There is categorically no excuse for not voting…this means you

I have never heard as much bitching and moaning over the political situation in the decades I have been voting as I do today.  The public is convinced that all politicians are either dishonest, incompetent or just plain stupid.  Just maybe all three.  According to an August 2012 Gallup Poll, one in ten people approve of the job Congress is doing.  This gang of “incompetents” passed only 61 laws which are the fewest since 1947.  All because of ridiculous partisan bickering.

And then there are the presidential candidates who probably bear the most extreme feelings of whether or not they are fit for office.  The love/hate relationship voters have with Barack Obama is guided in many cases by just a dislike for the man, which I have a very hard time understanding.  If you watched the President on Dave Letterman recently and then can tell me what there is to dislike about him, I would probably wonder about your acuity.

You may not like Obama’s politics but that is an entirely different matter.  There are some who don’t but that is why you get off your butt and go to the polls in November.  I talked to someone recently that had been so against Barack Obama that this person would never vote for him.  But she told me that now she was going to vote for the President because she doesn’t like Mitt Romney’s politics.  But the point is she is going to vote for the better of two candidates.



Pres. Barack Obama

That’s the American way.  Not sulk and pick up your ballot and go home.  That’s what Susan Page of USA Today says 90 million Americans will do in November.  At best a USA Today/Suffolk University Poll says there’s a 50% chance these laggards will go to the polls.  These slackers “back Obama's re-election over Republican Mitt Romney by more than 2-to-1. Two-thirds of them say they are registered to vote.”  Excuse the name calling but you deserve it.

And here are the reasons the poll found for not voting: “They're too busy. They aren't excited about either candidate. Their vote doesn't really matter. And nothing ever gets done, anyway.  Let’s analyze these one by one.

• Too busy.  That kind of excuse reflects the caliber of the Congress who is to busy trying to get reelected, establish a power base, fill their pockets while in office or all three.

• Not excited over either candidate.  Any individual who cannot do the simple homework to find out which candidate has the most ideas that represent their position is just plain lazy and perhaps dull-witted. 

• Vote doesn’t matter.  Not only is this a stupid attitude, it is mathematically impossible when you consider the popular vote does impact the Electoral College vote.  How the hell do these people think we arrive at a majority?

• Nothing ever gets done.  Well, you know, this viewpoint does have some validity when you consider the Congress we are currently stuck with.  But this attitude fades in comparison with the fact that the way to get something done is to get rid of the current Congress.  To do that you must vote.

Susan Page found one mother of three, Jamie Palmer of St. Joseph, MO, who is 35 and has never voted.  This is incredible, the example of the worst kind of American citizen, who should be placed last on the list in order to enjoy the benefits of this country.  She, of course, should have no say in local, state or federal government.  For anyone to even admit this shows a mentality that would certainly bring the U.S. down if there were too many like her.

The demographics of poll respondents are as follows:

“Only a third calls their household finances good or excellent. Close to half say their annual household income is less than $60,000 a year. They tend to have lower levels of education than likely voters; nearly six in 10 have no more than a high school diploma.”

I was serious about throwing out all the incumbent bums in Congress and bringing in fresh blood, perhaps even less politically oriented in Washington’s ways.  Of course I am biased and would favor those who are progressive, but if you aren’t, you still must vote. 



Mitt Romney

As far as the candidates for president, you do have a choice between two distinct kinds of government.  Barack Obama represents the kind that is beginning to work today as is portrayed by all the upturn signs in the economy.  It’s been slow but his approach is working and shows resilience along with progress.

Mitt Romney represents the kind of government that fostered the financial meltdown resulting in record home foreclosures and jobs loss.  I am talking about George W. Bush’s administration which left President Obama with the worst mess since the Great Depression.

You do have a choice but you must vote to decide just what kind of government the majority of the American public wants.

Paul Ryan is the perfect vice president for President Obama

Think I’ve lost my mind?  A staunch liberal and progressive like me promoting a stalwart conservative, and Tea Party darling, like Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin for vice president has to have an underlying motive.  Well, of course I do, and of course I don’t mean Ryan as a running mate for Barack Obama, but rather for Mitt Romney who has just chosen Ryan to share the campaign trail with him.  In my opinion it basically cinches a win for Obama in November.



