Much to long, I agree.

When an analog phone rings, the phone company is sending you 100vdc at about a half amp. If you pickup, the voltage drops to 48vdc. Robocalls only last 30 seconds, but if you can keep a telemarketer talking you could probably recharge some batteries with it...

A campaign committee, Obama for America, pays for ads from donations and federal matching funds that go to all qualified candidates from the income tax checkoff by taxpayers choosing that option.

A NY Times article last Fri. has this response to criticism of "taxpayer-funded election campaign stops":
"Mr. Obama’s advisers noted that combining campaign stops with official events has long been the case during presidential re-election seasons. 'We do it absolutely by the book and in the same manner that President Bush did and President Clinton did,' [press secretary Jay] Carney told reporters." http://nyti.ms/Av4vQC

Thanks for reading and commenting, Jay.

Should read: Obama for Destroying America - Communism rears its ugly head once again :(

Scott,

What about the other issues? This is a multiple issue race, one that needs a person who can do it all.

I do not agree with your assessment of Republicans on the women issue, but that is my opinion just like you have your own opinion. The spin doctors on both sides have plenty of stories that try to discredit each other.

I would like to look at all of the issues and see who I best align with as a package, not just one issue.

Daryl, comment space doesn't really permit a "look at all of the issues," so Scott chose the one that is currently taking up the most airtime and column inches.

Rest assured that he and I and many others see the Republican candidates and President Obama as a "package" across many issues -- foreign and domestic, economic and social -- including their statements, what organizations are doing or saying on that candidate's behalf, and their stated objectives and accomplishments (including those areas where the candidate has fallen short).

By that reckoning, I support and endorse the reelection of President Barack Obama -- warts and all.

Scott,
I am a woman and I do not feel the Republican party wants to take me back 50 years. First when you quote someone such as Romney stating "states have a right to ban contraception" make sure you have it right. You can listen to it from the horses mouth http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Multimedia/2012/January/GOP-debate-contraception.aspx
Futhermore, Romney supports the Hyde amendment which bans the use of federal dollars to be spent on ABORTIONS (kind of a jump from he wants to rip birth control out of the hands of the poor). Abortion is legal, however there are millions of people who are not in favor of paying for women to have abortions when birth control is at their fingertips.
Santorum did say "Birth control has been harmful to society" in a way he is right. Are sexually transmitted diseases higher today than they were 50 years ago? I would have to say yes.
You want to hold Santorm responsible for a comment made by Foster Friess? Did you hold Obama responsible for the sayings of Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers? Oh yeah I forgot he didn't hold the same views as those gentlemen.
It was not "The Demise of the American family" it was "The Demise of American CULTURE". Do you see the difference? I find it hard to believe that this woman waited 11 years to bring her story to light. I don't care for Newt but I would have to question her motives and wonder how much money was involved or if she was just a woman scorned.

Santorum stands for something. I like that. His speeches are pretty good.
I can understand his positions. A bit old fashioned - but look where we are today.
He is not wishy washy, spineless, and not too much of a liar yet.

Both the Left and the Right have people who want to mandate how they live their lives. Some of us resent it when it comes from either party. Taxing people to get them to behave the way they want them to is still social control. What are you doing to stop the Left from trying to exert the same social engineering on society? (I'm really not expecting an answer.....BTW).....

We've got Ron Paul....who do you have on your side calling people out?

Radicalism is still radicalism. I never said I was a Democrat, I am a common sense progressive. I believe in helping people help themselves. But thanks for going ahead and making assumptions about me.

Michelle Dainus,

"As far as I am concerned Roe V Wade was won 39 years ago, and it is not going to change." your quote...

Michelle, I wish I was as sure about that as you are. This country's opinion is continuing to shift from your rights... to the fetus has more rights than you. With the right mix in the courts and the senate, Roe V Wade is history. History repeats its self all the time... America could drink ...then America could not drink... now America can drink again. As odd as this comparison sounds were a nation of flip flopers. Even Ron Paul is now prow-life.

Michelle, my opinion... a fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

Thanks for your comments.

Scot,

I am with you, it scares the living crap out of me to think of what will happen if Roe V Wade is overturned. I do the most I can. I write my congressmen and Senators almost on a weekly basis on issues such as this, which is something we should all be doing when we have issues with the government. I do my civic duty and vote, but what kind of a life is living in fear?

It's really sad that almost 40 years later we are still debating these issues. Hopefully this does not go the way of prohibition, if it does it will have detrimental effects on women's health, and I may have to take my Canadian friends seriously when they joke about moving.

