He didn't misspeak...

“Especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

“In each case, they [the Obama administration] were very generous in what they gave to those groups,”

 “With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift, free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,”

“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

These were Mitt Romney’s statements in a recorded conference call with his big donors post-election. This is the reason that he is stating that he lost. And you know what, he’s right. You add up women (not just young women, but any woman who cares about making her own choices in life), young people, Latinos, and African Americans, you have most of the electorate (Obama also got an overwhelmingly large percentage of the Asian-American vote) accounted for, except for white men.

So essentially what Mitt Romney is saying in this statement is that the Obama administration didn't cater as well to white men as every other administration that has ever existed. While I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement (old white men got plenty of “gifts” from the Obama administration), I don’t think that we as a country should be lamenting the decreased influence of white men in our politics, our boardrooms, or anywhere else in society. Old white men have had their run - it’s been long and deleterious to pretty much every other social group – and it’s time that we as a nation begin to embrace the original concept of this country, inclusion.

Romney’s statement, while misguided in its use of the word “gifts”, actually makes a lot of sense. People would vote in their best interest. While Romney is lying in saying that Obamacare provides free health care for people, it is understandable that people would embrace a change to the healthcare system that would positively benefit them and their family. He’s make it possible for people with existing conditions to get health care, he’s removed the lifetime caps, he’s allowed children up to 26 years of age to stay on their parent’s plan, and most of all he’s created the mandate that forces everyone into the market (think “skin in the game”), which in the long run will be able to decrease cost, and hopefully encourage more competition.

And why would a woman vote for Mitt Romney? He and his running mate have shown support for policies that would drastically diminish the ability of a woman to make healthcare choices about her own body. I’m not sure why that would be such a mystery that a woman who wants to control her own health, even getting (*gasp*) birth control if she wanted/needed it, to vote for the person that actually espouses a view in support of women’s rights.

As far as Latinos are concerned, the Republican Party has done nothing but patronizingly pander to them in an effort to win votes. When it comes time to actually create policy that benefits Latinos, Republicans are nowhere to be found. It’s interesting, however, to note that Latinos should be a key demographic for Republicans. Republicans espouse to believe in hard work, family, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; these seem to be characteristic traits of Latinos (not to try and put anyone into a general category) and, in fact, most immigrant groups, and yet immigrants are spit on by the Republican Party and turned off by their jingoist, white is right, mentality.

Finally, African Americans. On the whole, I cannot see why the Republican Party thinks that they have a chance to win the black vote. Not to say that black people vote as a bloc, but Republicans have made every effort they can to gerrymander this country into segregated districts, doing their best to push black people into districts with only other black people. Was not the “southern strategy” an overt effort to create fear of black people in this country, by appealing to white voters misperceptions and stereotypes? Have republicans changed their strategy at all? Not really. Newt Gingrich throughout the Republican primary called Barack Obama a “food stamp president”, and republicans talk of black people in this country as if every single one is on welfare. They’re living in the past, and they want to keep it that way. Their past is where the white man is superior, and the black man has to respect the white man; they want to hold onto that for dear life.

Republicans after Obama’s first victory always referred to an unspoken “they” that had taken the country away from “true Americans”. And while we can’t be sure who exactly “they” are, we can surmise from the comments of Republicans, from the tea party to Mitt Romney, that they were speaking of African-Americans, Latinos, minorities in general, women, young people, LGBT people, religious minorities, Muslims, immigrants, and basically anyone else that was not white, was not married, was not heterosexual, was not born in this country, was not Christian (hopefully Protestant, but they’d give you a little wiggle room as long as you believed in Jesus), or was not a “job creator”. Republicans fundamental belief is that this country was built by and for white people, and everyone else is just “they” that are living here on “our” land on “our” dime. I guess every group except for white people forgot that, and decided to vote for the guy that actually considered them citizens of this country, and therefore as important people and groups in our society.

Hand in hand...

