"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Category Archives: 2012 Presidential Elections

Just a few words of gratitude to a few people you may never have thought had a hand in making the recent victories in this 2012 election possible.  

 

Thank You Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana for allowing the Democrats to take away your Senate opportunities.  By exposing your neanderthal views of women the Democrats have held onto the Majority in the upper house.

Thank You FOX News for scaring everyone so bad with fantastical bullshit that even the people who voted for Obama in 2008 but were thinking about sitting this one out felt they needed to give the President one more chance.

Thanks to the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and the 30 other billionaires that gave so generously to their billionaire candidate.  We now know that money really is no object to you and therefore feel no guilt for supporting a decision to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for your income class.

Thanks to the CEOs for Murray Energy, Koch Industries, ASG Software and Westgate Resorts that put pressure on their employees to vote for Mitt Romney.   Threatening workers like this always brings out the best in people who don’t like to be told what to do.  I can only imagine how many more people who were not thinking of voting changed their mind when they got wind of this plutocratic threat.

To those elderly voters in Florida that voted their personal pocket books rather than support the majority of elder citizens who rely on Social Security and Medicare to survive, THANK GOD you were a small minority.  At this time we are still waiting for Florida to swing into the president’s camp but if it doesn’t by only a small margin, then you know who you are.

Victims of Superstorm Sandy wait in line to apply for recovery assistance at a FEMA processing center Friday on New York’s Coney Island. The agency has been praised for its response to the storm.

And finally, on a more serious note, a special thanks to those people on the East coast who lost their homes, along with days and weeks of downtime from their jobs but still managed to take time to make their voice heard in support of someone who knows  how effective the power of government (FEMA) can be in such tragic circumstances.  Thank you too for those volunteers that went out of their way to accommodate those voters by using any and every means they had at their disposal to insure the will of the people was not silenced by an angry lady named Sandy.

Without the efforts of people like these we might all be looking at the next 4 years where the plutocrats in this country gain even greater hold of the political power than they currently do.  The defeats of many in the GOP have stymied this drive for the time being, but the battle still continues because the assaults will never stop.

Get involved. It’s your future.

I would now encourage each and everyone who had a direct hand in bringing this victory about to NOT stop here.  The workings of democracy do not stop at the ballot box.  The president himself has fallen short on many critical issues like climate change, closing GITMO and addressing the easy access to assault weapons that are part of the American mass suicide tragedies we have all been affected by, just  to name a few.  Change in these and other areas are more likely to occur on the local and state level.   The character of politics is really unchanged in Washington, so it will require boots-on-the ground efforts in your communities to show the national leaders what it is the people really want, not the corporate, financial interests on Wall Street.

Get involved.  You are neither too old or too young to make things happen.  All any of us really lacks to make change happen where it is needed is simply the will to do so.  That doesn’t come from being wealthy or well-bred.  It comes from within.  It’s free and it’s there as a part of your makeup.  Look at it as you will – an innate natural ability or a gift from your creator – but don’t think only others possess it.  The others who do make an impact in this world have discovered this gift; not those who refuse to see it.


Will the choices we make November 6th be based on reality or fantasy

Reality  meet  Fantasy

 

Well at long last we’ve arrived at the final week before the Presidential elections and the outcome looks like its going to be a close one.  Most people have made their minds up and supposedly there are still a few holdouts that haven’t been able to determine where the candidates stand on issues they feel are important to them.  Really?  Did they just return to Earth last week or have they been ignoring all political commentary and the debates for better TV fare like Real House Wives or Pawn Stars?

The economy is still the biggest issue for most people and many are basing their choices on how well they think Obama has handled the mess he inherited from the Bush White House.  Thanks initially to Bush’s Secretary of Treasure, Henry Paulson, Wall Street is prospering while many on Main Street have yet to get past this recession.  Yes, I know.  Obama has carried out the second part of this bailout but he didn’t completely abandon Main Street either.

Many voters will be unduly influenced by the distortions and lies they hear from the right about taxes being too high (they’re lower for 98% of us than they’ve been in fifty years) and debunked notions about Obama’s birthright and political philosophy.  Despite bringing many Wall Street types in to fill cabinet and administrative posts and continuing the Bush-era use of torture, keeping Guantanamo open and accelerating the use of drones in Pakistan, Obama is portrayed by the right as a radical who wants to impose sharia law.    Beyond all of this I have heard comments from people I love very much that Obama is weak because he “bows to foreign rulers”.  George W. can walk hand in hand with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia but if Obama extends a cultural courtesy to the man one time, as he did at the 2009 G-20 summit in London, he is somehow demeaning the stature of the American presidency?

Adding fuel to the doubts of some about Obama’s legitimacy to be president is a film recently released with the hope of exploiting this absurdity.  The movie, “2016: Obama’s America” written and directed by Dinesh D’Souza, is what one critic calls a “shaggy, piecemeal right-wing screed” and a “crude and sloppy … piece of campaign-season partisan hackwork”.   Part of the film deals with D’Souza’s attempts to exploit the fear of those duped by the nut-case, Orly Taitz, who claimed she had proof of Obama’s birthright as a Kenyan only to find out it was a forged, amateurish document.

But D’Souza’s scheme is much grander than Taitz as he tries to make the outlandish link between Obama’s “socialist” father and some anti-colonial notion that he inspired his son to spread around the world, I suppose that in the event he would someday became the leader of the free world.  After all, what father doesn’t think his son can be President of the U.S.   So what if the father in this case was an African national who gave his son an endearing American name like Barack Hussein Obama.  Some just dream deeper than others.  Others critics of this film have equally debunked the premises of D’Sousa’s.

Not wanting to be outdone and insuring that his ego doesn’t suffer, Donald Trump is back in the news again challenging Obama’s academic creds.  “The Donald” is a bit of a joke to even most conservatives so I won’t waste a lot of space on this here, but will encourage you to read Jean Calomeni’s Snoring Dog blog piece about this moronic move by the reality TV host.

Obama slams Trump on Tonight Show

I fear that well-intentioned people have been led astray by these huckster’s and to the likely detriment of our democracy in the future.  I have a young friend who posted the following on his Facebook page:

“I don’t care for Obama or Romney but Obama had his turn and didn’t do that good. So Romney it’s your turn buddy! Please do better then(sic) what we had to deal with the last 4 years!”

I just want to shake the young man and tell him that this isn’t a crap shoot.   This is like thinking your luck at a casino will change if there’s a different card dealer.  Learning all you can about poker is more apt to benefit a player than picking someone the casino selects.

Like so many others who have listened more to the angry and unfounded claims of political pundits rather than using legitimate fact checkers and reading a variety of sources that haven’t had their credibility tainted, my young friend is fixing to make a choice that has long-term consequences.  If in fact Romney gets elected and carries out his campaign strategy and promises, this young man’s grandmother’s prescription drug costs will rise once Obamacare is shut down and the “donut hole” comes back.

