Iowa GOP Debate

I had the chance to watch the Iowa GOP Debate this week and even took some notes. Overall I enjoyed the debate. They attacked President Obama quite a bit, as well as each other. I felt like I came away more informed and even may have changed my opinions on a few topics after watching so it was certainly not a waste of 2 hours (or less with DVR!) Here's what I took away from each candidate, in no particular order:

Newt Gingrich - Former Speaker of the House, Twenty years in the House of Representatives, currently acts as a political commentator.

I am not a huge fan of Gingrich as a presidential candidate, but I do enjoy him as a commentator. Anytime I get a chance to listen to him talk about immigration, tax reform, or welfare reform I feel like I come away a little more informed. That's how I felt about his performance at the debate. Informative, yes. Did it make me want to vote for him? No. He was pretty snappy at poor Bret Baier, which was entertaining for sure.

Mitt Romney - Businessman and former Governor of Massachusetts.

As I was in the car on Friday, I heard someone on the radio commenting on how the other GOP candidates didn't do much to put a dent in Romney during the debate. That kinda sums up his performance though. If I were uninformed about Romney, I'm not sure that I would have been won over much by his performance. However, as the current national front runner the others left him pretty unscathed.

I didn't like how he dodged a question about a tax increase while he was Governor. Things I liked: He's all about corporate tax breaks, less regulation on business, trade policies that are pro-America, energy independence, and fiscal responsibility. He is in favor of defining marriage at the Federal level as between a man and a woman. One interesting thing he offered when questioned about further extension of unemployment benefits: He would create a personal unemployment account for each person with a limited dollar value. The individual would be responsible for managing that fund to meet their needs while they are searching for a job. I like hearing actual ideas from candidates about how to cut our welfare spending. This idea is worth discussing.

Pawlenty went after him about the Massachusetts healthcare bill he signed into law and I think he actually turned it around well stating his belief in states rights. Being a fan of states rights, it was hard to not listen and agree. If the people of Massachusetts want government healthcare, then maybe they should have it.

The above on Romney looks like a summary of one of his books, but this is really how much information he managed to give about himself in the debate. I think that was a huge positive for him.

Michelle Bachmann - Current member of the House of Representatives, representing Minnesota.

Bachmann has gained a lot of public recognition through the Tea Party and she's very good at sticking to the Tea Party rhetoric. She threw out a few punch lines, which I thought made her look silly. Bachmann is a huge champion of smaller government and I was really eager to see good things from her.

All in all, I think she did a good job and I've generally liked her as far as I've been aware of her. I also think she accomplished something important in the debate by fighting with Tim Pawlenty a bit. If the debate had been just between the two of them, I think she won. A few things I learned about her: She is also in favor of a Federal marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. She also authored the Light bulb Freedom of Choice Act - OH YEAH! My ears perked up at that simply because I get a little crazy every time I go to the hardware store for light bulbs and can't find anything but corkscrews to put in my fans. Government needs to get far far away from my light bulbs. Like they have nothing better to do? I think Bachmann did really well in the debate once she warmed up.

Jon Huntsman, Jr. - Most recently, the U.S. Ambassador to China. Prior to that he was Governor of Utah.

I didn't know much about Huntsman until this debate. His resume is very impressive. I had heard he was a little liberal on a few things, and he confirmed that in the debate. While he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, he is for civil unions. He got some heat for being in favor of Cap and Trade as Governor of Utah as well. Aside from that, he is extremely knowledgeable on business and would certainly have great insight on America's position in the global market. He got a bonus point from me when he stated his position on No Child Left Behind (against it) and further stated that education should be a local issue. I totally agree with that. He wasn't terribly personable but I still think I learned something more and the debate was favorable for him.

Rick Santorum - Former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

My notes on Santorum were slim. He doesn't get a lot of attention, even in debates, but he also seems to say the same thing over and over again. He argued a lot with the other candidates on moral issues and took Ron Paul on several times regarding Iran. Santorum clearly defined himself as a very strong moral conservative, which is probably a smart way to try to differentiate himself from the competition. Still, with the economy waving in the wind like it is he didn't offer much that made him look strong in that arena other than the general plan to cut the corporate tax rate and welfare reform. I really don't see this candidate going on.