Well, the election is over. Barack Obama is still president. Democrats are still in control in the Senate. Republicans are still in control in the House. Essentially nothing has changed. However (and I guess that is more of a big HOWEVER), it seems as though the American people wanted to keep both parties in control, because we are a divided nation ideologically, but want both sides to work together. The 111^th and 112^th Congresses were both complete failures. There was intra-house and inter-house fighting, along with intransigence toward the president, and it lead to not only low approval ratings, but little-to-no cross-aisle politics. That is not the point of congress, nor does it help improve our country’s economy, which has been languishing over the past 4+ years.

I’m a progressive, and therefore I tend to vote Democrat. And looking back at Obama’s first term, I personally might have a finger to point at some people that I specifically think caused the logjam in congress; but what will I have gained? What will we as a country have gained by pointing fingers? The answer is nothing. Finger-pointing will only lead to further partisanship and blaming. We are where we are, and we need big solutions to the big problems that our country still faces; the economy, international security, tax reform, etc.

Republicans and democrats are not going to magically agree about the solutions to these problems, but if both parties come to the table with an honest desire to work with one another, and to create positive, comprised solutions, I think we’ll all be better off for it. Sure, I’ll probably be frustrated that some of the legislation doesn’t go as far as I think it should (as others will think it goes too far), but that’s the country we live in.

I will say that one thing that has already frustrated me is the reaction by Mitch McConnell to the president’s victory. The same guy who said that the sole purpose of the Republican Party should be to make sure Obama is a one term president, has christened the (hopefully) new era in American politics with a big, wet blanket.

“The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control.

Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely divided Senate, step up to the plate on the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office.

To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet him half way."

Mitch McConnell looks like a turtle (and sounds like one), and the Republican’s first order of business should be to remove him as minority leader in the Senate, and replace him with someone that actually wants to get business done.

The country is changing. There was a lower percentage of white people overall that voted. A higher percentage of women. A higher percentage of Latinos. A  higher percentage of young people. And black voters came out in numbers commensurate with those in 2008. The electorate in this country is becoming less white-male-centric, and therefore the Republican Party needs to start adapting to those changes if they expect to remain a relevant political party in this country. Hopefully this election will be a wakeup call, helping them realize that they need to drop their social policy evangelism, and start recognizing that abortion, welfare, gay marriage, immigration, etc. are not policies that are going to win them elections. Good ideas that improve people’s lives are going to win elections. I’m not trying to help republicans win, but I just saying that it would help move the country in a better direction if everyone comes around.

I can't believe this is not a bigger issue...

Look, I know that there are many religious conservatives that disagree with gay marriage. However, the fact that a vice presidential nominee has the balls to say something like what he said below is just galling. We live in a country that purports to support equality and provide equal protection under the law. Now this asshole comes along and says...nah.

Below is Paul Ryan's response in a discussion about marriage, to Focus on the Family president Jim Daly.

Ryan: It’s [marriage] the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves.

Fuck you, Paul Ryan.

It's time to put him down...

So I wrote a long diatribe last year about the BCS (Bowl Championship Series), and how it had become a completely bastardized version of what it was originally intended to be. It had become (even more than when it was created) a money-making venture and little more. However, once the BCS contract is up in 2013, we’ll finally have what we’ve been waiting for in college football, a college football playoffs. I’m sure everyone is really weeping over the death of the BCS, and lamenting the loss of the biased computer system that seems to always favor teams from the South, specifically the Southeast (the S-E-C, Southeastern Conference). Good riddance…

While I certainly don’t like the BCS, in general, due to their unseemly practices of putting profit over sport, I am particular upset with the organization this year, in that they’re screwing over my favorite team in college football, Notre Dame. Okay, I get it, people don’t like Notre Dame. Notre Dame has been given preferential treatment by the NCAA and TV stations for years, so it’s time for them to get screwed, right? Well, no. The BCS is not supposed to bias against teams because they’re not popularly loved. Or, I guess more truly, they’re either loved or loathed. Just a little background, I did not attend ND, but I’ve loved the school since I was a little kid; and since my college never had a good football team (and doesn’t even have one anymore), I’ve continued to root for them. I guess it’s my Irish ancestry… Anyway, I digress.