His own parents’ medical costs will be negatively impacted when they reach the eligible age for Medicare in about ten years if this safety net program becomes the voucher program Paul Ryan wants it to be.  He and his children will suffer the ugly consequences of climate change that are so connected to the increase of CO2 from fossil fuels having failed to implement policies that would convert to cleaner, renewable energy sources sooner.  We’ll all be getting a demonstration of this as Hurricane Sandy makes it way along the East Coast.  It will start to come inland today and meet another massive storm, becoming what weather forecasters are calling a “frankenstorm”.  This monster storm that will impact anywhere between 50-60 million people has possible climate change links from global warming.

The climate change link may be more than just more precipitation. A 2010 study found“Global warming is the main cause of a significant intensification in the North Atlantic Subtropical High.”  Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman explains a possible influence:

Recent studies have shown that blocking patterns have appeared with greater frequency and intensity in recent years….

While it is not unusual to have a high pressure area near Greenland, its intensity is striking for this time of year. As Jason Samenow of the Capital Weather Gang wrote on Wednesday, the North Atlantic Oscillation, which helps measure this blocking flow, “is forecast to bethree standard deviations from the average — meaning this is an exceptional situation.”

I don’t want to disrespect anyone’s decision on why they are voting for the candidate of their choice but I would find greater respect for those who do so for more concrete reasons based on careful study and conviction of beliefs.  In E.A. Bucchianeri’s novel, Brushstrokes of Gadfly, his fiery, idealistic heroine Katherine makes this observation:

“…they say if you don’t vote, you get the government you deserve, and if you do, you never get the results you expected.” 

As important as voting is in a democracy, it is informed voting that will garner better results and ongoing participation in the political process that ensures any likelihood that you’ll get the government you expected.

There will never be an ideal candidate that meets each person’s criteria and values and the 30-second ads during the campaign are not aimed at informing you about what you need to know.  Democracy is a group effort and one that extends beyond the voting booths.  Voting for or against someone because you don’t think he is American enough, or christian enough or hasn’t provided a silver bullet to make everything better is unfair to those of us who have studied the candidates and make choices based on the realties of this world as we best see them.

” … if describing what you want to see happen without providing any specific policies to get us there constitutes a “plan,” I can easily come up with a one-point plan that trumps Mr. Romney any day. Here it is: Every American will have a good job with good wages. Also, a blissfully happy marriage. And a pony.”   Pulitzer prize-winning Economist Paul Krugman

To emerge out of one’s emotional cocoon and make a long-term decision that comes from plutocratic influences and narrow ideological views is a fear that the framers had immediately following the days this country joined the world as its first democratic-republic.  To make a farce of it is to shame us all with those people around the world today who so desperately want to experience what it is like living under anything other than an iron fisted ruler.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Six Facts About Mitt Romney’s Plan


The presentations by the candidates in last night’s presidential debate should have removed any doubt who has the foreign policy strengths.  Obama made distinctions that Romney could only agree with.

In 2008 Barack Obama’s critics said that he was an “empty suit” compared to John McCain on foreign policy.  Though it was an ugly assessment it had great merit at the time.  Obama ‘s national political experience was fairly nascent in 2008 and his foreign policy savvy was almost non-existent.  Had the country not been so determined to shuck the failures and abuses of the Bush administration, which by default fell on any GOP candidate for President, this foreign policy weakness could have lost it for Obama.

Fast forward to last night’s foreign policy debate with Mitt Romney and you see a Barack Obama who has mastered not only the language of a foreign policy expert but who has a broad and in-depth understanding of the matrix that is critical in setting policy here and abroad to sustain a position of leadership in global affairs.  Gone was the “empty suit” that many accused him of being in 2008.  Yet when Mitt Romney clearly displayed a similar weakness last night, as he has this entire campaign, supporters raved how well he displayed a “leadership” image.

Style, not substance, all of a sudden became a ringing endorsement for the crowd that always liked to point out how the GOP had the foreign policy creds.  And it was this approach that apparently seemed to be the card that the Romney campaign wanted to play based on the political spin put out by his operatives following the debate.  During the debate many conservative commentators were lamenting Romney’s performance.

David Limbaugh asked on Twitter, “Why do these advisers tell Mitt not to go for the jugular? Why?  Laura Ingraham was essentially doing the same – Romney using kid gloves ag[ain] — WHY?!”   The ever vivacious S.E. Cupp thought that “Obama is making laughable, easily argued points. But Romney’s not effectively arguing them.”    I find it presumptuous for anyone to say there is any “jugular” there.  Even Romney’s attacks on Libya are falling apart.

Afterwards conservative pundits were trying to portray Romney as “restrained” while painting Obama as agitated and overly aggressive.  Some of us thought we saw the reverse of a Presidential debate #1 and yet conservatives now view the candidates differently.  Looking presidential was more important than attacking your opponents weaknesses.

Try as he did to come off as a poised leader, Mitt Romney was often flustered in how to respond to foreign policy details posed by President Obama

Comments were similar by Romney supporters who went to the blogs to present their views on who they thought won.  It was an obvious defense for a man who had now become the empty suit of the campaign.  His ideas were neither fresh nor pertinent.  His cold-war state-of-mind seemed to think an Iran with nuclear weapons was our greatest national security threat (something they are years away from by the way) yet who had told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer back in March this year that Russia was “without question our number one geopolitical foe”  On this, Obama had perhaps one of the best one-liners of the night.  “The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.”

What was clear about the Romney strategy last night was that since he was a light-weight compared to the President on foreign policy, his goal became, which many say he achieved, not to get entangled in details he has no knowledge about.  His one strength was to try to connect a weak economy with a weak foreign policy effort.  But the President was ready for him on this issue to.  Obama pointed out how Romney leans towards sending troops back into Iraq and appears too eager in suggesting that boots on the ground may be required in Syria and Iran.  “After a decade of war, I think we all agree, we need to do some nation-building here at home,” the President told the audience in his closing statement.

Tying Romney to a cold war, militaristic approach nullified, I thought, any attempt on Romney’s part to assure many voters, especially women, that he would not be quick to send our sons and daughters back into harms way.  This point could have been driven home more vividly had Obama pointed out that the members of Romney’s foreign policy team are essentially the same who helped define the “preemptive strike” doctrine of the Bush/Cheney era.

[On] July 12, Governor Mitt Romney [was] attending a GOP fundraiser hosted by former Vice President Dick Cheney at his home in Wyoming. It’s fitting, really, since Romney has called Cheney a “person of wisdom and judgment.”

[When Romney was considering] possible running mates, it’s worth remembering that he pointed to Dick Cheney as the “kind of person I’d like to have” working with him.

Out of Romney’s 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it’s likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity — a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.    SOURCE   

Perhaps Romney’s performance last night did present itself to many as a calm leader who would not cave under the stress of global conflicts.  This is indeed a quality that exudes leadership.  But knowledge and decisive action speak louder than appearances.  Obama has demonstrated this capability, along with a cool-headed demeanor, and was convincing as commander-in-chief in last nights debate.  Once Romney opened his mouth it became apparent that he was more concerned about having his feelings hurt by Obama while coming across as agreeing more with the President than as someone who has any bold new approach for addressing crises around the world.

