Compare Car

Payday Loans

http://www.powerpaydayloan.com/

Democrats and Republicans Driving Delaware Senate Race

There are so many opinions and politic positions about Delaware Senate Race, not only one. The elections in November 2012 for all the country will renew 33 Senate seats which are held today by 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents. Will this change the Senate composition? What may happen after Delaware Senate Race?
Here we made a little review about the most important candidates:
Thomas Richard Carper (Democrat - Senator last election)
In 2006 he was re-elected, getting 70 percent of the vote, taking his second term as a US Senator. He was at Delaware's government since 1993 to 2001. As this county has a small political community, he has held very popular seats in the US House of Representatives, been elected 12 times in Delaware. He has worked on environmental protection legislation, balancing the budget, energy policies, and gaining additional funding for education. If we take a look on his high approval rating, he will run once again in Delaware Senate Race 2012 as a candidate. He will be 65 years old in 2012.
Chris Coons (Democrat)
Democrat Joe Biden was re-elected in 2008 with 65% of the vote. First he resigned to be Barack Obama's vice president and then in 2009 he resigned the senate, being replaced by Senator Ted Kaufman on January 15, 2009. In the 2010 special election, Chris Coons won the seat with 56.6% of the votes, defeating Tea-party activist and Christine O'Donnell, who was three time senatorial candidate Republican. This Delaware Senate Race candidate will be 51 years old in 2014.
Christine O'Donnell (Republican)
She is a businesswoman and 2010 Republican US Congress primary nominee Michele Rollins. It's not certain if she will run in Delaware Senate Race. She was exonerated of bad appropriation campaign funds. Her possibilities to win may be dampened due to the former Delaware GOP chairman, thanks to a complaint with the FEC for illegally coordinating with the Tea Party Express. Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove publicly criticized hers bid for the latest 2010 elections, perhaps costing her the candidacy.
These are other candidates of Delaware Senate Race 2012:
Mike Castle (Republican) - Congressman, Ex-Lt. Governor, Ex-Governor, Ex-State Senator, Ex-State Representative and Attorney
Jim Rash (Libertarian) - State Party Chair, Realtor & Navy Veteran
Michele Rollins (Republican) - Businesswoman, lost Delaware Senate Race in 2010
Kevin Wade (Republican) - Businessman
Although Tea Party conservative movement could due to grassroots campaigning or via debate, remember that Tom Carper has with a 70% of support in 2006. That is not something easy to revert. As in any kind of election, Delaware Senate Race of 2012 provides the interesting opportunity if hearing the candidates proposals, and think about what is better for Delaware. After all, "not always the past was better" but "best known evil than an unknown good". Let's see what happens during Delaware Senate Race with the political parties, and which tools use each candidate to convince potential voters. There are a wide variety of votes not yet conquered, so they must make a good campaign.

The Paradox of Conservative Political Philosophy in Contemporary America

Conservatism as a political philosophy is difficult to define and locate within a philosophical spectrum. From a traditional standpoint it's more a disposition and attitude than a fully fledged philosophy or doctrine. At an obvious first glance the disposition is about the conservation of values and ideals. This is in terms of abstract conceptions which then have ontological consequences in the political realm. This is because these values often become applied to the preservation of constitutions, political institutions, statutory rights and social values.

Instead of teleological goals, Meta universal theories and eternal truths, the doctrine of political Conservatism is best captured by the description of pragmatism. Piecemeal change where required simultaneously accompanies the philosophical mantra of "if it isn't broke don't fix it". In this respect, Conservatism is the most flexible political philosophy. As where classical Liberalism will not retreat from what it sees as inalienable natural rights, Marxism on the distribution of social wealth, for conservatism, at least in theory, there is nothing in the disposition to restrict it permanently to any ideals. Change and response to social and political phenomena comes about by a concoction of necessity and adaptability. This unique perspective allows one to both look to the future and the past with regards to decision making.

Current Conservatism in America takes a somewhat different tone to that espoused on the European continent. There are of course aspects of Conservatism that overlap. For instance fiscal Conservatism is an idiom applicable to both European and American parties. It is often accompanied by a monetarist economic policy with low business and tax regulation as well as minimal welfare expenditure. Outside the economic sphere the resemblances become much more difficult to detect. America, founded on the doctrine of Liberal Government emphasises the separation of the branches of Government, the separation of Church and State and open free and fair elections, is none the less a republic. A Republic in political philosophy is another ubiquitous term. This is due to the different historical and cultural terms applied to the governmental concept over its long past. Thus the American Republic should not be thought of in the same vein as Plato's or Cicero's Republic.

Nonetheless what we see now in America is an aggressive conservative tone propagated by certain leaders in the Republican Party. Instead of being flexible in current situations and being adaptable to the demands of a current economic and cultural context, this Conservative movement only looks to the past. Thus it is Conservative in one sense but lacks the adaptability and malleability administered by European Conservative action.

Now of course these political proposals are shaped by the current political climate. In the face of aggressive Liberal proposals advocated by the current Democratic Party, the Republicans have to play the part of a polar opposite alternative, which means going to the extremes of Conservatism. Ironically, here these Republican policies are shaped by current contexts but not in adapting to them only reacting to them - going back down the conservational path.

The paradox of current American conservative political philosophy is twofold. Firstly the Republicans value both Conservatism and Republicanism often tied to the principles of the founding fathers, the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence. Here the appeal to antiquity is most apparent but its utility is somewhat erroneous. Take two controversial issues in America over the last few years: stem cell research and homosexual marriage. Instead of being flexible and adapting to change, one might think that exploring stem cell research is a practical modern day necessity that may one day produce better medical results in fighting fatal diseases, the Republicans oppose this. The paradox occurs here because the Republican's are not just being inflexible but its authority for such a position is the recourse to the sanctity of "life".

It would be very hard to argue that an embryo is a "life" in a conventional, social manner but technically it is! But more specifically it is a collection of cells and thus a biological organism only classed as a "life" in the same context as say a plant. But the authority of this is based on the Bible in which all "life" is sacred and no entity has dominion over genetic production and its reproduction over than God. This Biblical notion then supersedes the practical approach that a collection of cells is not a conscious being with emotions and a nervous system and perhaps not a full human life. This aspect of Republican ideology is neither malleable, pragmatic or looking to the future. Instead it is stuck in the past using traditional dogma for justification. This makes it paradoxical because the Conservative disposition should be pragmatic and adaptive when looking to the future. However pragmatism is devoid in the argument as the past reigns superior. Thus, paradoxically, it is not conservatism in its full disposition. Instead "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is replaced by "even if it is broken don't fix it because tradition says so".

However this is not the most serious violation of the Conservative political disposition. The deftest paradox occurs in the most illogical and startling way when applied to same sex relationships and marriage. The Republican Party strongly adheres to the Federalist Papers and its emphasis on individual liberty as well as freedom from the intrusion of others in one's own life domain and the choices this entails - and rightly so for the political works of James Madison and co are philosophical precepts that should be upheld by anyone seeking to facilitate protected Liberty in a political community. The Republicans oppose same sex marriage; and here the paradoxes and logical inconsistencies run wild.

Politics Are the Ultimate Distraction - Turn That Crap Off

They say that politics in any society is nothing more than sound and fury, and chaos and controversy promoted to extreme by the mass media. Indeed, I believe if you would think about this for second, you would certainly agree with what I am saying, as well as those famous political philosophers that have come before me. Perhaps one of the biggest and most important questions right now, as we head into the 2012 presidential election season is; do we really need to listen to all this political rhetoric?

Shouldn't we be keeping our eye on the ball? Why all the Distraction, what is everyone hiding, and why can't we look at the performance of various individuals seeking reelection, and look at the issues, without the political rhetoric and bantering back and forth to no avail. After all, it doesn't really matter if we are playing the game of "he said, she said" or looking for the best "gotcha" points on Facebook or Twitter - we have a country to run, along with our state and local governments, all of this other nonsense is really a waste of time.

Yes I know, it is human nature to want to bitch and moan, complain, and carry-on and commiserate with those you feel a bonding with, and to take all this nonsense and controversy and use it to build your team against the so-called enemy, which is actually your neighbor next door, across the street, or of a different political party. Not long ago, there was a combat veteran running for Mayor in San Diego, and he made an interesting statement he said.

Money In Politics Is Talking Louder Than You

Do any of you remember the movie All The President's Men? That was the dramatization of the Watergate scandal. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman portraying Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Do you remember the advice given to them by Deep Throat... "Follow The Money."
The truth for almost any situation always tends to be at the end of the money trail.
If you're wondering why politicians take certain positions, change their positions, speak one way and vote another... follow the money.
A lot of people use the saying "Money is the Root of all Evil". However, in the Bible, it's actually "The LOVE of Money is the Root of all Evil."
When you ask yourself, why we don't have single payer health care in the USA and couldn't even get the much weaker "public option", what answer do you come up with? Was it the mean ole Republicans?
Was the public insufficiently excited about single payer and/or the public option? Was it that the Administration wasn't skilled enough in their messaging to convince a Democratic Congress at the time to do its bidding?
Or does it all ultimately come back to Money? Campaign contributions are protected under law as free speech. But what happens when my wallet is bigger than your wallet? Is my free speech accorded more weight than yours? Do I possess more influence than you? Do policies get shaped to additionally benefit me, further enhancing my position?
Let's say that you have a friend, and that friend is in need of cash. And you generously provide that friend with the needed sum. And at a later date, you make some request of that friend.
Do you expect that friend with which you were so very generous to ignore or dismiss your request?
Or do you expect that friend to be very compliant with your wishes in light of your previous generosity?
Now you may say that politics is very different from what I just described, but is it really?
In particular, when the very generous friend is able to form a Political Action Committee and bundle millions of dollars in contributions and make them available for the cause of the friend's election. Is the recipient of this generosity really going to be uninfluenced by it?
Or is it more likely that the recipient finds themselves more willing to consider positions favorable to the source of the contributions? Convincing themselves that once they are elected they will be able to serve some greater good, after of course providing the appropriate considerations to those generous friends who made their election possible.
It seems that the only way to eliminate this dynamic is to have all campaigns publicly financed. I don't know what the details of this would be, but I do believe that money completely corrupts the process and shuts out the voices of those without means to participate.
It's been demonstrated that it's very easy to ignore the individual donor who perhaps contributed $5 to a campaign. I submit that it's probably equally easy to ignore the individual donor who made the max contribution of $2,500 (although that might get you an autographed picture or something).

A Politician That Uses Regulations for Political Agendas Would Also Use it to Attack Adversaries

One thing that seems so obvious to me and yet no one seems to be catching it, and no one has made any comments in the media about, is that we have politicians usurping the Constitution at the highest leadership levels through the advancement of the regulatory bureaucracy to promote their agendas.
Okay so, yes, there are some who have caught that obvious power play in Health Care, Energy, Employment, Budgeting, Military, Aviation, and Education, etc - going on right now, but no one seems to have made the connection that; any politician who would use the regulatory bureaucracy to promote their political agendas, would certainly use any and all of the bureaucracy to go after their political adversaries.
Now then, I ask; is that happening right now? Yes, yes, it is. I would submit to you that there are things going on behind the scenes where the justice department for instance is or soon will be beginning investigations into the affairs of regular citizens, businessmen, media, and political supporters of the opposing party.
We know this happens in other countries. In fact, it is so obvious in places such as Venezuela, Russia, and our third world that it is considered the norm. Those who oppose are thrown in prison under trumped up charges, it's such a common occurrence, we just say; "of course" no real revelation there.
Why is it so hard for Americans to see this happening in the here and now, in milder forms? One doesn't really have to read between the lines much to see it, and yet, it seems as if the "enemies list" of any given executive branch never seems to come out until well after the fact, in subsequent years to come.
Many in our society that are on the side of the current leadership, see no problem with this, after all, it is politics, a dirty game, after all - and if their side wasn't doing it, then the other side would be doing it to them instead. Yes, perhaps, but that doesn't make the two-wrongs a right. Nor does it give validity to any argument that politically usurping the Constitution to attack the political opposition is okay, it's not, and it is an abuse of power.