Notre Dame has been screwed in the first BCS rankings that have been released for the 2012 season. Notre Dame is 6-0 and ranked number 5; they have faced three ranked opponents, Michigan, Michigan State, and Stanford. Kansas State, who is ranked ahead of ND at number 4, has faced one ranked opponent (Oklahoma at #6), and just happens to be in another conference that he BCS favors, the Big 12. Oregon is also ranked above ND at number 3, but that is at least understandable, because Oregon has one of the most (if not THE most) high-powered offenses in the country, and has been dominant over the last few years. But then we come to Florida at number 2. Florida beat LSU, who at the time was the #2 team in the nation, and they’ve beat another ranked time (Tennessee at #24), but I don’t see how that puts them ahead of Notre Dame. Oh, right, they’re in the SEC. What a coincidence, so it the #1 team, the #6 team, and the #7 team (Alabama, LSU, and South Carolina, respectively).

I’ll give the SEC their props, they’re a great conference, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they’re better teams and therefore should get pushed up in ranking, just because they supposedly have a tougher strength of schedule. Notre Dame is not in a conference, but has consistently played tough teams and beat them, therefore they should be ranked based upon their performance and strength of schedule, not their conference (or lack thereof). Notre Dame should be ranked #3.

p.s.  I’m willing to bet that when South Carolina beats Florida this weekend at the Swamp, you’ll see SC leapfrog Notre Dame and jump down to #3, while Notre Dame will probably only drop down to #4. Ugh…such is life.

Wow, isn't he the greatest...

Let me start by saying that by all appearances, Mitt Romney won Wednesday’s (10.3.12) debate. I wouldn’t say that he blew the president away, but he was more confident, had his numbers ready to go, and overall seemed a lot more comfortable attacking the president than the president did defending himself.

That being said, Romney’s presentation was full of a lot more vigor than substance. And it’s not that vigor doesn’t matter, but I think that it’s important to point out this fact before saying that the first debate completely changes the direction of this election. Regarding his tax policy, Romney was evasive, and presently a view that was starkly in contrast to that he has been presenting since the beginning of his campaign. The president pointed this fact out, but Romney shifted and said that he would do nothing that would add to the deficit; well Mr. Romney, unfortunately you can’t have one without the other. Either you plan to cut taxes and raise the deficit, or you plan to cut the deficit and raise taxes. And he scoffed at the president’s characterization of his tax plan as a windfall for rich people, but Romney – in typical fashion – went on some diatribe about the president raising taxes on the middle class and how he [Romney] wants to cut corporate and business taxes to help spur business. These two facts have nothing to do with one another. Obama’s tax plan would not raise taxes on small businesses, unless they’ve become large enough to where they should be paying a higher rate, or they pay corporate income taxes; either way, this would have no effect on such a high percentage of businesses, that pointing to the few that would be affected is ridiculous.

In addition, Mr. Romney continued to hammer the president on the Affordable Care Act, but failed to offer any alternatives to the president’s plan, or outline what was wrong with it, except to say that President Obama would be stealing over $700 billion from Medicare, which is a lie. The $700 billion dollars is how much less Medicare will be funded over the next ten years, but that will have no impact on how much seniors will spend, but will only impact the providers in how much they will receive (should be noted that this is what providers agreed to). Romney tried to tout his plan, while distancing himself from it; a strange position to be in for a person whose party considers the ACA a “government takeover of healthcare” and “socialist”. But Romney says that it was a good policy for the state, but not a good national policy; which is hard to understand why it isn’t. Wouldn’t the federal government be better of negotiating with giant insurance companies, rather than local government? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Finally, Mitt Romney and the president went round and round about Social Security. Romney kept pushing the Ryan plan for Social Security, basically trying to pander to older voters and those already retired by saying that THEY won’t be affected by his policy, neglecting to mention the fact that those 55 and younger will have their Social Security prey to the open market under the Romney/Ryan plan. Certainly, Social Security in its current form is untenable long term, but policy-makers need to come up with a comprehensive strategy for creating a system that works, because millions and millions of seniors depend upon Social Security to live, and that fact is not likely to change anytime soon. But creating the voucher system where people will have to decide what they want to do with their SSA money is not the solution, and is more likely to create a system similar to the retirement system where some people will lose everything they have in the event of a major crash. It’s bad policy for a social safety net.