If it were appearances we were going for instead of knowledge and certainty then this image of Romney would be appropriate

Horses and bayonets’ is the hot new meme


My comments below were documented about 6 hours before last night’s 2nd Presidential debate took place and have not been altered as a result of anything either candidate conveyed during the debate.

I have issues with Barack Obama.  Many of us on the Left do.  But in the heat of a tight campaign race I am not going to attack my choice for President and thus help someone who I feel will do greater harm to our economy and the future of our planet.  I wish there was this pure ideal of a candidate out there that many people thinks exists, but there isn’t and we all need to get past that.

We have a two-party system that doesn’t always give us the candidates we want but it does allow our participation and it falls on more than simply voting for whoever wins the ticket to create a government that was the envy of the world when it was inaugurated back in 1789.  I realize the Roberts court with its Citizens United decision has made it more difficult by allowing larger amounts of money into politics to influence voters.  For at least the last 150 years, the plutocracy in this country, with the aid of the courts in some cases, have diminished the original concept of a government for and by the people of this land.  But the system does still work if we put more than a faint effort behind it.  So until it doesn’t, I’ll do all that I can to prevent people like Mitt Romney from making choices that can hurt me and almost every other American.

Mitt Romney will double down on the Reagan/Bush policies of trickle down economics and kill what gains we have made since January 2009.  His uncertainty about whether or not the climate science is sufficient is a joke in light of the abundant data available to him and presented by a significant consensus of climate scientists.  The guy makes a rash call on what took place the night the Libyan embassy was attacked before the intelligence is even conveyed to the commander-in-chief, yet somehow he doesn’t have the capability to assess the legitimacy of man-made global warming?  Only a fool would subscribe to such a weak notion and I do not want to waste my vote on a fool.

There’s a certain amount of noise being made by those who have bought in too easily the imagery that has been created by the religious right, the Tea Party, FOX News commentators, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and right-wing blogs like Breitbart and The Drudge Report who want to portray the president as un-American, a Muslim jihadist sympathizer, a socialist/communist/fascist, and yes, even a racist.  They’ve regurgitated this nonsense so long that they have bought into it so completely, now accepting it as unquestionable and can’t understand why anyone would consider voting for the man.

 

Here then, not laid out necessarily in any hierarchical fashion, are the reasons I will vote for Barack Obama instead of the Republican option.

1. He has a broader constituency he considers when making public policy compared to Romney’s narrower concerns for the wealthiest 1%.  He doesn’t belittle and give up on people he feels certain won’t vote for him.

2. He gets it about  “man-made global warming” and though he hasn’t moved fast enough to act on what he knows, he will not be the immovable object Mitt Romney will be on this.

3. He understands that reducing taxes and cutting public sector jobs deprives the U.S. treasury of revenue for paying down our national debt and that free market principles alone will not create the job growth we need at this time.  

4. He is more willing to promote clean, renewable energy as a part of an energy and jobs policy to become oil independent rather than Romney, who wants to open up more dangerous exploration for oil in offshore deepwater and under arctic ice.

5. He has shown that he is serious about reducing health care costs in this country where the Republicans have NEVER made any serious effort at this.  Who wants to vote for a candidate like Romney who supports repealing the one piece of health care legislation that has at least made a dent in one of the highest expenses consumers have to deal with today?

6. He has a better feel for what poverty is really like, growing up around it and at times having lived on its threshold, making something of himself despite the absence of traditional parents.  Many growing up under these conditions and feeling alienated as a mixed-race child might have given into drug addiction and a life of crime.  Instead, the man has fulfilled the American dream and created a stable family life that serves as a role model for others.

7. He supports the free-enterprise system but also understands that it is subject to human weaknesses, requiring sufficient government oversight to protect those who would suffer abuses from greedy corporate interests.

8. He shares my view that values tradition yet understands that the Constitution is a living document and subject to the interpretations of the ever changing social dynamics as opposed to the rigid concept of “original intent” that claims to know what the framers over 200 hundred years ago thought would be best for the general welfare of this nation today.

9. He’s more willing to sustain a lot of what belongs to the public commons rather than turning it all over to the for-profit private sector.

10. He’s shown greater concern and support for public education while Romney and the GOP work with wealthy special interests to privatize education.

11. He fulfilled the spirit of compromise more than the GOP who refused to work for the common good and allowed itself to be hi-jacked by a radical element that voted NO on everything that didn’t meet their strict and narrow criteria.

12. I feel safer that he is less likely to send our military troops into harms way and doesn’t alienate other cultures and nations with an obnoxious level of American exceptionalism.

13. He doesn’t show the disdain and indifference for science that too many in the GOP do.

14. He thinks women should make equal pay for equal work.

15. He thinks the American worker deserves a minimum wage

16. He too thinks it is dishonest and selfish for people of great wealth to hide their fair share of taxes in off-shore and overseas accounts while voting against a livable wage for the rest of us.

17. His tax rate is more comparable to mine than Romney’s 13% and has shown ample evidence of this in releasing years of tax records to Romney’s one and half.

18. He hasn’t threatened to restrict civil rights in the form of banning gays in the military,  creating a constitutional amendment opposing same-sex marriage and insisting women‘s bodies be invaded to support extremist pro-life views.

19. He supports a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians where Romney sees “no hope” for this.

20. With four of the nine members of the Supreme Court over 70 years old, the next occupant of the White House could have the opportunity to appoint one or more new justices.   Don’t want Romney adding more Scalias and Thomas’.  Think what would happen to Roe v. Wade

As I mentioned earlier, there’s a lot of money out there in politics and this invariably opens the door for corruption and influence peddling.  When you look at both campaigns however one thing sticks out with the Romney campaign – they’re getting much more larger individual donations.  In August, the average donation was $58 for the Obama camp.  Ninety-eight percent of donations were $250 or less.  Romney’s campaign has not been that forthcoming on what their average donation is but it is clearly higher than Obama’s . What little I did find on Romney’s was in this AP report where representatives said “about 94 percent of its donations came from people who gave $250 or less.”

You get a better idea how much more each donor is giving when you look at state and local coffers.  In San Antonio the average contribution to the Democrat’s campaign was $135 while Romney was pulling in an average of $681 per donation and  in New Jersey Obama’s average was $149, compared with an average of $802 for Romney.  Opensecrets.org also shows Romney’s top contributors are outpacing Obama’s.   Even more glaring is how many billionaires have lined up in the Romney camp.

What also repulses me about electing a Republican as President or even for dog catcher is their brazen attempts to eliminate qualified voters by pushing voter ID laws.  Voter fraud is a fear mongering tactic used by those on the right and most of them know that the threat of in-person voter fraud is wildly exaggerated.

So I am voting for Barack Obama even though my vote won’t carry much weight in Texas where the GOP is sure to walk away with all the electoral college votes.  There are caveats to my reasons and imperfections that can be pointed out.  But they are insufficient to make me think that Romney would be the better choice.  Should Obama be successful in gaining a second term then I will spend as much energy challenging his decisions I object to, like continuing the practice of torture, privacy right violations and his deadly use of drones.  Issues that few Republicans would find fault with.