Michelle + Scot -

Forget about Roe v. Wade. They're debating contraception now, and NOT just for religious organizations. Luckily, the Blunt Amendment was defeated today: http://blunt.senate.gov/​public/_cache/files/​12ca4c96-d98c-4b37-920a-cdb15ed​b24d4/​S.%201813%20Amendment.pdf. Also called the "conscience" amendment It would have allowed ANY employer for ANY reason of "moral conscience" to deny offering coverage of ANY medical treatment or medication to basic coverage. That isn't too broad, is it? ;-)

Adding insult to injury, this is an amendment attached to, and halting progress on, the Highway Bill, holding up jobs and much needed infrastructure. I'm so glad it's been all about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, right? But good news - Congress' job approval rating went from 10% to 11%. Stellar.

And, the nerd I am, saw some C-SPAN today w/Sebelius (HHS) being grilled by - yes, more panels full of men, about how they don't understand how preventive care and contraception 1) bends the cost curve long term and 2) can decrease maternal and infant mortality. I love bureaucrats, especially when they don't accept women's testimony on women's health issues.

Erin you said it best. " I love bureaucrats, especially when they don't accept women's testimony on women's health issues"

Isn't that the way it is always done in religious fundamentalist theocracies?

But wait, there's still more - Boehner just announced his latest JOBS Bill:

March 1, 2012 "Boehner Vows to Continue Contraception Fight"
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/boehner-vows-to-continue-contraception-fight/

Okay, they DO know we all don't have short-term memory loss, right? Otherwise, they might be concerned over the hypocrisy of "taking away our religious freedom".

"Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule [mandated contraception coverage in basic plans]. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.

In six states, including Arkansas [Huckabee signed], those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.

In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."

At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000." http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

Oh well, probably just hoping voters aren't paying attention and they listen to their one chosen news channel to tell them how to vote.

Michelle, a "common sense progressive" is still a progressive. By definition, gleaned from their political history in this country, their goal is to have the State exercise power to force people to do what progressives want people to do. If Roe v Wade were overturned, the matter of abortion would still be left to the states.

Moreover, and most important--you seem not to know this or to ignore it--conservatives will be quite satisfied if all taxpayer funding is removed from the abortion issue.

By the way, the same people arguing for a woman's "right to choose" are dead set against any defeat of that part of Obamacare REQUIRING employers to pay for birth control and abortion. Are you consistent in arguing the "choice" issue?

Scot,

You lost me when you say the Republican Party is "dumbing down America", and attached the Garden of Eden as evidence. What are you implying in this? If people believe in the Bible are they dumb? I sure hope not, if you did mean this you should reconsider your words. I am proud to believe in the Bible and the Garden of Eden.

What is intelligence? Is it someone who went to college early in life and learned a few things that were documented in books? These courses are presented by professors who know the books but most of them never applied it in the real world. Just because they can site some past history with dates and pass an exam, does that qualify them as intelligent? I call it the beginning of learning.

How about "story problems"; this is where you take the theory and apply it to a simulated application and answer some fabricated questions. Is this intelligence? I call it the beginning of application.

How about doing something in the real world, applying the book knowledge to improve the situation? Now you have applied the book knowledge and adjusted it to the real life project and documented a positive change. Is this intelligence? I define intelligence as someone who has applied knowledge to a real life situation and had positive results. They made the world better in a unique situation.

I am in my 50's, have a few degrees, so what! Just because I obtained the goal of getting a few degrees many years ago does not make me intelligent.

Dumbing down. How many reading this even know what a renminbi is?

How about booting a communist out of the White House? Think about the huge lie of the democrats worrying about our health. All while their fearless leader puffs his cigarettes. How about we are now the United Greece States of America. Who cares, just so long as Robin Hood promises everything will be free just so long as rich people don't run out of money to steal from.

Dayrl, I'm in the words and pictures business its called advertising, been in the business for over thirty years, been recognized for my creative work five times in the New York CLIO show. To answer you question yes I choose my words carefully. I said "some" Republicans and I am always careful to always say "public schools". 

Daryl, you can choose to believe the world was created by a God in six days, you can choose to believe man and Tyrannosaurs Rex were on the plant at the same time. That's whats great about America. "freedom of speech"

But I choose for public school science class; the world has been around for about 4.2 billion years and man has only been on the plant for about 500,000 years. These are scientific facts, and only scientific facts should be taught in science class in public school, which is funded with our tax dollars.

Daryl, I have spent the last week defending Thomas Jefferson am I'm going to have to spend another week now defending Charles Darwin? Maybe a better choice of words is those who believe creationism trumps darwinism are "scientific illiterate".

Scot, who are we to say that evolution is not the instrument of creation?

Just asking.

Will - renminbi - official currency of China, or did I mistakenly say something naughty in slang?

Scott, why feel the need to defend it. I believe in Creation, but will never defend it to anyone, because you have a right to think your way. When you say you have to defend it, it means you are shoving it down peoples throats. Daryl never said nor stated, it had to be Creation. He just pointed out his views, just like you point out your scientific views. I just for one decide to believe in Creation and you believe in evolution. Never defend your stance, because there are no right or wrong answers on this one.