Herman Cain - Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and (most well-known) CEO of Godfather's Pizza.

I LOVE this guy! He is really fun to watch in a debate. I think Cain did really well this week. He stayed pretty clear of his usual "bullet point" talking where he gives each part of his answer a number. I found that distracting in other debates, though I'm sure he was just trying to make it easy for people to follow.

The worst thing about Cain: He gets himself in trouble sometimes running his mouth. He's the easy target of all the candidates cause he's always going on the record about something controversial from Mormonism to electric fences on the border to Sharia Law. I actually agree with his stance that Sharia Law has no place mingling in our courts, but he still seemed to step right into a mess when he commented on it.

Best things about Cain: His business experience and pro-growth plans. He doesn't just state the tax cuts he believes are necessary. He insists that they must be permanent to remove the uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses. I couldn't agree more. How can anyone make plans when the current tax code is only good for a few months/years at a time?

He also wants the government to get their hands out of our education system. Education should be a local issue. Agreed.

Ron Paul - Physician and member of the House of Representatives.

I think this was one of Ron Paul's best debates. Aside from his usual anti-war rants which dance in and out of my comfort zone, he used this debate to make some of his other stances known. Regarding health care, he is in favor of making health savings accounts more available. This has been our first year of an HSA and we have really liked it. I think the personal responsibility an HSA encourages also purchases some peace of mind.

Other points I took down: He thinks marriage should be defined at the state level, which sets him apart from his peers. He also wants to audit and eventually close down the Fed. Again, on war he set himself apart from his peers by downplaying the idea that Iran is a threat to our national security. That just sounds naive to me, but maybe I'm the one who is naive.

My favorite statement from Paul tonight was that liberty is from our Creator. I completely agree with the Libertarian theories that drive Ron Paul, even though I'm not optimistic about untangling the mess that is our government now. This statement though, rings true to my core. America is in trouble right now because people have the misconception that our rights are given or granted to us by an all powerful government. God gave us liberty and all the government can do is protect it or take it away bit by bit. When we shift to believing that the government is where our liberty is derived, we've forfeited that liberty.

Tim Pawlenty - Former Governor of Minnesota.

I like T-Paw, but I don't think he did well in the debate. Michelle Bachmann looked like the winner in their scuffles and I kind of hated to see that. I prefer a candidate with experience as a governor and really thought Pawlenty would be a contender in this race. He seems to disappear a bit among the others. He is very socially conservative and has an impeccable pro-life record. His record on budgeting and debt reduction in Minnesota is also a strong plus for him. To me, he seems like the exact opposite of our current President in background and beliefs. He's just not shaking things up enough to get people's attention, but I do kinda wish people would give him a look. The guy is clean as a whistle, to a fault I guess.

If you didn't watch the debate, I would at least read about it or watch bits and pieces. If I had to rank winners, I'd say Romney was #1 mostly because he was on top before and nobody knocked him down. He also took every opportunity he was given to be informative about himself, which I think was effective. #2 Hermann Cain - he was scrappy and debated really well. I thought he got a lot of time in this debate and it was mostly positive for him. #3 Ron Paul - his war rantings still made me nervous but he delivered all of his other points really well. I think Ron Paul's ideas become more accepted and understood every time he debates.

Quotable Quote

The interesting thing about what we see happening in our country today is that it's happened before. You know, "history repeats itself" and all that good stuff. It really does. Mankind is just really not very original in our societal tendencies. We rise, we fall, we know what's right and don't do it, then we get into trouble and start doing what we know we should have been doing all along.

What's unique about our situation in America is that I'm not sure anymore that many of our citizens have much of a compass. The family is breaking down along with personal responsibility for one's actions. Nobody knows relative current events, much less historical events. I heard this quote earlier in the week and it struck me for a number of reasons:

"In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again."

Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", 1776

I thought the word choice of security, comfort, and freedom was on the mark. This is what everyone seems to want today and feel that they deserve. There is a catch though. If someone else provides the security and comfort you desire, then you have forfeited some degree of freedom. As our country creeps closer to the tipping point of more people receiving than giving (remember right now 46% of Americans do NOT pay federal income taxes and more than 30% actually make money from the government from the tax system), the latter part of the quote seems fitting. Americans today do not want to "give to society" but prefer "society to give to them" and freedom from responsibility is the most en vogue trend out there.