As president I understand that he may feel the need to continue such practices, seeing the world from a vantage point the common man or woman can’t.  But if we have learned anything from the Bush White House’s reason for taking us to war in Iraq, it is that we shouldn’t hesitate to challenge the Executive branch’s claims that rationalize calls to war or human rights violations.  Actions to defend any national security interests should be based on the highest legal & moral standards, not the influences of wealthy, powerful self-interests.


There are no comparisons to be made. This is not like war or plague or a stock market crash. We are ill-equipped, historically and psychologically, to understand it, which is one of the reasons why so many refuse to accept that it is happening.  What we are seeing, here and now, is the transformation of the atmospheric physics of this planet. author George Monbiot 

At a time when a growing consensus of climate scientists are telling us more severe climate change from increased atmospheric CO2 brought on by our use of fossil fuels is highly likely, do we really want a climate skeptic in the Oval Office ?

 

There’s an argument to be made that what Mitt Romney has done all of his life as a venture capitalist won’t significantly serve him in creating real job growth.  This type of work entails providing capital, usually other people’s, for business start-ups or expansions. They look for a high rate of return for their investment but often know very little about the business they are risking other people’s money with.

Critics within his own Party have challenged his business skills referring to venture capitalists as vultures, who “sit there, and … wait until they see a distressed company, … then they swoop in and … pick the carcass clean and fly away,”  says Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Newt Gingrich said it really isn’t good capitalism.  I think it’s exploitive. I think it’s not defensible,” he told reporters in South Carolina back in January.   

Economist Dean Baker agrees with both Perry and Gingrich

Bain Capital is not about producing wealth but rather about siphoning off wealth that was produced elsewhere in the economy. There is no doubt that one individual or one company can get enormously wealthy if they are able to do this successfully. However you cannot have an entire economy that is premised on the idea that it will siphon off wealth produced elsewhere.  SOURCE

So, not only is there reason to doubt that Romney’s business model will serve the nations’ need to create real job growth but it brings into question his ability to address perhaps the worst issue we and every other nation are currently facing – climate change from anthropogenic global warming.

I can imagine the heads of many people exploding at the thought of this.   Huh?  What’s that?  Are you talking about what Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and a few other politicians are calling “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people.”?   Our nation desperately needs jobs and your raising the question about a hoax?  

Yep.  I am indeed.  And here’s why.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NO HOAX!

Recent studies have shown that unless we start taking more dramatic steps to curb the CO2 content being emitted into our atmosphere from spent fossil fuels, the destruction from climate change on global societies “could claim the lives of 100 million people in the next two decades and lost economic prosperity in world economies would be measured in the trillions of dollars”

Findings contained in the “Climate Vulnerability Monitor”—a study sponsored by 20 nations and conducted by the humanitarian and development research organization DARA—point to unprecedented harm to human society and current economic development if runaway carbon emissions are not contained and new models of energy generation and consumption are not pursued.

“A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade,” the report said.

Oxfam International executive director Jeremy Hobbs told Reuters that the costs of political inaction on climate were “staggering”.

“The losses to agriculture and fisheries alone could amount to more than $500 billion per year by 2030, heavily focussed in the poorest countries where millions depend on these sectors to make a living,” he said.   SOURCE  

If this analysis turns out to be accurate, jobs will be the least of our worries in a few short years.  It’s not that we won’t be busying ourselves with some kind of work but it will be that of making preparations to survive food and water shortages, not to mention attempts to barricade our borders from the hordes of people making their way to our shores to escape the serious consequences of climate change they have already encountered in their homelands, like Africa and third world nations on the Asian continent.

Not only does Romney have dubious credentials to spark economic growth for anyone other than the top 1% but he apparently doesn’t have an urgent sense of the threat that man-made global warming poses for civilization.  Climate change, like many of the businesses he invested in, is not something Romney knows a great deal about.

To his credit he did say that the world is getting warmer, [and] that human activity contributes to that warming.”  But he’s clearly paying lip service to the threat of global warming when he confesses that he believes “there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue.”

FACT:  97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes when asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The belief that there is no consensus by climate scientists on man’s contribution to climate change is scary in light of the facts that more than contradict this.  This dangerously naive view is the same position that the Koch brothers and the CEO of Exxon/Mobil hold.  These are people who have paid millions to various groups to dispute the climate science for obvious reasons that will impact their long-term economic self-interests.  So for Romney to take this tact is to side with these nefarious corporate shills and risk the future of not only our economic survival but the survival of the planet itself, a risk that voters just can’t take.

So how would Romney the venture capitalist, who knows very little about this critical issue, take his Bain Capital expertise and try to employ it in the face of these likely catastrophic scenarios?  Believing that people like Exxon/Mobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson and oil supply billionaires Charles and David Koch are the job creators, would he view 100 million lives as a necessary loss to insure the continued profits for those in the fossil fuel industry?   Tillerson characterized these devastating climate change scenarios as something  that “could be solved by adapting” to such risks.  Easy for him and his wealthy cohorts to say who probably have secluded and well-stocked fortresses in remote areas around the globe when natural disasters occur.  

It’s very likely that when many of these 100 million human beings start dying off that they will instinctively move to those regions that still have ample supplies of food and water.  Western Europe and the North America would be two areas at the top of their list.  Is it any wonder then that Romney and the GOP are diametrically opposed to any spending cuts for the military as part of any deal to reduce the deficit?

So it might not be outside the realm of probability to think that rather than taking the steps necessary to reduce man-made global warming, Romney would instead instinctively act on his business model that always seeks to assure the highest return on his investment?  One way of doing this might be to advise the wealthy capitalist that share his aspirations to invest in all things related to security?  Just think of all the job creation such activity will generate.

Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians did what was in the best interests of this planet and its occupants rather than the self-interests of a small group of very wealthy people?

Why do we foolishly buy into the notion that people who have accumulated vast sums of wealth are necessarily smarter than those who don’t?  Are material assets realistically the true measure of wisdom and insight?  Obviously you must have a certain amount of genius to be a successful entrepreneur to create and run a productive enterprise but does this genius translate into all other fields of thought?  If this line of thinking were true then why couldn’t you trust your heart valve replacement to your podiatrist?  Both of them have earned a degree from an institution of higher learning.

Yet people like Rex Tillerson, the Koch brothers, Donald Trump and other prosperous people are weighing in on this issue of climate change as if they had equal insights into this phenomena at the same level as, say, Dr. James Hanson, who first laid out the threat of global warming to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works back in 1988.

Dr. James Hansen

Should somehow we find Romney winning the election next month, I would like to believe that he has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth over the last two years just to appease the various groups in order to win the nomination for more nobler purposes than what he has demonstrated thus far?  I would like to believe that he is smarter than someone who thinks global warming is a hoax and that man-made climate change is not a conspiracy by Al Gore and a handful of scientist to get rich off of higher energy prices.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Romney’s strategy to create the 12 million jobs – a promise he has made but has yet revealed to anyone how he would go about it – were to be achieved by implementing the recommendations of those who strongly support reinvesting in cleaner, renewable energy sources?  Not just here in the U.S. but around the globe, especially in those countries who will be hit the hardest by climate change.  According to a 2008 United Nations Environment Program report we can transform our dying planet effected by fossil fuel consumption to a sustainable one by the next generation through the primary use of clean, renewable sources, IF we act now to reduce our use of dirty finite sources of energy.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Romney really was someone who did care about the 47% he says don’t pay taxes and are dependent on the government?  Wouldn’t it be nice if his plans really did entail measures to refute those in Congress who continue to support Big Oil while stiff arming efforts to expand renewable energy sources to rebuild our economy?