Paul Ryan helps another Senior Citizen

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said Romney’s V.P. decision is bad news for the middle class, a large voting bloc.  She says by adopting Ryan’s budget plan, Romney has thrown, “…seniors under the bus and undermined their health security by ending Medicare as we know it. It would increase health care cost for seniors, including those on fixed income, by thousands of dollars a year.”  Refusing to raise taxes, they have put ideology ahead of the general public.

Brazile thinks Romney has turned into, “…the most extreme conservative candidate we have had in generations.”  Good for the kooks on the severe right, including the Tea Party, but it will lose the Independents for the Bobbsey Twins, especially those in the swing states.  While Obama scored with moves to save the economy from depression like rescuing the auto industry, the health care bill, eliminating Osama bin Laden, Ryan was working with House Speaker John Boehner pushing America to the edge of financial disaster.

John King reporting on CNN says that Ryan’s latest budget plan would: “…curb growing deficits by slashing domestic programs and lowering tax rates for individuals and businesses. The Medicare eligibility age would rise from 65 to 67 and spending would be capped. Seniors could stay in the current fee-for-service model or opt to receive government assistance to purchase private health insurance plans.”  Ryan also favors privatizing Social Security.

Romney constantly harped on the President’s lack of business credentials until Obama turned Romney’s business affairs into question with his refusal to release more than two years of taxes, and the fact that Romney says he wasn’t in control of Bain Capital during the significant out-sourcing of jobs.  Senate leader Harry Reid announced a creditable source told him Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.  On top of all this, Thomas M. Holbrook said, “His {Paul Ryan} working-class credentials include driving an Oscar Mayer weiner truck.”

Obama campaign comments on Paul Ryan choice:

Kevin Bohn on CNN quotes a statement from the Obama campaign: “The Republican ticket favors tax cuts for the wealthy while putting a greater burden on the middle class, it would gut Medicare and shift costs to the elderly, and it would make deep cuts in education.”  Continuing, "As a member of Congress, Ryan rubber-stamped the reckless Bush economic policies that exploded our deficit and crashed our economy.”  Do we really want more of the same?

The Ryan budget plan, fully backed by Romney, would repeal President Obama’s health care bill, and Medicaid would be turned over to the states with a $750 billion cut over 10 years.  Medicare would be designed to be run by private insurers and would cost seniors more or offer them less, while traditional Medicare would still remain an option, according to Richard Wolf on USA Today.  It is reported that the block grants to states would be a 33% cut by 2021.



Yeah...sure!

There is a good rendering of Paul Ryan’s array of budget plans since 2008 and leading up to 2012 on Wikipedia.  The amazing thing is that none of his plans fully passed through Congress, with even some Republicans opposing him.  The 2012 version was passed by the House but economist Paul Krugman said the plan didn’t even count tax cuts as revenue-negative.  Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Budget added, we may never balance the budget again, nor do we need to.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman summed it up for the right: over the period of a year, “…Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies – especially the ones with an auto plant in his district–are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property–if it doesn’t like you).”

Enough said.  See you in November.

You will vote in November how your TV tells you to

Well, that’s not all of us.  There are still some thinking individuals out there that will examine the issues and closely evaluate the candidates, then cast their votes in an intelligent way.  Sure, they also watch the television ads but most of them just laugh off the sheer stupidity of two sides trying to make each other look like idiots, socialists, lovers of money, suckers for the needy, the list goes on and on.  That’s the reason most of us have to go to the trenches for our information. 

The GOP is best at the attack and hate ads, created and nurtured to this day by GWB’s top henchman, Karl Rove.  In his latest, “President Barack Obama wears shades, sings Al Green, dances with Ellen DeGeneres, quaffs a Guinness, calls hip-hop megastar Kanye West a ‘jackass,’ and "slow jams the news with Jimmy Fallon.” He is being portrayed as a “rock star,” according to Oliver Knox of Yahoo News.  A dangerous point being made is that popularity is bad.