I think these attitudes are so prevalent that it's easy for some of us who even agree with concepts of fiscal responsibility and self reliance can stand a good look in the mirror. There are times when I catch myself kicking against the very habits and decisions that would keep me free. Nobody is entitled to comfort and security. The attitude is everywhere and it's very catching!

I'm hoping this week's news, particularly in the financial markets, is very boring...

As the World Turns

It's been so long since I blogged that today as I sat down, I was very happy to see that Blogger still remembered my password. I'm not sure I do!

What a crazy, twilight zone sort of few months we have had. So amazing, at times I wanted to sit down and blog but I just didn't know how to collect my thoughts. I was completely irritated during the entire debate on the debt ceiling, but as we rounded into the last week of debate it was truly amazing.

I feel like we, the people, have been wagged. What do I mean? You know, the tail is wagging the dog. Big time. The class warfare that has been encouraged from the top is astounding. The bitter, non-negotiable words that were said right before everyone shook hands and miraculously made a deal just blew me away. I don't know what I was really expecting on August 2nd, but what happened really surprised me.

If I had much faith in the politicians involved before last week, I really lost it all after the "deal" that was made. It was no deal. Maybe some individuals in Washington won, but I'm certain the rest of us lost. Nobody really made any real cuts. The bad habits that have gotten us where we are have no reason to change. It was almost eerie the way some people were celebrating, when there was nothing to celebrate. I was especially shocked by the way the progressive left engaged in hateful rhetoric towards the Tea Party giving them "credit" for bowling over the President and demanding what they wanted in terrorist style. The Tea Party did NOT win last week. No way. But now the left media is trying to paint it that way and stir up their base. Great. I was hoping their base was about as complacent as the right was under George W. Bush.

If the Tea Party had one, some of this week's headlines might be different. The White House touted the S&P's threat to lower our credit rating to AA from AAA as a major reason to raise the debt ceiling, but wait...just today ABC reported that the federal government is expecting a downgrade in their rating due to "the political confusion surrounding the process of raising the debt ceiling and lack of confidence that the political system will be able to agree to more deficit reduction." Is this really a surprise?

Oh, and China is still planning to diversify away from the dollar. Hmmm. Shocking really. I guess the President's scare tactics worked on more than just the American people. Unforeseen side effect? I don't really think so. I know this sounds insanely negative, but I am not so sure the bad economy is a bad thing for Obama's reelection. Under President Obama, the number of people on food stamps (you know, the snazzy sounding SNAP program) has gone from 22 million to 44 million. It's 14.3% of the population. Oh wait, that was a few months ago. Now it's touted as 45.8 on Drudge Report. You think those folks would vote for a fiscal conservative? The more that our citizens must depend on the government, the better it is for President Obama. I'm not sure that the people who are rounding into their second year of unemployment benefits are in a hurry to get someone in office who things 22 months of free money is too long.

Need a positive spin? Okay, I'll give you one. My husband and I are not really Greta van Susteren fans, but we both enjoyed one particular question she raised in all of this great debt debate. Why do we care that S&P and Moody's are threatening to downgrade our credit rating? They are the ones who triggered the collapse of the housing market in 2007 when they rapidly downgraded "inflated ratings they slapped on complex mortgage-backed securities." The Senate has been investigating them for years. It's a messy loop of buddies rating their buddies up there. One article I read today (from ABC of course) cited lack of tax increases in the debt ceiling bill as a reason to downgrade us. If that's not somebody in the rating industry using their influence I don't know what is. The positive part of that? I had no idea about any of this, did you? I just loved that someone brought this little tidbit of how the world turns to my attention. It seldom happens and I always appreciate it.

I Can't Look

Do you ever feel like just putting your head in the sand instead of watching the news? If I want to see what is going on in the world lately, I find that I turn on the news or go searching the news websites and come away with a lot of nothing. Not nothing, something. Junk. The talking heads are wasting my time.

What have I learned lately? I know that we are into our third war now, even though we have a supposed anti-war president. The President acted without Congress, which has upset a lot of people. Bush acted with Congress and it upset a lot of people.