Climate change from increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is a threat to our livelihoods as well as the future of our children and grandchildren.  Rather than the failed 20th century policy of trickle down economics and the 19th century belief that it’s “everyone for themselves”, wouldn’t it be nice if Romney was part of the 21st century thinking needed to prevent further deterioration to our ecosystem?

And now a little number to accommodate my post this morning sung to the tune of the Beach Boy’s “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”

(Yes, yes.  It’s a little hammy but hey!  Lyric writing is hard work, right Mrs. Romney?)

Wouldn’t it be nice if we were smarter

Then we wouldn’t have to wait so long

To change the ill effects of green house gases

In the kind of world where we belong

You know its gonna make our lives much better

If we could all just simply come together

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wake up

In the morning when the day is new

No longer ever having feelings of worry

If we’ll still be here in 2052

Happy times together we’d be spending

If glacier melts were not soooooooo unending

Wouldn’t it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true

Maybe then there wouldn’t be a single thing we couldn’t do

We could be healthy

And then we’d be happy

Wouldn’t it be nice

You know it seems the more we fight about it

It only delays the urgent need to change it

So quit talking about it

Let’s all save the ice

Good night deniers

Sleep tight skeptics

RELATED ARTICLES

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds

The Fragile Earth

Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Does Mitt Romney Really Understand Energy?


I feel like I’m in something of a Dickens Twilight Zone.  Are we all being transported back to a time in human history when debtors prisons and workhouses for the poor were the norm in dealing with those lower income levels Mitt Romney has deemed the 47% not worthy of his concern?

 

There is often the blind assumption that the poor are always responsible for their plight

 

We’re all familiar with that part of the Charles Dickens’ classic, A Christmas Carol, where Ebenezer Scrooge is approached by two gentlemen gathering donations during the Christmas holiday to help provide “some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time”.  Scrooge frowns and shakes his head at the two men as they entreat him to donate.  He tells the men to leave him alone after assuring them that such ne’er-do-wells can best be assisted by the prisons, workhouses, treadmills and poor laws that were still in place then.

I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

One of the gentlemen replied, “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.  Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”  SOURCE 

That last line about how Scrooge wasn’t even aware that conditions were so bad at those workhouses that “many [of the poor] would rather die” is symptomatic of very wealthy people who often view most poor people, especially those so destitute that they are homeless, as lazy derelicts and what aid they receive is more than they deserve.  Some would view them as the secured caste in India, better known perhaps as “the untouchables”.

Those institutions Scrooge mentions were publicly supported.  They were the harsh government efforts by which the poor were dealt with in early 19th century England.  They are a far cry from what civilized Western societies offer today who treat people much more humanely and provide esteem-building incentives to overcome their poverty.  For example:

The  Poor Law was the Victorian answer to poverty [that] was enacted in 1834. Prior to passage of the New Poor Law, indigent care was the burden of individual parishes, but the new regulation required parishes to band together and create regional workhouses where the poor could apply for relief. Little more than prisons for the poor, workhouses were notorious for denying civil liberties, separating family members, and destroying human dignity. As a result, most of the poorest people went to great lengths in order to avoid this degrading solution.    SOURCE

 

Though we have become more humane over the last two centuries there are signs that some segments within society would like to “Restore America” to a level and time where such humane assistance was not available.  Take for example Mitt Romney’s comments recently in an 60 Minutes Interview with Scott Pelley:

Pelley: Does the government have a responsibility to provide health care to the 50 million Americans who don’t have it today?

Romney: Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people– we– if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

If I were Pelley I would have followed up this comment and asked Romney, “what about the aftercare these people will need Governor?  Many can’t afford it and because of it will surely die”.

The refrain from many of those who will either be voting for Romney or against Obama is “Let ‘em die!” .   Of course Romney and others within the GOP hierarchy would not be so brazen to simply say let them die but the policies they support are creating that very condition.

Those politicians who signed Grover Norquist’s No Tax pledge have agreed to shrink government small enough so it can be drowned in a bath tub.  This means deep and lasting cuts to social welfare programs that  provide “some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly …”   Some recent news has revealed that this tactic is having the “Scrooge Effect”.

For generations of Americans, it was a given that children would live longer than their parents. But there is now mounting evidence that this enduring trend has reversed itself for the country’s least-educated whites, an increasingly troubled group whose life expectancy has fallen by four years since 1990.

The reasons for the decline remain unclear, but researchers offered possible explanations, including a spike in prescription drug overdoses among young whites, higher rates of smoking among less educated white women, rising obesity, and a steady increase in the number of the least educated Americans who lack health insurance.   SOURCE 


The conditions mentioned in this report, that scientist feel may be the causal factors for lower life expectancies for the country’s least-educated whites, are predominant in the South along with two adjoining states – Texas and Oklahoma.  This has become a region of the country that routinely votes Republican in large numbers

Red staters love their tobacco and high fructose, fatty foods.  A 2006-07 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health showed that those age 12 or older in 6 of the states in this region had a higher rate than the national average of 8.1 percent of people who had used an illicit drug in the last month.   That region’s high school graduation rate was a full 8 points below the national average of 74.9%

Based on the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the national average for uninsured people was 18.4 percent in 2010.  Half of the states in the South including Texas and Oklahoma had higher rates, with my home state of Texas leading all others at 25% – 1 in 4 Texans have no health care coverage.  These rates will likely improve over time thanks in part to that “socialist” legislation Republicans are trying to repeal and derisively call “Obamacare”.  The Congressional Budget Office projects that 32 million more people will have insurance by 2019.

 

What jumps out and grabs me the most in all of this is how this region of the country consistently votes against their own self-interests.  In sheer numbers, these states draw in the larger share of public assistance programs than any other region.

In a NY Times article earlier this year, data revealed that “the share of Americans’ income that comes from government benefit programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, more than doubled over the last four decades, rising from 8 percent in 1969 to 18 percent in 2009.”  Take a look at the map below to see where the greatest concentration of these needs are located.

The darkest areas are where the highest concentrations of social welfare beneficiaries reside

Click on image to interact 

It quickly becomes clear that those areas of the country that routinely vote Republican are most dependent on welfare assistance; benefits that Republican elected officials routinely vote to reduce or eliminate altogether

Voters in this region also elect politicians that favor legislation that enriches corporations while ignoring matters that would reduce the effects of obesity, smoking, drug use and health insurance coverage.  Regulations aimed at mollifying the ill effects of poor diets, smoking and pollution are always cited as government overreach by GOP representatives, often ignoring how the consequences of their actions are leading to the advanced death rates of those least-educated whites.  