My headline is based on an article on CNN by Julian Zelizer, “How political ads can elect a president,” that illustrates the issue by documenting some current and past political advertising.  He starts with Rove’s American Crossroads group in an ad claiming that President Obama has “failed to help American families.”  Although the fact that the President hasn’t been able to help these folks is true, the blame lies entirely with Republicans that block everything he does.

You might remember Roger Ailes, Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign consultant who said, “Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it."  Nixon didn’t and he lost the election to John F. Kennedy by 84 electoral votes.  It was Dwight Eisenhower, who Nixon served with as VP, who took the advice of Rosser Reeves who thought it the best way to reach the voters.  He was right.



President Obama



On the other hand, Democrat Adlai Stevenson, a statesman, not a politician, said, "The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process." Eisenhower won that election and the process of “merchandising” a candidate was here to stay.  What is so pathetic is the fact that treating candidates like a commodity has taken away the public’s ability to know just what they stand for…only against.

If you want to see what the old political ads on television looked like, Zelizer suggests a site called Living Room Candidate, which lists them from 1952 to 2008.  The latter an election of both parties offering change instead of more of the same.  An African-American President was elected for the first time over an old warhorse that should have quit long ago, Arizona Senator John McCain.  Well what we did get was change but in the form of a divisive GOP against Obama.

Media doesn't believe in transparency of political ads video:

Zelizer illustrates what types of spots will dictate how your decision will be made in voting for President in November.  First there is the “character assassination spot,” designed to show “perceived weakness of their opponent.”  Lyndon Johnson used this in his “Daisy ad” which was supposed to portray Barry Goldwater with his finger on the nuclear button.  It did and Johnson won.  Eisenhower utilized ads like “High Prices” affecting voters at the time.

GOP, the party of NO

In 1972, Richard Nixon used how Democrats would cut the defense budget, thus, weakening the security of the U.S. to beat George McGovern.  Then in 1988 there was George H. W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad to show Michael Dukakis was weak on law and order.  Bush won.  As an example of the ludicrousness of these ads, the prison furlough program, involving Willie Horton, wasn’t even signed into law by Dukakis.  But the oblivious bunch didn’t bother to find that out.

Zelizer leaves us with the “I am good and you should elect me” spot.  {My terminology}  He says the candidates boast of either what they have accomplished or what they will accomplish.  Jimmy Carter used this in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1984, and Barack Obama with his “Change” slogan in 2008.  All three were elected, although some negativity crept in on both sides.  But it was clearly refreshing while it lasted.

The author warns that Obama and Romney must be careful of the spots they run, as well as those run by Super Pacs that seem to have created a life of their own.  The Pacs are almost completely uncontrolled in the money they can raise and the people they get it from, particularly when it comes to identifying amounts and the donors.  And this is where most of the dirt and hate originates from.  It’ll be interesting to see just how many “positive” messages we get leading up to Nov.

How does President Obama plan to get re-elected in November? – Part 2

In yesterday’s post we covered the Hispanic and Independent voters, the former of which most are probably in the President’s camp, the latter still uncertain but leaning left.  It is a well known fact that Independents have decided elections in the past, but, then, there hadn’t been this surge by Latinos before in both population numbers and their renewed interest to vote.  It could be formidable, and it could be Barack Obama’s blueprint for victory.

Hispanics, along with his majority share of Independents, could give the President the kind of mandate he received against John McCain in 2008.  But there is still yet one more block of voters that have hefty numbers, and which are also a deciding factor in most elections.

Always look LEFT

It is the female vote with polls repeatedly showing that women favor Obama over Romney.  But in the interim Hillary Rosen of CNN opens her mouth and Obama and the Democrats are taking a hit when it should be clearly and completely in the lap of Rosen.  She said on CNN, “that Mitt Romney shouldn't be relying on his wife for guidance on economic issues affecting women,” because she had never worked.  The Romney campaign jumped on this and the politics hit the fan.

Rosen is not officially connected to the Obama campaign and David Axelrod even said the comments were “inappropriate and offensive.” 

