I don't think his supporters would then fall behind someone else. I think they would follow him out of the party. However, I do think in the tightest races like Ohio last night, it would make a difference if there had been one less "anti-Romney" option available.)

So really, it all comes down to Romney at this point. He either has to finally, convincingly win over more voters, or we're going to a brokered convention. He's a by the book kind of guy, so I don't think we'll see any surprise moves come out of him. But if it were me, and I wanted to shake things up, I'd buck convention completely at this point and do something crazy like start talking seriously about VP possibilities. If you can't get the voters to love you, get them to love your ticket. (For instance, a Romney- Nikki Haley ticket? Who could argue with that?)

Just a little interesting moment from Twitter last night. Judging by the surprising number of retweets, I'd say I'm not alone. 

Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'

Newt Gingrich Source: www.newt.org

Before I get into discussing Newt Gingrich's points on child labor and education, I have to make another point. What I am about to discuss is an absolutely perfect example of why it is important to get your news from more than one source. To read just the CNN story on Mr. Gingrich's speech at Harvard, you would think that Mr. Gingrich is proposing we do away with all child labor laws, and employ poor kids. Talk about a very biased and negative slant. If you read the NY Times take on the speech, you'll actually discover that Mr. Gingrich has made a fascinating suggestion for ways to improve work ethics in schools (for all students, not just the poor ones), and he is trying to find a way to help students by making college more affordable. All the words put into bold are mine and mine alone- to prove the point about media bias. 
The CNN Version: 

Newt Gingrich proposed a plan Friday that would allow poor children to clean their schools for money, saying such a setup would both allow students to earn income and endow them with a strong work ethic.
Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the former House Speaker said his system would be an improvement on current child labor laws, which he called "truly stupid."
"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid," Gingrich said. "Saying to people you shouldn't go to work before you're 14, 16. You're totally poor, you're in a school that's failing with a teacher that's failing."
Now, for the same exact speech as reported by the NY Times-
“You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”
Interesting, isn't it? Bias from the media can really change the tone of a story. The CNN makes him out to be all for child slave labor. The NY Times just presented the facts.
Now, for the rest of his speech-
He wants every state to open a work-study college where students work 20 hours a week during the school year and full-time in the summer and then graduate debt-free.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called Mr. Gingrich’s proposal “absurd.” “Who in their right mind would lay off janitors and replace them with disadvantaged children — who should be in school, and not cleaning schools,” Ms. Weingarten said. “And who would start backtracking on laws designed to halt the exploitation of children?”
Personally, I think this idea is phenomenal. I absolutely support it. Except, I wouldn't pay the children. I think all students at every school should have to pitch in and do the cleaning. Teach everyone about taking care of the school and public property. How many kids would stop scribbling on walls or in bathroom stalls if they knew it might be their turn tomorrow to go in and clean them?
And as for a work-study program to get through college- BRING IT ON! Absolutely! How very different would our economy be if students weren't graduating with more debt than they will even make in their first year's salary? And why should parents have to take out loans to put kids through college? First, make colleges more affordable. Second, give students the chance to earn their way through!
Newt just moved up in my personal estimations. Liberals will absolutely hate this idea. And it goes against everything Occupy Wall Street wants. But personally, I think it is brilliant!


Source: CNN "Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid' "

NY Times "From Gingrich, an Unconventional View of Education"