By getting these voters to support legislation and policies that diminishes their chances of survival, the Romneys of our age, the modern day Scrooges, have surreptitiously collaborated in reducing that surplus population who rely on Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare benefits; benefits they are entitled to.

Do the Grover Norquist loyalists think in terms of reducing this population to advance their own income status?  Are they really unaware that these low and middle-income people who collect these benefits in most cases are part of that work force that enabled the 1% to acquire their fortunes?  Without a labor force that earns a living wage there would be far less demand for the goods and services that businesses rely on to make a profit.  Depriving them of the means to enhance their lives and become productive members of society is a short-sighted effort by those who actively seek to eliminate safety net coverage, vital resources for retirees and those who lack adequate health coverage.  Such a strategy is bound to come back and bite the Scrooges of the world on the butt and ultimately pick their own pockets.

[T]he United States has experienced an upward redistribution so profound that it affects far more than incomes. Whole sectors of the economy and regions of the country have been decimated by these economic changes. The descent in all manner of social indexes is most apparent among poorly educated whites. Conservative commentator Charles Murray has documented in his new book the decline in marriage rates and family stability within the white working class. … While other Americans’ life expectancy has advanced, the life expectancy of whites without high school diplomas has declined since 1990 — by three years among men and five years among women.

The market is not just redistributing income in the United States, then. It is redistributing life.  - Harold Meyerson

 

The two gentlemen who confronted Scrooge for a charitable donation were not buying into his statement that he was unaware of the deplorable conditions in the workhouses

“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.

“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

It is only later, when confronted with his own mortality that Scrooge concludes that mankind is indeed his business more than he is willing to concede.  We also discover that his assets are far greater than he had led us to believe as he gives generously to these two men later as well as to the Cratchits and his own family.  What Scrooge learned was that accumulated wealth may indeed be an individual right but it doesn’t permit us to cut ourselves off from the rest of humanity.

Believing that we are independent of each other and that our success is based solely on our own actions is a bogus premise.  Believing too that an unfettered free market is the sole answer to our economic survival ignores the lessons of history where human greed will always prevent a fair shake to allow a rising tide to lift all boats.

When the system fails, and it will because mankind has yet to create a singular equitable system, we need to allow those public resources to fill the voids where charities and local efforts alone can’t.  No one should plan their life around the charity of others or rely on a public safety net to catch them when the economy falters.  Common sense however tells us that inevitably there will be conditions that require some kind of system in place that can address this failure.

But neither should we have to fear that opportunities exists only for the fortunate ones who inherited their wealth or are a member of an advantaged group.  The revered notion of an American dream does not mean we will all share equally in the wealth that free markets generate but it should ensure that mechanisms are in place to provide the necessities for good health and security without being an undue burden.  Corporate interests must put people, especially their employees on a level plain with their profits.  They are not mere objects for venture capitalists like Romney to dispose of in order to maximize their bottom line.

Until we can find a better economic substitute for the free market system, it will fall on the wealthiest amongst us during tough economic times like these to make necessary sacrifices.  Not the 47% who Romney wants to ignore.  These are usually the people who get squeezed the most, making it even more difficult to sustain a reasonable measure of security and good health.  There are no throwaway human surpluses.  Only those who are kept down by soul-less people who have contrived a misguided premise that we ” are all on our own.”

 


I routinely take on the right-wing crowd here in my part of red-state Texas by countering their skewered views about Obama, health care reform, the economy and climate change.  During my hiatus I still take time to respond to this crowd in the local newspaper’s Opinion page.  Their arguments are so open to factual criticism that it doesn’t take much effort to knock down their straw man positions.  The following is an example of these rejoinders.

You’ll first need to do a quick read in the Denton Record-Chronicle’s “Letters to the Editor” column today of Danna Zoltner and D.J. Anderson’s letters.   Here are my comments found at the bottom of the page responding to these two.

To Mr. Anderson and Ms. Zoltner

The so-called “job creators”, who are sitting on plenty of revenue that could create jobs are doing so not because they’re waiting for Obamacare to be repealed or they’re uncertain of what the tax structure will be.  These kind of things can be overcome when there is plenty of demand.

The economy will grow from the middle out by making sure you don’t reduce the middle class or their spending power.  The unemployment problem isn’t the result of any imagined high tax rates but because there is insufficient spending to create demand.

Any economists worth his degree will tell you that demand is what creates jobs and when you kill public sector jobs as the only means of reducing the deficit you kill income from families who spend it in the private sector.  As their spending reduces then their demand is taken out of the economy and eventually it impacts many private sector businesses that relied on dollars earned by teachers, cops, firemen, along with engineers and assembly line workers at companies who developed and built things that relied on government contracts to keep them profitable.

Rather than take money away from the middle class that are barely able to stay above water with wages that have increased only fractionally to that of income earners in the top 5% tier, why not tax that 5% during these difficult times who can better adapt, at least until the economy is back on its feet.  The austerity measures that the GOP wants to impose have already proved to be a failure where they’ve been employed in Europe.

Trying to pay down the debt with spending cuts only in areas that benefit millions of Americans and that puts money back into the economy will fail as long as there is no effort to also trim the massive Defense budget or increase taxes prudently.   Author David Korten says “our social deficits (rising poverty and inequality) and environmental deficits (starting with the climate crisis) do more to erode our society than the fiscal deficit does.

Economists at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) have identified seven steps that would bring in $329 billion a year, which is more than enough to eliminate the deficit while making the country more equitable, green, and secure.

All this could be done without negatively impacting the income and thus the spending power of the middle class, the economists at the IPS assure us.  By reinstating this spending, Mr. Anderson, is how you “build the economy from the middle class out.”

While corporate profits are at all time highs most of this money remains in the pockets of the very wealthy rather than creating jobs with.  In fact, due to the European debt crisis it has been reported that now only 23 percent of the firms polled in June plan to add to staff in the next six months. This is down 13% from earlier this year in March and early April. 

Back in 2010, while middle income families were losing their jobs and watching their paychecks and health benefits shrink, “American businesses sucked in profits at an annualized pace of $1.66 trillion between July and September.  These profits allowed about a 6% increase in CEO pay last year while the average workers income increased only about 1%, “not enough to keep pace with inflation”. 

And Ms. Zoltner, though you may be concerned that “the American taxpayer has gotten precious little for the administration’s investment in battery-powered vehicles, in terms of permanent jobs or lower carbon dioxide emissions”, efforts to change this are in play.   Despite your mimicking of the naysayers, Ford, according to Bloomberg news, is  “debuting five battery-powered models this year, spending $135 million to design electric-drive parts and double battery testing capacity”.

“Ford has said hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and all-electric cars will account for as much as 25 percent of its new vehicle sales by 2020, from less than 3 percent last year. The second- largest U.S. automaker is competing in the nascent market for electrified vehicles with Toyota, General Motors, Nissan and startups such as Tesla and closely held Fisker Automotive.

Ford said it plans to hire “dozens” of additional engineers for electric-vehicle development. It’s also renaming its 285,000-square-foot (26,477-square-meter) advanced engineering center in Dearborn, Mich., the “Ford Advanced Electrification Center.”    SOURCE

You know, it took years for the fossil fuel industries to finely provide abundant cheap energy.  Efforts that required plenty of government subsidies along with private investments.  I am curious why you and others who think like you, are not willing to allow the same to occur with clean, abundant alternate forms of energy.