Jerry, thanks of your response, I feel this is a yes or no issue; I do not want the Bible taught as an alternative in public school science class... these are public tax dollars that support these institutions and we need to up hold the US constitution "separation of church and state" what you choose to believe I'm all for "freedom of speech" that's in our constitution too. Again thanks for your comments.

Scot,

I read several times your multiple entries before I wrote my response. I just read them all again to make sure I understood the points. I must say you are taking shots at everyone with plenty of generalizations and assumptions.

On each of the 4 Republican candidates you pointed out negative points. I have not chosen my candidate yet, but I will use Romney as an example of your approach (Bahama money and Staples).

Do you understand how international business works? Business has to have money all around the world to conduct international business. In my operations in Europe, South America and China I had to move money there to conduct business.

Do you understand how the VC world works? A VC takes a distressed company that is about to go under, invests money, creates a business plan, executes the the plan and if they are correct they make money. Staples was a great turnaround story.

Intelligent people do not just read books and pontificate about their view and believe they are smart. Intelligent people take a situation, understand the past, make changes, and have a record of success/failure. They get their fingers dirty working and learn from their mistakes.

You implied if you believe in Creationism and the Garden of Eden you are dumb. You left out the many Democrats that also believe in creationism.

I do not think you are dumb because you do not believe my way.

Dayrl, thanks again for your thoughts... what you just wrote to me went over the top of 70% of America's heads... my response to Alan was disclaimerd that I am taking a marketing approach on how I view this primary, most Americans don't have a masters degree in business, and Mitt has huge uphill battle on his hands this primary season and against president Obama, if Mitt can make it through the convention.

The one with the best ad campaign is going to win this presidential election, and the Republicans need better branding, and desperately need new ad campaigns. Right now all their just doing is shooting each other in the foot.

Daryl, also I'm not posting because I'm a democrat either... I have said this may times before... I'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal, I don't have a political party to rally around; I was just giving out friendly, very straight foward advertising advice... it's what I do for a living.

Scot, now tell us why the majority on the left will not even tolerate mention in a science class of the fact that Darwin himself noted that his theory of evolution had weaknesses in it. Also, tell us why the left refuses to permit the very mention of the fact that there are alternative explanations offered for the origin of life and matter.

Yes, there probably are some fundamentalists who take the Garden of Eden story literally. So what? That is no more extreme than an atheist's absolute certainty that God does not exist.

Above all, there remains to be discovered scientific evidence enabling us to trace any current species of life on this planet into the pre-Cambrian era. To suggest that evolution explains it all would NOT be a scientific statement. Science and religion/metaphysics/philosophy/theology do not even deal with the same "content" that science does. Parties on both sides get caught in this trap regularly. Hence, the fighting.

Ed,

"Scot, now tell us why the majority on the left will not even tolerate mention in a science class of the fact that Darwin himself noted that his theory of evolution had weaknesses in it. Also, parties on both sides get caught in this trap regularly. Hence, the fighting." your quote... Ed, nice to here from you. would agree I would hope our public school science teachers are teaching the correct materials. Ed let me try to clarify my opinion. I posted this on the Tom McMillen post.

Darwin died in 1882 and their have been a ton of scientists who have proven most of his "theory's" to be true. But some choose to believe the world was created by a God in six days, and choose to believe man and Tyrannosaurs Rex were on the plant at the same time. That's whats great about America. "freedom of speech"

But I choose for public school science class; the world has been around for  4.2 billion years, and man has only been on the plant for about 500,000 years. These are scientific facts. And only scientific facts should be taught in science class in public school, which is funded with our tax dollars... my opinion if a student asks the question what created the universe they should be told the truth "we still don't know". Then the teacher could encourage the student when he or she grows up to become a scientist and us find out. But to refer to a book that was written over 2500 years ago by humans not a good idea... my opinion.

So which newscast should I start watching to get the real facts, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, O, Colbert, O'riely, etc... Just laugh with me, because ain't nothing any of them say is facts. It is their interpretation and more importantly, entertainment value.

Jerry - I hear you there. And some of it is pretty darn funny!

Every network has its own spin to attract their demo and therefore ad dollars, but in reviewing many networks and sites, I do find little glimmers of mostly truth (after checking out original doc's and interviews whenever possible). Even on Fox which can be a little light on facts. Heck, any network that has to convince you that they're "fair and balanced" by constantly telling you that they are, you have to wonder sometimes. But their local and international is particularly good and pretty much apolitical. And i stay away from the Opinion pages in general everywhere.

Anyway, this is the world we live in - we have to cast a wide net and be discerning about our information sources. Good luck in your discernment.

Will, if they don't know now, they will shortly, as we will all be using it. LOL ( for those that don't, the currency for The People's Republic of China.)

I don't know for sure one way or another so I posed the question. I have been helping my kid study some pretty advanced science including AP biology, college level chemistry, anatomy, and now physics. The evidence on evolution is much stronger from my perspective.