Also, we've hit the one year anniversary of ObamaCare being signed into law and corporate supporters continue to drop like flies. They say it is not affordable as we are entering the much discussed and forewarned about second dip of the "double dip recession." All of the information was available last year, why didn't they say something then?

Here's what it looks like to me: Washington still isn't behaving constitutionally or doing much of anything rational and Americans seem as fickle as ever.

Since we are so bored with all of the chaos all over the world, people are starting to talk about the 2012 run for President. Fickle, no? I confess was persuaded by the hype and "might" have ordered a "few" books by "some" of the potential "candidates." It's done already so I can't be fickle and change my mind. I'll put up some book reports when I finish some of my reading!

It's a sad state of affairs when I find that the most uplifting and motivating thing in current events is the courageous way the Japanese are facing their current plight. Our media seems so focused in finding fault or placing blame, yet that is an American message. The message I hear coming out of Japan through blogs and smaller internet news sites is one of strength and dignity. Nobody is mad that they haven't received their free stuff yet. The people seem to be unified by their disaster. They are just supporting each other and trying to get through this terrible tragedy. Really amazing.

30-Year Mistake

Ron Paul's blog on Eqypt this week, entitled "Our 30-year Mistake" caught my eye. I have always been a little uncertain about his foreign policy opinions and thought he was wrong most of the time, but this paragraph kind of turned on a light bulb for me:

We are in fact more isolated from Egypt now than ever, because the regime we propped up appears to be falling. We have isolated ourselves from the Egyptian people by propping up their government, as we isolate ourselves from Tunisians, Israelis, and other recipients of our foreign aid. Their resentment of our interventionist policies makes us less safe, because we lose our authority to conduct meaningful diplomacy when unpopular regimes fall overseas. We also radicalize those who resented our support for past regimes. 

Let us hope for a more prosperous and peaceful era for the Egyptians, and let us learn the lessons of our thirty-year Egyptian mistake.

Explained this way, I see the error of us getting involved in another country's business. I mean, most of the world thinks Obama is a great president who will turn America into what they would like us to be. If other countries were openly financially propping his administration up, there is a great part of our population that might resent those countries. That would be a negative for those countries. So I see now that as we step into another country's internal struggle and choose a side, we only create more enemies for ourselves in a region of the world where we don't need more enemies.

Quote of the Week

Mike Huckabee posted this on Facebook this week. While he was not my choice for President in the 2008 primaries, I still really like him. I heard him speak at the Iowa Straw Poll and his morally conservative rhetoric appealed to me.

The most important form of government is the family. In the long run, the only way to ensure prosperity, safety, and equal opportunity is to make sure we raise our children to be ethical and productive citizens. No bureaucracy can replace parents in that essential role, so we have to do everything possible to help parents do their job.

Just nice to hear someone who has a voice say what I think sometimes!

What's Going On in Education?

It's been such a busy few weeks in news, as well as a busy month in life. Seems all I can do is try to absorb the information when I can! I've heard rumblings about protests in Wisconsin and chalked it up to labor unions concerned for a potential loss of power. It was still in Wisconsin and not Texas so I didn't think much of it. Then I started seeing some of my teacher friends on Facebook posting links to websites organizing protests here in Texas and my interest was really peeked. Can't put my finger on it, but when I clicked on the links I got a bad vibe.

How did these protests get organized so quickly? Where is the anger stemming from? All of the teachers I know are too busy working to organize protests. They hardly have time to read or watch the news.

I found one group who has been excited about all of this: Students for a Democratic Society. Who are they? From their website:

Students for a Democratic Society is a radical, multi-issue student and youth organization working to build power in our schools and communities. We are entirely student and youth-led and have over 100 active chapters in high schools, colleges, universities, and cities all over the country.

Okay, so students are upset. But I thought this was about teachers getting what they deserve? Their motto: "Students and Workers - Unite and Fight!" They mix statements like "Defend Education" and "Save our Education" with their encouragement to support unions, encourage worker solidarity, and protect the working people. Big question marks came up in my mind from what I saw. I always cringe when I hear someone talk about "working people" in politics because it's always under the topic of how to help them or give them a break or give them something for free. Which raises the question to me - so if the "working people" need free stuff are we planning to take it from a group of non-working people somewhere that I am not aware of? As if a large body of non-workers exists with money enough to fund the essentials for all of us? Where is this money tree?