One campaign official said that family should be off limits but both the candidate and his wife have thrust Mrs. Romney into the arena so she will just have to learn to take the heat. {The latter, my take}  Later last week, Rosen said, “…that Republicans were attacking her as part of a strategy to divert attention from policies championed by Romney that will hurt women.”  She added, “…does Mitt Romney have a vision for bringing women up economically…?”

Tom Cohen of CNN said, “The ‘war over women’ erupted in full force Wednesday, when Romney said Obama may not have started the recession but his policies extended it, which hurt women.”  He added, “…in his {Obama’s} 3½ years, 92.3% of the people who lost jobs have been women. His failures have hurt women."  Somewhat true, but in need of clarification by federal labor statistics.

The total loss of non-farm female jobs does amount to 92.3%, but the “statistic does not reflect that men constituted a much larger chunk of the job loss pie in the year leading up to Obama's inauguration.”  Further, “In the 2008 calendar year, men lost a total of 2.7 million nonfarm jobs, compared with 895,000 lost for women. Men made up 75.4% of the 3.6 million jobs lost that year.”  Most thinking Americans agree that Barack Obama inherited a nightmare from GWB.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, on NBC’s Meet the Press, “called Mitt Romney's argument that women have been disproportionately affected by the economic downturn ridiculous.’"  He added that, “…the recession and the crisis started at the beginning of 2008 before the president took office.”

On another issue, a Romney adviser balked (“We’ll get back to you on that”) when asked if the candidate would support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Restoration Act that would expand workers’ rights to sue if there is a pay discrepancy between a man and a woman.  The Obama campaign countered issuing a statement from Ledbetter criticizing Romney for not standing up for women and their families.

In summary, should the President sew up the support of the Hispanics, the Independents, particularly this “swing” group, and the female vote between now and November, it is hard to see how he could lose the election.  With Mitt Romney starting in the hole on Hispanics and women, and on the fence with Independents, he has his work cut out for him.  The last two weeks of April and the month of May could very well chart the outcome of the election.

How does President Obama plan to get re-elected in November?

It won’t be easy and at this point it is far from being guaranteed.  It will certainly depend on the Hispanic vote, Independents, and women voters, although CNN’s Hillary Rosen may have muddied the water somewhat with her statements about whether Ann Romney has a real job.  More on that later.  I did a recent post on the Hispanic vote, “How do you get rid of conservatives in government? The Hispanic vote,” that shows some impressive numbers.

• President Obama is the overwhelming choice among likely Hispanic voters.  Head to head, the best any of the GOP candidates could do is get 14 percent of their vote.
• This is a nationwide trend resulting in a rejection of the Republican candidates the more they learn about them.
• 80 percent of the Hispanics voting for Obama in 2008 would vote for him again in November.

Further, today there are five top states where Hispanics represent a sizeable portion of the eligible voting population and they are New Mexico, 42.5%, Texas, 33.7%, California, 27.1%, Arizona, 21.3%, Florida, 19.2%,  There are a number of eligible voters in New Mexico through Florida who are not registered, as follows: 202,650, 2,154,600, 2,026,500, 405,300 and 638,400, respectively.  That’s 5,427,450 potential voters for the progressive side…in just 5 states.

Next, Independents, that voting block that most likely decides the election; of course, Latinos could give Obama a landslide.  According to their website, “

Third Way

is a think tank that answers America’s challenges with modern ideas aimed at the center.”  They say that Swing Independents make up 15 percent of the vote and currently favor the President by 44 percent to 38 percent over Mitt Romney. However, they claim Obama’s “populist” message is turning them off.

Third way claims, “Swing Independents care about ‘opportunity,’ not fairness, prioritize cutting the deficit over reducing income inequality, don't believe the US economy is skewed to favor the wealthy and consider themselves to be haves, not part of the have nots."  That flies in the face of the fact that “prominent Republicans are admitting that Obama's focus on income in-equality has put the GOP on the defensive,” according to National Public Radio.

Ari Berman, the author of “Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics,” says in his NPR article that

Third Way

wants the president and Democratic candidates to drop the populism issue. Berman says, “That would be political suicide, not to mention terrible public policy.”  He also disagrees with

Third Way

that they are the Soccer Moms of 2012 and paints them simply as “fickle souls who can't make up their minds.”

