It is with this political calculus that  Romney presses forward with the following quote.

On the surface this sounds like a political gaffe, but I think it truly exposes the way Romney, and in a larger sense, Republicans in general view the poor.  They don’t feel as if they need to be politically accessible to the poor, and they don’t feel like it hurts them politically to ignore poor folk.  I was floored when Romney deferred any political issues relevant to the poor to the purview of Democrats.  Romney essentially said, “I don’t care about the poor, they are taken care of, and Democrats can deal with them.”

In a democracy a vote is a vote, regardless of the economic situation of the voter.  And in these economically difficult times, middle class people who have been out of work for months may actually begin to believe they are really poor.  Ask unemployed people if they believe in American social safety nets.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your question. There is not a “set” criterion for an event such
as this.
A School Board is clearly within their authority to make decisions which
they believe are in the best interest of the district.

We have had such an outcry from literally hundreds of patrons concerned
about the showing of the welcome back to school talk that we were taken by
surprise.
Had there been time to functionally inform parents of their choice to let
their kids view this or not, I believe that would have been done.
The choice to opt out would have been a valid option that would have met the
desires of parents on either side of the issue by allowing those who wanted
to see it to do so, and those who didn’t, to opt out. Logistically it would
have been a nightmare to do this adequately.

We truthfully didn’t receive an official announcement of this until last
night. The Board made the only decision they felt would be responsive to
both groups, with the understanding that anyone will be still able to view
the speech at home in various forms after the speech is given.

I would also tell you that independent of the decision, I personally would
have not blinked if my own kids watched the speech. But viewing it on my own
is a fair alternative.   But for good or bad, and many times for both,  A
Board must make a decision that they feel is responsible and fair. I believe
given the parameters of this situation they have done their best to do just
that.

I certainly understand that there will not be much you will not agree with
concerning this reply, and I truly respect that.

I am adding a copy of the memo that we sent out to our schools.

Sincerely

Chris Sorensen

MEMO

DATE:        September 3, 2009

TO:        Principals

FROM:    Supt. Sorensen

RE:        Video feed of President Obama speaking to school children.

State Superintendent Larry Shumway sent official word on September 2, 2009,
announcing “President Obama’s back-to-school message to school children.”
Supt. Shumway’s message says “the decision to watch (or not to watch) the
President’s speech should be made by each [district] LEA.  There is no
requirement from the USOE, the U.S. Department of Education, or from the
President that any student watch.”

Given the late timing of the announcement, Nebo District has decided that
district students will not participate in watching this speech at school.
The tight timeline presented two main concerns:
1)    With respect to parental responsibility, Nebo District would have
given parents the right to opt out of having their student watch this
speech.  This would have been difficult to appropriately accomplish in such
a short time.
2)    Adjusting for established school and class schedules, technology
availability, and previously planned activities on such short notice would
have created administrative and curriculum challenges for schools.

Parents who wish to watch the speech live next Tuesday can find it on C-SPAN
and on the internet at www.whitehouse.gov.  We would encourage parents who
desire to have their student watch the speech outside of school time on the
internet.

It became clear to many Palin confidants that she was not going to run for a second term, well before this press conference. What surprised many was her end of month resignation. Palin tried to explain it by saying that she didn’t want to be a lame duck for the rest of her term, so she just quit. What boggles my mind is that she could have easily played a little politics and concealed her plans for the future until later in her term of office. It is just a very strange move to quit.

There has to be some other shoe that is going to drop here. If there isn’t, then Palin is simply a piss poor leader who quits when the going gets tough. Does anyone out there really believe that Palin could lead the nation. Would she quit in her third year of her presidential term because the press or congress was going to investigate her. Palin: you’re pathetic.

• Both raised in single parent homes.  My father left when I was three, and in similar fashion to Obama, I feel like I was shaped more by him not being there.
• Mixed Racial Heritage.  My mother was white, and my father was Hispanic.  The name on my birth certificate is Paul Benitez, which clearly identifies my Hispanic roots.  When I was 12, years after the my mother’s divorce, we changed my name to the present Paul Jones Dayton.  Dayton was my mother’s maiden name, while Jones was my grandmother’s maiden name.
• Close relationship with grandmother.  My grandma was like a second mom, or in some ways, similar to a father.

The Salt Lake Tribune has an interesting application that allows you to search for donations to the Presidential candidates here.

I guess you don’t qualify for welfare unless you are a very wealthy corporation which heavily leverages yourself with unsafe investments.  That’s the welfare that the Republicans support.

Hey, I wouldn’t mind a welfare check — but I guess I am not rich enough.