Bottom line: Romney may have won the debate, but that doesn’t mean that he did it honestly, or that it will translate to anything other than an email to send to supporters. His message is muddled, his policies are poor (and unclear), and he can’t seem to find any firm ground under which to stand, other than saying that we should elect him for the simple fact that he isn’t Barack Obama.

A man above the people...

Mitt Romney is going to lose this election. There, I’ve made a bold prediction, but one that I’ve held since the Republican primary process started weeding out the fanatics, and went with the safe, boring candidate. Not that picking “safe” means that you’re going to win. It just means that you’re not setting yourself up to lose.

But Romney has managed to completely bungle this campaign. By all accounts he should be winning in the polls, and should be a shoe-in for president. The president [and the country] continues to be let down with disastrous unemployment numbers, and an economy that just won’t seem to pick up. But Romney has failed to make two arguments that I believe are very important to people when they enter that voting both; 1) why do you want to be president?, and 2) what specific policies will you implement that will make the economy better than the current president.

 The first question should be easy, but instead of connecting to voters and letting them know that he cares deeply about this country and that he’s worried about the economy and the people, he just comes off as an out-of-touch rich guy that wants to be president so that he can hang it around his neck like a badge of honor. He wants people to like and respect him, but he doesn’t seem that likeable and it’s hard to respect someone who seems to care nothing about anyone but himself. I honestly don’t think Romney, the man, is a bad guy (I don’t know him personally, so I can’t say), but his campaign has done a terrible job of humanizing him, and therefore nobody feels like they know him, or want to get a beer with him (George Bush II had that going for him). Not that I need my president to be my best buddy, but I think it’s important that he at least attempts to make a connection to the majority of the people.

Which actually brings me to the point of this piece – I’ll come back to question #2 later. A video was leaked this week of Mitt Romney speaking to some high value donors back in May, in which he makes the outrageous claim that “There are 47 percent who are with him [President Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it,”. First of all, this claim is untrue. It has been debunked by several fact checking organizations, and has ironically shown that many of those that Romney considers free loaders are actually (if they’re working) paying a higher percentage of income tax than Mitt Romney. Add to that the fact that Romney is essentially saying that all poor and lower middle class Americans are Obama supporters, so he’s just going to write them off. And if he’s campaigning with that message to wealthy donors, what do you think he’d do during his presidency…?

But let’s take the statement at face value; let’s say that it is a true statement. I still don’t understand what is so abhorrent about people living in the wealthiest nation in the world expecting to be provided with health care, food, or housing. I mean, it’s not like people are expecting multiple houses and car elevators; they expect that those lavish items are reserved for the super-rich in this country. Those are basic necessities, which we should be providing to everyone anyway, regardless of whether they’re productive, unproductive, working, not working, active, lazy…it doesn’t matter. Asking for health care, food, and shelter, is essentially asking to continue to live, that’s all. I guess the so-called compassionate conservatives don’t have compassion when it comes to poor people; or maybe it’s just rich, out-of-touch, liberal/conservative, flip-flopping Republicans that don’t have compassion or empathy for poor people.

The second important question that Romney has failed to answer is what specific policies he will implement to turn around the economy. He says that he will end "Obamacare", but that really doesn't account for much. Most of his other fiscal policies resemble those of the Bush administration; tax cuts, deregulation, etc., along with cutting in "entitlement" spending and closing loopholes. But his cuts in entitlement spending and closing loopholes have been completely nonspecific, and therefore have lead to a lot of speculation as to where and what will be cut. The romney campaign has decried all of these speculations as way off the mark, but has yet to disclose comprehensive policy ideas that would actually have a change of cutting the deficit and debt, or spur economic growth in any way. Basically we're looking at a candidate who just thinks he can be elected as the anti-Obama. Former president Bill Clinton said it best in his speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention, referring to the Republicans and the Romney campaign; "We left him a total mess. he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in." Helluva campaign slogan for Romeny.