In refuting

Third Way

’s stand on the issues, he quoted a new ABC News/Washington Post poll asking voters: "what do you think is the bigger problem in this country — unfairness in the economic system that favors the wealthy, or over-regulation of the free market that interferes with growth and prosperity?"  The answers were conclusive:

“Fifty-two percent answered ‘unfairness,’ while only ‘37 percent’ mentioned ‘over-regulation.’ A December 2011 Pew poll found that 61 percent of Americans believe the US economic system ‘favors the wealthy,’ with 36 percent saying it was ‘generally fair.’ In a November 2011 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 61 percent of the public said the federal government should "pursue policies that try to reduce the gap between wealthy and less-well-off Americans," with 35 percent saying it should not.”

Who could possibly argue with the concept that financial equality is one of the most important factors for survival, except the wealthy of course?

Part 2 and the women’s vote tomorrow.

Where were the evangelicals in So. Carolina when Santorum needed them?

Who knows?

Former senator Rick Santorum of Penn. finally won the Iowa caucuses over Mitt Romney with 34 votes when the folks in Iowa did their final count.  Sounds reasonable to me considering the high evangelical population in the state but also appears much too close when you consider Romney is a Mormon.  Like JFK’s Catholicism in the November 1960 election for President, Romney’s Mormonism has been a barrier for the religious right from the beginning.

Apparently there were missing votes in eight Iowa precincts that for some reason or other were never received and counted, blamed on the “state’s old-fashioned primary process.”  The missing votes were spread across five Iowa counties and in 2008 that area accounted for a total of 298 votes.  In one such precinct GOP chair, Karen Zander, said about the volunteers, “They had no training.  They didn’t know what they were doing.”

Pretty pathetic for an election that screams to the rest of the country each year that they are the first, and one of the most important votes in the primaries leading up to the primary nomination.  I have never understood the importance of these caucuses, and maybe the rest of the country and future presidential candidates will come to agree after this year.  But Romney’s close second does speak well of evangelical voters in that they were apparently able to put religion aside and vote with reason.



Did the same situation occur in South Carolina?  In the 2008 Republican primary there, 60 percent of the Republican voters defined themselves as “born-again-Christians,” compared with a national average of 44 percent.  Another 69 percent said that the candidate’s religious beliefs mattered in their vote.  In 2012 B-A-Cs jumped to 65 percent.  Also in 2012, religious beliefs of the candidates differed in that 59 percent said they mattered a great deal or somewhat, followed by 19 percent who said not much, 21 percent not at all.

In 2012, 97 percent were worried about the economy in South Carolina; 63 percent thought it was the most important issue compared to 8 percent for abortion.  However, 64 percent did think abortion should be illegal.  Winner Newt Gingrich was helped by the fact that 64 percent of So. Carolinians support the Tea Party and he was apparently able to garner their vote according to exit polls.  But it still isn’t clear if Gingrich can win TPers in less conservative states.

You can see the entire So. Carolina CNN Election Poll results here.

This is all somewhat perplexing since a meeting of the Christian conservative leaders in January of this year in Texas voted to back Rick Santorum, reported Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.  Some of those involved were Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Perkins, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference president Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer.  Members of the media were not allowed at the meeting. 

Newt Gingrich

Although the Christian conservative majority vote was for Santorum, individuals voted for other candidates, such as American Family Assn. founder Don Wildmon who voted for Gingrich.  For those of you who haven’t heard, Gingrich took So. Carolina with 41 percent of the vote, followed by Romney with 27 percent and Santorum trailing with 17 percent.  The winner of the So. Carolina primary has gone on to win the GOP nomination in each election since 1980.

The big question is, if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination, will he be a more formidable candidate against President Barack Obama than Mitt Romney?  He is an excellent debater, but so is Obama.  Gingrich has personal life baggage with his ex-wife that doesn’t play well with religious conservatives where the President is squeaky-clean.  Both men are highly intelligent and there is no doubt in the separation of ideologies.

Like they have been saying for over a year now, 2012 is going to be one hell of an election!