Okay, off my soapbox a bit. I danced around a bit from there and found FightBack!News. They gleefully report all that Students for a Democratic Society does, plus they give their attention to some other favorite topics of mine: Antiwar Movement, Immigrants rights, Labor, Poor People's Movements (their words, not mine...I mean do poor people actually get on the internet and search themselves out as "poor people?"), Students, and Women.

I still don't see much concern over the hard working teacher who is getting the short end of the stick here. Now, watch this video...it will make your head pop off. Sorry, there is some unsavory language but it only further illustrates the fine people who are REALLY excited about an opportunity for an uprising. They like anger, hate, fighting, hostility...not really consistent with the fine educators I know.

Breitbart.tv » Wisconsin Labor Protests and International Socialism

So okay, there must be real issues at stake. Right? Yes, there are. Every state is in a budget crunch. Money needs to be cut everywhere. It's going to stink no matter where it comes from and nobody wants their area to be cut. But I did want a little more information on my home state of Texas and what is happening. I found Protecttheclassroom.com informative. Here are a few blurps:





I do hope to see that teachers are paid well and treated fairly. I do not, however, feel good about the radical groups who are capitalizing (poor word choice probably since they are anti-capitalism!) on the struggle in education as a vehicle for their own agenda. Hateful protests full of anger do not generate viable ideas or practical solutions.

In the meantime I am preparing to send my own child into the Texas public school system where administrators and legislators are focusing on ways to spend money on the at-risk children and make everyone equal. Instead of giving my child any extra attention, the teacher will be busy writing up a report on the improvement of the lower quarter of the class and what they are doing to help them. The squeaky wheel always gets the oil and as it is my hope that my child is not the one struggling, I also hate knowing that she will be largely unnoticed for achievement. Hopefully we can do enough here to encourage achievement and keep her from the trend of mediocrity that seems so prevalent in the "everybody equal" model. It doesn't bring everyone up, you know.

*Other groups fueling the movement to "save our education" include SEIU, the AFL‑CIO, moveon.org, ColorofChange.org, Democracy for America, Green for All (Van Jones’ group), the Daily Kos, Democrats.com, the Sierra Club, Media Matters.

Don't Say Nothing At All

I keep listening to the news and watching. I'm pretty speechless lately, which is rare. I'm not sure what I think. About all that I can tell: The people truly stressed or concerned about America's future are NOT the ones in charge. That's about all I can tell.

I see zero urgency to get us off the path to financial destruction or do anything real to make Americans feel confident in the future. The private sector jobs are never going to come back as long as this nonsense continues. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and cut spending from something they think someone who might vote for them next election would be mad about. (That run-on sentence that doesn't make sense is staying because it's symbolic.) Everyone seems to be bending to what they think their base wants and blasting the other team for what they think their base hates, but nobody seems really sure what anyone wants. Very little meaningful action is happening. Lots of talk. Not many real values in play. Ugghh. See what I mean? If you can't say something nice...

This link that my brother posted on Facebook is just one example of the house of mirrors it seems we are constantly stuck in:



This once again illustrates why I named my blog the Savvy Citizen. It's not that I really think I'm super smart in any subject, least of all politics. It's that our political leaders think we are all really stupid. They can't possibly think otherwise and feed us such ridiculousness. I contend that they are wrong and at the very worst, most Americans are just uninformed. Americans are busy, you know...working, budgeting, making hard decisions, defending the country, raising children, etc.

Lame Duck

Whilst I am trying to enjoy the holiday season and keep my stress levels down, I can't seem to turn on the news without hearing something of the latest nonsense happening during the lame duck session. Do people really know what that term means anyway? I mean, I had a general idea but the other day I just decided to see exactly what was happening.

The U.S. Senate website defines it for us:

"lame duck" session - When Congress (or either chamber) reconvenes in an even-numbered year following the November general elections to consider various items of business. Some lawmakers who return for this session will not be in the next Congress. Hence, they are informally called "lame duck" Members participating in a "lame duck" session.

Yeah, so THAT is why there are crazy 2000 page bills that nobody has read pending the week before Christmas. Deja Vu. The people who have been making the mess still have the power, even though we voted them out. What a strange system...shouldn't they have packed up the day after? So pretty much nobody is listening to the American people at all and there is zero accountability for behaving badly.

We put our votes out in November. We fill out the polls, we put stickers on our cars and signs in the yard, we knock doors, we participate in phone banks, we "like" things on Facebook to make our opinions known all year long and really we just want to chill out and bake (and/or eat) some cookies with our families about right now (if we've finished our Christmas preparations.) I always find Congress extra annoying in December. Guess I should go have another cookie...

Laying it All Out There

This is the yard sign my County Republican Party was selling during this election cycle. I had a love/hate relationship with the sign. At first my mixed emotions made me think I was a chicken. I mean, I'm against the nonsense happening in Washington for the past 2 years. So why wouldn't I just run out and buy one of these signs for my yard?

My hesitation lasted up until last week when I made my final decision and voted Republican. Luckily I live on a cul-de-sac so the traffic who missed my very important, but chicken, message was not great. The bulk of my concern about the sign was it's simplicity. It seemed to completely forget that Republicans long misbehaved in the name of power and pandering to what they 'thought' people wanted for far too long, helping us along the road to where we are today.

So why did I go ahead and cast the Republican vote?

1. I'm looking ahead. The Republican vote that will be tallied tomorrow is simply a step I think must be taken. Vigilance on the part of all of us will be just as necessary even with Republicans and I honestly hope it stays that way. It will for me.

2. I once called myself an independent/moderate. I thought I was somewhere in the middle because neither party fully represented my ideals. The way our country has recently been turned upside down has forced me to do my research. Now I realize I'm so far to the right that voting for a Democrat is worse in my case than not voting at all (which I don't believe in!)

3. Referring to 2 - Just because I'm not crazy about the options out there doesn't mean I should check out and not vote. I did the research. I wasn't pleased with my options. The discomfort I felt while casting my vote made me even more dedicated to supporting good candidates when I see them.

4. The Democrats at the top are far more liberal than my Democrat voting friends who are usually moral Democrats more than anything. Those running our country today make the Clintons look conservative. I really don't think they are stupid, as many say. I think they are evil with evil intentions of usurping the rights of Americans. I know, I know. Yes, evil is a strong word. But it is morally reprehensible to want to remove a right from one human being even if you say you're going to give it to someone else. The health care takeover really solidified this for me. It was huge. It was unpopular. They wouldn't scale back. They wouldn't back off. They told us they knew better than we did what we needed. That's not okay coming from either side.

5. While many of my ideals fall in line with Libertarian views, the Libertarian options on the ballot were weak. Voting strictly on that ideology would have been a vote for a Democrat. Further, I disagree with the Libertarian ideological views on war. While those on my ballot wouldn't have the power to stop funding troops it bothers me to know that they might if they could.

6. A vote for a Democrat feels like a vote for Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. That just feels bad.

So there. The good, bad, and ugly of my thought process. It is not as intelligent and smart as I might like but it's the truth. I think sometimes people sit out a vote because they don't know what they'd say if someone asked why they voted as they did. I don't think you have to have all of the smartest, most educated reasons for your choice but if you do your research and then go cast your vote then that is the best you can do.

I guess I should have made my own yard sign:

"Stop Government Expansion: Vote for the most conservative candidate you can find (but not a Democrat) who pledges to limit the size of federal government, reverse the health care takeover, lower taxes, stop Cap and Trade, protect our sovereignty, take terrorism seriously, drop political correctness in favor of the truth, protect all American life (yours, mine, our troops, and the unborn), put the opinions of Americans above the opinions of foreigners, refuse to make the poor comfortable in their poverty, allow Americans the freedom they need to create jobs, allow businesses who make bad decisions to go out of business, limit executive power (especially czars), protect states' rights, stop legislation from the bench, and read the Constitution. Then after you've voted, stay engaged to make sure they do what they said."

Favorite Candidate of the 2010 Elections: Rand Paul. He says things that are sometimes unpopular and the media eats him up for it, but I like it and so do his voters. I think if people would have the guts to say what they really believe, they would be shocked at how well it was received. I'm so tired of politicians who talk about feeding the hungry and educating our children, then once elected they go straight to tea with Hugo Chavez. If you like everything a politician says when they are campaigning, maybe something is wrong.