But it seems some people would rather distort certain realities and rely on the failed policies of trickle down economics that the Romney/Ryan ticket would recreate in spades.

They are part of the crowd that Bill Clinton eloquently pointed in his speech at the Democratic Convention earlier this month who are essentially saying, “We left [Obama] a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.” 


In politics it seems to becoming the norm to disparage anything that once had value until it works against you.  

“Sorry, you’re no longer needed”


After reading conservative columnist Kathleen Parker’s contribution recently, an observation that had been lingering as some fragmented form in my mind for months became crystalized.  The gist of this observation is that we tend to turn on that which no longer serves our purposes.  Underlying this wrecking ball tactic is the need to dismiss the value of certain people, institutions and ideas that could impact how voters behave at the polls.

Both Liberals and Conservatives spit out those candidates who were likable just a few weeks previously because they had the audacity to question certain ideological premises.  This practice even has a name in the Republican party.  RINO – Republican in name only.  It reflects the rejection of those candidates who extremists in the Party feel are too close to the center.  To them, you’re not a real Republican if you’re not draped in the flag, have a copy of the Constitution in your back pocket, some christian symbolic jewelry attached to your body or clothing and free market principles tattooed on your ass.

In Parker’s column it was a category that poll takers utilize  in their surveys these days to determine “likability” of the candidates.  A seemingly small item compared to excommunicating people from the Party, but it none-the-less seems to follow this separation mentality that wants to distance itself from something previously beneficial.  In her analysis of this rating category she makes this cogent point:

One of the great fallacies of politics — and life — is that one must be liked to be effective.

It helps, just as it helps to be attractive or athletic or kind. But let’s be honest: It’s almost impossible to like candidates once you get to know them.

Yet we dedicate an awful lot of time to measuring candidates’ likability and forcing them to pretend to be someone that some political consultant thinks we’ll admire.

I almost totally agree with Ms. Parker.  The reservation I have about this not being a useful assessment of the candidate however is something the Republicans are adept at convincing voters to consider in their candidates.  Does he or she share my values?  The ‘likability” rating reflects this notion I believe, even if the values that politicians declare are not always reflective in their lives.

Now I haven’t read Ms. Parker’s columns religiously over the years so I can’t honestly say if she has touted the “values” card when it suited her or has downplayed the “likability” label when it was attached to those she favors to win an election.  Did she write on this when George W. Bush was being put forth by his campaign as “the guy you could have a beer with”?  Ms. Parker is an astute writer that I admire but it is always clear which side of the political spectrum she sits on.

This column is no different.  The fact that she raises the notion that such ratings have no real worth in a campaign is curious since it follows the extremely low “likability” ratings Mitt Romney received compared to Barack Obama.

A few days ago, a Reuters/Ipsos poll was released with this headline: “Obama gets high marks on likability, weak on economy.”

Well, that clears things up. The economy is tanking, but he’s a nice guy — more likable than Romney by 50 percent to 30 percent, according to the poll. Forty-one percent said they believe Obama “understands people like me.” Only 28 percent said the same about Romney.

The same poll also found that 75 percent believe the economy is on the wrong track, compared to 17 percent who think it’s doing all right.

Who are these people?

I suspect a lot of them are the same people who thought George W. Bush was the best man for the job because of his professed Christian values.  This image was succinctly brought home to me during the 2004 primaries.  I was an active volunteer for the Howard Dean campaign and was out knocking on doors to raise support for the man.  Dean had already risen to notoriety so was not an unknown factor to most people.  Then again in red-sate Texas it’s not unusual at all for people to simply vote the straight Party ticket without having a clue who represents the opposition.  This may have been the case for the elderly lady who came to the door and, once she found out which candidate I was promoting, demurely put me off by saying, as she slowly closed the door in my face, “I think I’ll vote for the Christian”.

Now don’t misunderstand me.  Ms. Parker’s argument has merit and it’s not that she is a conservative that in and of itself raises certain questions.  It’s the timing of it all.   The polls overall in most ratings show Obama and Romney neck and neck with both having some leads over the other in certain categories within the poll’s margin of error.  But not this one.  This one leans so heavily in Obama’s favor that it was only a matter of time before someone sympathetic to the Romney campaign would question it’s value and in fact dismiss it as unnecessary.

What is it about Mitt Romney that people find unlikable?

 

I regret it has been someone as “likable” as Kathleen Parker.  She doesn’t emote the vile feelings liberals have towards those like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or the fundamentalist TV evangelist, Pat Robertson.  But likable or not, Ms. Parker does need to be called to the carpet for attempting to add to the demise of another component in our political discourse.  I have noted in the past that people like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich have demoralized the institution of Congress and even the Presidency in their efforts to recapture control of those institutions.

In their book, “It’s Even Worse Than it Looks: …”, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein reveal how Newt Gingrich shortly after being elected to Congress in 1978, went after the Congress to undermine it for personal gain. This revelation also seems to explain why we have the partisanship and grid lock that exists in Congress today.

“What was Gingrich’s strategy? He was both passionate about his goals and coldly analytical in his means. The core strategy was to destroy the institution to save it, to so intensify public hatred of Congress that voters would buy into the notion of the need for sweeping change and throw the majority bums out. His method? To unite his Republicans in refusing to cooperate with Democrats in committee and on the floor, while publicly attacking them as a permanent majority presiding over and benefitting from a thoroughly corrupt institution. (p.33) 

It had taken Gingrich sixteen years to realize his objective of a House Republican majority (1994), but his original strategy to gain power by attacking the Congress left a lasting mark on American politics.

The seventy-three freshman in the class of 1994, nearly a third of the Republican majority, were strong Gingrich loyalists who not only shared the disdain for Congress as an institution [generated by Gingrich] but believed it more deeply than he did, and who added their own conservative populist distrust of leaders and leadership.” (p.40)

The “likability” rating is not, as Ms. Parker suggests, the sole reason most people choose a candidate.  It serves I think as a heading for the list of specifics that actually determine what is likable or unlikable about the candidate and which will ultimately decide how they cast their vote.  To down play it now, especially since Romney is on the negative end of  this poll measurement, seems more an attempt to disparage such a rating that hurts Romney rather than one, as Ms. Parker assures us, is part of a “ridiculous matrix for assessing a candidate’s qualifications for office.”

I don’t believe Kathleen Parker is as passionate and coldly analytical as Gingrich was, but clearly she is not unlike him in how when people, institutions or ideas get in the way of the Party’s agenda, denigrating them to a level of insignificance is necessary to gain the hearts and minds of voters. How much negative bashing can we endure before what little public interests remains in our political process disappears completely?

There are of course those people, ideas and even institutions that we should separate ourselves from because of their destructive influence on us and our ability to grow.  These “demons” are pretty much self-evident.  Being liked by others is more often not our problem as it is with the hangups others have.  For those who want to be the leader of the free world though it is important that they are confident enough in who they are without feeling that negative comments aimed at them from some people will impair their judgment and ability to serve all people.  Clearly this is a condition that Romney appears inadequate with as reflected in his recent comments about the 47% he feels can’t “take personal responsibility” for their lives and are thus not his “job to worry about”.


In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple — pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.”  – Bill Clinton’s speech at 2012 Democratic National Convention

No doubt Bill Clinton’s comments speaking to the delegates at the Democratic National Convention was on par with Michelle Obama’s as being the most inspiring and revealing speech about President Obama and the challenges he faces from the Republicans.  But unlike the First Lady, Clinton I think more accurately framed the narrative that Americans needs to hear.  Fact checkers can pick at his details but the basic message is sound and in my opinion, represents the reality of who and what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are all about.

That opening quote of his at the top of this page is perhaps the clearest synopsis I’ve seen yet of the  GOP’s strategy if they regain the oval office.  Line after line of Clinton’s convention speech was spot on and laconic.  It was not laden with the legalese that lawyers and politicians hiding something often use and it was in this folksy vernacular that gives it its strongest appeal

In the Romney/Ryan 5-point plan to fix the economy there is nothing outlined that suggest how they will achieve what he proposes.  In fact, the proposals are so generic that you can just as easily extrapolate them over to the Democratic platform.

  1. Make America energy independent
  2. Skills training for workers to meet future needs
  3. Forge new trade agreements
  4. Cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.
  5. Champion small businesses by reducing taxes and simplifying and modernizing regulations.

It can honestly be said that though Obama’s speech was only slightly more specific on how he would achieve his goals, he was, in the words of Slate’s John Dickerson, far more [straight-talking] than his Republican rival”.

Romney and Ryan talked about hard choices, but only in the abstract, never really pointing out that it was the people who would have to endure the hard results of those choices. Obama was more up front. Restoring the middle-class dream would require sacrifice and struggle from everyone, the president said. ”The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place.” This speech was more like the one he gave on election night in Chicago: hard, clear-eyed, and earthbound.

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney wanted points at their convention for the promise that they would tackle hard truths once they got into office. Obama wanted points for already having embraced hard truths. “I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have. You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth.”   SOURCE  

You can read the full 68 pages of the GOP platform to get the details on this but Clinton puts it more succinctly and without all of the lipstick and lace.

“they want to do the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place. They want to cut taxes for high- income Americans, even more than President Bush did. They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts. They want to actually increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they’ll spend it on. And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor children.”

Regarding that part about the $2 trillion extra they claim the Pentagon requested without knowing what it was going to be spent on, a CNN Money report back in May confirmed this and stated that this “lack of detail means that Romney’s claim of moving toward a balanced budget requires a great deal of trust.”

The Romney/Ryan ticket does indeed rely on voters to “just trust us” while they try to redirect the argument back to their talking point about how Obama has failed to keep his promises made to the American people back in 2008.  One of those promises Romney claims was when the “newly elected President Obama told America that if Congress approved his plan to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, he would hold unemployment below 8 percent.”  Politifact.com debunked this notion on more than one occasion as it was made by various other Republican leaders.  What’s truly interesting though is that of the some 500 promises that Obama is supposed to have made, 83 of them (or 16%) that have yet been kept, according to Politifact.com’s count, are promises that not only are absent in Romney’s criticism of the President but are mostly those that Romney and the GOP support, like not closing GITMO or ending the Bush tax cuts

At the heart of this attack however is that Obama has failed to resolve our great economic recession in less than 4 years in office.  Though his efforts to reshape the economy have misfired some of the times and many American’s public finances are suffering, writers for The Economist say holding the president solely responsible for our current state isn’t an accurate assessment.

To say Obama blew it “is not a fair judgment on Mr Obama’s record, which must consider not just the results but the decisions he took, the alternatives on offer and the obstacles in his way. Seen in that light, the report card is better. His handling of the crisis and recession were impressive.”    SOURCE  

Those “obstacles in his way” mentioned by The Economist are the recalcitrant GOP who have opposed nearly every policy and piece of legislation put forth by the Obama administration since the Republicans won a majority in the House back in 2010.  Long before that however he’s been attacked by the corporate-backed TEA Party who lost sight of those responsible for the bailout of America’s financial institutions and what caused their unraveling that led to the worst recession since the early 1930’s.  Any actions perceived to address our economic woes by the GOP have been guided too strongly by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell’s Party fiat that placed a “top political priority”  on making President Obama a one-term president.  He reiterated this on FOX News seven months later stating that it was still his major objective “along with every active Republican in the country.” 

In their abuse of the filibuster and delaying tactics to block Presidential appointments through the advise and consent procedure, Republicans have aimed “to embarrass the president and hobble his ability to run the executive branch”, according to the authors of the book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics of Extremism by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein (p. 100)  In so doing they can make the president appear incompetent to the public and malign him on news shows to create a poor image to voters.

… since 2006, but especially since Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the filibuster is more often a stealth weapon, which minority Republicans use not to highlight an important national issue but to delay and obstruct quietly on nearly all matters, including routine and widely supported one.  It is fair to say that this pervasive use of the filibuster has never before happened in the history of the Senate.  Mann and Ornstein – p.89  (emphasis mine)

The Party has been further aided in undermining Obama’s presidency with the Citizens United decision that lets huge sums of money into political campaigns.  Karl Rove’s super Pac, American Crossroads GPS, for example told potential donors that they would conduct “in-depth research on congressional expense account abuses”, to blame Democrats for “failed border controls” and to frame the BP oil spill as “Obama’s Katrina.”  Then of course there has been the complicity of many news outlets that promote Republican talking points or fail to do journalistic due diligence and research many of the claims made by Republican talking heads.

What voters need to take away from this campaign is the understanding of what Obama really did and didn’t promise, which seems to unnerve the GOP candidates.  The promises Obama made in 2008, like the one’s he made last Thursday night, require active participation and the willingness by every capable soul to help in that endeavor.  No one man can do everything alone nor should he be expected to or have blame laid solely at his feet.  It was the understanding that with everyone’s help that such promises could reasonably be achieved.  It is in part those of us who had expectations beyond the realm of reality that are at fault for our disappointment that the economy has not rebounded better than we hoped.

For anyone to assume their job is done once their vote is cast is a level of apathy only slightly higher than one who doesn’t vote at all or chooses not to get involved with the political process in any way.  But even worse are those people who not only sit on their hands but who actively engage in preventing any forward motion, even if they don’t like the guy.  Saying it’s a wrong-headed policy before it’s been given a chance and based only on ideological views is part of the political back-and-forth between political adversaries.  But for those who actively engage in obstructionist practices that stymie those legitimate efforts simply to enhance their own political agenda, borders, in my opinion, close to treason.

That leaves me closing with Bill Clinton who has made the best expression of these unhealthy, hurtful actions by the GOP leadership.

Now, there’s something I’ve noticed lately. You probably have too. And it’s this. Maybe just because I grew up in a different time, but though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats.

When times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good. But what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation. What works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities.

*************************************

Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it.

READ BILL CLINTON”S ENTIRE SPEECH HERE 



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers