Ruth's Real-Time Notes: Debate 3

Foreign policy

by Ruth A. Sheets

1. In his first statement, Romney said “We can’t kill our way out of our problems with Al Qaida.  We need a comprehensive strategy.

2. Obama reiterated his position mentioning his major foreign policy operations.

3. Romney answered back that his strategy in the Middle East is straight-forward.  He said we should go after the bad guys, the ones who attacked us.  He said we have to get the Arabs to fix things themselves by giving them better education, rule of law, of course, our law,

4. President Obama called Romney on his flip-flopping.  Romney answered back that that “attacking me is not a policy”, whatever that means.

5. Romney, when called on his statement that we should still have troops in Iraq, he tried to say he didn’t say that.

6. Obama says he wants our allies to help us in our efforts against terrorism and has a set of 5 things he would do for the countries in the Middle East, but warned that we should not be too involved with nation building until we have done nation building in America.

7. To a question about Syria, Obama said that we have to do what we do with the help of the rest of the region.  We are helping the opposition, but we have to know that it is a serious step to get more involved militarily in Syria.

8. Romney mentioned how important Syria is in the region.  The right course, according to him, is the same as Obama’s, enlist the help of the other nations in the area, making sure that they have sufficient arms to do the job.  We have to have a “very effective leadership effort in Syria.”  He believes that President Asaad will leave eventually.  He says it is a critical opportunity for America, but is vague as to what that role is.  We are to have the leadership role, but he is not clear what that is.

9. Obama answered that we have to be careful about our choices, as we were in Libya.  We have to have steady, thoughtful leadership when we act in Syria.

10. Romney says he does not want to have a “no fly zone” over Syria because he doesn’t want us to be militarily involved in Syria.  He wants us to arm the opposition in Syria.  He claims we should have taken some kind of super leadership role in responding to Syria.

11. Obama says that the reason he and Romney are both on the same page related to Syria is that we are doing just what we should be doing, taking a thoughtful careful approach to the problem.  We need to encourage and even pressure Egypt  to protect minorities and women.  We need to help Egypt to develop their economy.  The youth of Egypt have similar aspirations to American youth and we have to help them give their own people the hope for a non-corrupt government and economy.

12.Romney says he wishes we had a broader vision for what happened and the future of the Middle East before it exploded.  He is not clear what that means.  He says that we want a world at peace.  He thinks it is America’s job to promote peace.  He brought the discussion back to what he claims is a weak economy that means a weak country.  He just keeps saying the same things.  He wants an even bigger military.  He thinks that without their huge budget, our military will not be able to promote peace as well as we want.  (What a bunch of bull.)

13. Romney had the next question too, what is America’s role in the world?  He says we need to end conflicts in the world and so America must be strong, must strengthen our economy at home, and not have kids coming out of college with no jobs.  He went back to the military and how they need to be stronger (interesting that only a huge strong military can bring about peace in the world - NONSENSE!!)  Then he went into something weird about Poland.  I am not even sure what that was about.  He said we must stand for our principles.

14. Finally, Obama got a chance to respond.  He said that we as a nation are stronger now than when he took office.  He, too, brings the debate back to American jobs, economy, energy, etc.  They really don’t want to talk about the rest of the world. 

15. Romney responds, and we got his first sneer that was audible.  He keeps claiming that he knows how to get us back to work.  He claims he will increase our energy so that we will be energy independent.  He wants to focus on Latin America.  Then he wants to have training programs, then blames the teachers again and wants to get rid of teacher unions.  What a bunch of bunk!  He wants to “champion small business.”  He claims that small businesses are at their lowest point in 30 years.  He does not say where he got that data.

16. Obama responded by giving some specifics of what he will do the second term. He says that Romney should ask teachers what they need to make things better.  I am sure Romney thinks that’s a joke.

17. Romney, after trying to ignore his time as governor of Mass. now claims how proud he is of his time as governor and how well his students there did on the tests, as if that is all that counts in education.

18. When asked how he will afford a continued high cost of the military.  He goes on saying he will cut discretionary spending, cut Obamacare, etc, but never really addresses the fact that the military is bloated.  He wants to save Medicaid and give it to the states who have somehow proven they can handle it better than the federal government.  There is no evidence of that, however.

19. Obama mentioned that our military is larger than the next 10 countries combined. I think it is actually more like 17, but let that be.

20. Romney claims that he always balanced his budgets.  We don’t know what that means.  He says he will always balance the budget, but that shows he has no idea what a Federal budget involves.  He then claims that our Navy is the smallest it has been since World War I.  He does not take into account that the new weaponry and ships mean that we don’t need as large a military force.

21. Obama mentioned that even though the Navy is smaller in actual number of ships, our ships are better.   He said we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we had back then too because the technology has improved.

22. Israel and Iran – Would either candidate consider an attack on Israel an attack on the United States?

23. Obama began by saying that Israel is our greatest ally.  We have a strong military and intelligence connection with Israel .  He reiterated that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon while he is president.  He mentioned that the Iranian economy is a shambles and we will help to keep there from being a nuclear race in that part of the world.  The sanctions offer Iran a way out, stop the nuclear move or face a world against them.  Sending young people into harm’s way should be a last resort.

24. Nuclear-capable Iran is not acceptable, says Romney.  He says our mission in Iran is to use a diplomatic way.  Even tighter sanctions, he says would work harder.  He thinks there should be diplomatic sanctions and we should treat their diplomats badly.  He says he thinks a military intervention would be the last resort if everything else fails.  How that is different from Obama’s strategy, I can’t see.

25. The deal we’ll accept, according to Obama, is ending nuclear aspirations.  Obama mentioned that we had to get the sanctions against Iran to be agreed to by most of the countries of the world before getting started.  The hope is that Iran will want to regain credibility.  We will not allow Iran to engage in negotiations that lead nowhere.

26. Romney claims that Iran looked at the Obama administration and thought it was weak and they could get away with things.  He criticizes Obama for his “apology tour” which has already been determined to be a “pants on fire”  lie.  He says that from the very beginning that a president must show strength (while he sounds like a wimpy kid/ bully who has no real idea of what is going on).

27. Obama called Romney on the lie, a whopper that he had taken any kind of “apology tour.”  Obama  mentioned that he had called the Iranians on their behavior.  He says we will continue to keep the pressure on Iran.

28. Romney says we are four years closer to a nuclear war with Iran.  He continues to lie and defend his lies, trying to explain them. 

29. Obama says he wants us to be able to be called the nation that stands on the right side of history.

30 Romney refused to answer a hypothetical question about bombing in the Middle East.  He just went his own way calling out disasters in the world that he really clearly does not understand, but is just naming, North Korea, 30,000 dead in Syria, etc.

31. It is hard to debate with Romney because he just keeps throwing things out.  His plans, although numbered, don’t give any details. 

32. Obama brought out the Bin Laden card.  He mentioned that when such hard decisions are made, there must be a purpose, even if the decisions are not popular.

33. Romney is asked what happens if Afghanistan is not ready to be left by the American military.  Romney says that we will be ready and that our troops will come home.  He admitted that what is happening in Pakistan is going to affect what is going on in that region and how we should respond to it.  He mentions Pakistan, but doesn’t have any concrete plan for what to do there.  He sais we should rebuild our relationship there and that we will have to meet certain benchmarks.

34. Obama mentioned that by 2008, America had forgotten why we were in Afghanistan.  He said that our coalition partners will be moving out responsibly.  He talked about the veterans of the wars and what we have to do to help them to get jobs and get their lives back.

35. Pakistan is a country of problems and a problem relationship with America.  Romney says that we have to support them because they have over 100 nuclear warheads.  He says that if the government there falls apart, terrorists can grab the weapons and use them at will.  He says we are going to have to work with Pakistan to keep the Taliban from rushing back on when we leave Afghanistan.  Romney says that drones are OK because we should any and all means necessary to go after threats to America.  He says we are going to have to do more than just go after bad guys.  We have to move the world away from terrorism.  Romney asks a bunch of stupid questions that he says will lead to peace in our world.

37. Obama says we have done a lot more than just go after the “bad guys.”  We also have worked on making alliances, talking with the protesters in the Middle East.  We stood on the side of the people.  There will always be elements in those countries that will hate America, but we are working to lessen their influence.

38. The program moves to China.  Obama says that terrorist networks will be our greatest threat.  China can be a threat, but it could also be a great partner if it follows the rules.  Obama talked about some of the cases won against China related to trade.  He thinks we should be making more investments in relationship to China.

39. Romney says that China does not want protectionism.  They want a stable world and economy.  They want the world to be free and open.  He says they look at us and say how strong are we and can they depend on us.  He asks these questions, putting words in the mouth of China and claims that he would be “very strong” if he were president.  He does not say how, of course, but I guess that doesn’t matter.  On day one, he is going to label them . . . ., same old, same old.  No different from what Obama says, except for the first day junk.  When asked if this would bring about a trade war, he said no, but with little to support it.

40. Obama talked about jobs and our relationship with China.  Our exports to China have increased.  We are increasing our military presence in the Pacific to remind China and other countries that we care what happens in that part of the world and that we can apply some pressure.

41. Romney is starting to stutter as he pulls out his old line about Obama criticizing him not being a policy.  What nonsense!   Again, he claims he didn’t say let the auto industry go to the bottom if that is what would happen in the free market.  He is so against government investment in companies.  He is a fool and just saying anything that comes to his mouth, again.  I know a lot of people just love that, but it is hogwash.

41. Obama tried to respond to Romney, but you can’t really get information out there when your opponent just makes up anything.  Then, Romney goes back to the old data crap that can’t be challenged.  Then Romney says he loves teachers whatever that means.

 42. Obama described the four years of digging out of the terrible policies of the past and points out that Romney wants to take America back to where we were with the same old policies.  Obama wants to invest in jobs, education, and developing energy sources, a breadth of sources.  He says he will maintain a strong but reasonable military.  We need nation building.  He mentioned that we have character and will work to keep America the greatest nation on earth.

43. Romney claims that he wants to work for peace.  He claims that Obama will take America toward where Greece is (ridiculous!)  He claims that he will make 12 million jobs, but never says how he will do that.  He again goes through that bull crap about bipartisanship.  He has no idea of what that actually means, except everybody has to do things his way.  What a load of crap.  He is talking about a torch of freedom and that he will be “that leader” and will lead in an open honest way.  Pathetic!  A liar claiming to be an honest leader.

Are You Serious?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Five days after the “big debate” for the 2012 Presidential campaign and Romney seems to be moving into the lead in a lot of swing states.  I keep hearing that and can’t help but say in a very loud voice “Are you serious???”

It is true  that President Obama did not have his best speaking event ever, but he did stick to the truth and told us what he stands for.  He probably should have used a few theatrics and demonstrated a lot more enthusiasm and energy, but should someone’s vote be changed by what they saw on Wednesday night?

Mr. Romney had no problem lying to the American people, but he did it with such conviction that people didn’t seem to care that what he said involved significant falsehoods being tossed out at will.  He had no trouble changing his positions on nearly every issue.  His disrespect for both the President and the debate moderator was startling. 

So what about Mitt Romney’s performance is changing minds?  I suspect it relates to the old adage, “If you say it loud enough and often enough, people will think it’s true, even if it isn’t.”  And, if you smirk while you are saying it, why that’s almost magic.  

I heard a commentator today declare that the American public is stupid.  He said it with a lot of conviction.

Is the American electorate “stupid?”  No.  But, we like people who talk tough and don’t have to think before they speak.  We tend to be drawn to bullies, as long as they are not bullying us.  We want the world to respect, even fear us, so we take the role of bully assuming that, as we have done for nearly 70 years, often in the role of bully, we will prevail.

 Despite the job improvement, the nearly doubling of the stock market, the ending of a war and drawing down of another, a health care program that enables more people to be covered than ever before, and a saving of America’s auto industry, President Obama can’t seem to get most Americans behind him.  Why is that?

Mitt Romney has very little to offer anyone.  He wants to be elected because he wants to be elected.  His lying and frequent changing of position on every issue should clearly demonstrate that, but Romney has experience being a bully from earliest childhood and it is going to be hard for President Obama to stand up to that level of experience. 

Americans really should wake up to the demands of a world that is quite different from what it was during the last century.  America does not need to be the bullying world police.  We need a leader who can work with other people, not push them around.  We need a leader who has shown he can improve people’s lives, respect people of all backgrounds.  Mr. Romney does not meet any of these criteria. 

Winning or losing a debate proves nothing about one’s ability to lead, but polls seem to show that Americans think it does.  Are you serious!!!!!

Notes on the First Debate: October 3, 2012

by Ruth A. Sheets

These are real-time notes made while listening to the first debate of the 2012 campaign.

In his opening remarks, Romney used the word “crushed” a lot when talking about what has happened to Americans under Obama.

Romney was asked if he had a specific question, then went off on his own speech and never asked a question and wasn’t called on it.

Romney makes up things as he goes along.  He changed his tax cut claims.  He will say anything that comes to his mind.  He now says he will make tax cuts to the middle class, but before this he has not said that.

He claims that Obama was lying about Romney’s tax plan.  Interesting that there is a pot calling the kettle, oh wait, is that black?

I wish that Obama would talk about making some sacrifices.  We can’t keep going on without raising some revenue from middle class folks, especially for the higher middle class folks, over 75,000 dollars or so.

Romney claims that the reason small businesses are not growing is that their taxes are too high.  That is absurd.  Most of the problem is that the banks aren’t lending.

Romney claims he has a test for what he will cut from the budget.  If he doesn’t think it is worth borrowing from China to pay for, he will cut it, including:  PBS, (he pandered to “Big Bird” and Mr. Lehrer, and a whole lot of things that help a lot of Americans).

I had heard that Romney would be snarky in a debate, and he is.  He takes more time than Obama, standing there making accusations that were, of course, well-rehearsed.

I wish Obama would mention about how employers are paying their employees less money which means less money to buy things and to pay in taxes.

Romney is complaining about Obama giving money to green industries--and had to bring up Solyndra again, one of the mere 3 companies that failed--when oil gets 4 billion off the top every year, nearly half of what the green companies get over 10 years.  Crazy!  No vision for the future.

Romney is rambling from topic to topic.  It is hard to follow what he is trying to say.

Entitlements

Obama explained his position on Social Security and Medicare and said he would make some changes in Medicare to do better payments.

Romney brought up the 716 billion in cuts even though that is not true. 

Romney talks about having a traditional Medicare and private medicare.  Who needs to have private insurance companies in the mix?  That makes no sense.  There is no evidence that giving companies, that are already making billions in profit, more money will work.

OK, we are talking about regulation now.  Romney says that “we need regulations for a free market” but, it seems that he is also saying he only wants the regulations he likes.   

Romney rattles on stating generalities about Dodd Frank, the Wall Street Regulation law with no real substance.

Health Care

Again, Romney brings up how Obamacare will raise costs for health care, but the reality is that most of the checkers say that is not true.  He keeps dragging it out in case some people will believe it.

I would like to see a time count for how much time Romney spoke compared with  how much Obama spoke.

Romney claimed that his plan worked in Mass because it was bipartisan, but he forgets that Obama could get no Republican support because they were determined to stand against him no matter what, even though the health plan was a bipartisan idea.

I love that Romney wants to repeal Obamacare, but of course, wants to keep the popular parts.

Romney claims that the government cannot bring down the cost of anything.  He just throws that out with nothing to support it.  Is it possible that people will believe that just because he says it?

Performance pay, he claims it is working somewhere but he throws out names of places with nothing to support it.

Romney claims the medical board will say what treatmeent people can have.  The board according to Obamacare can’t do that.  They are looking at best practices.

Romney says the reason he can’t give details is because he can’t act like it’s my way or the highway and he wouldn’t get anything done.  That is how he ran his business.

His idea of doing health care state by state is really stupid and wasteful.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT 

Romney says we need liberty and a strong military and religious freedom.  He lists a lot of things and puts them out as a list of things that don’t seem to be things he really believes.

He talks about people pursuing happiness.  But whose happiness?  He says that the path we are traveling is not working.  He doesn’t explain why.

I wish Obama would stop talking about “Race to the Top.”  He didn’t answer Romney’s charge that parents should be able to choose the schools for their kids even though there is no evidence that their choices are better than the traditional system.

Romney had a zinger he had to use.  “You are entitled to your own house and car, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”  What a hypocrite.  That is amazing since he has been creating his own facts throughout the whole campaign.

Romney claims we should grade our schools, saying he wants them to be more effective and efficient.

Romney brought up that he worked with a mostly democratic legislature in Mass.  but he forgets to mention that they were Democrats and willing to compromise where the Republicans in Congress have not been.

Obama talked about American grit and  talent and success and his promise to keep fighting for America.  It was a pretty good statement.

Romney’s, however was very negative, throwing out fear statements that really don’t help to improve his image.  He claims that he will put his own things in place, whatever that means.  There is nothing about Americans working together to make things happen, just a blaming of Obama and claiming all kinds of negative things that Obama will do.  Pathetic.  I think it will make his supporters feel good, though.  They like that kind of negativity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was watching the debate on Current TV and Democrats were commenting on the event.  They think Obama did a terrible job, but I don’t agree.  It might be because I couldn’t see the candidates and did not assume anything about the candidates because of their appearance, just what they said, how they said it, and the tone of their voices.  I do think Obama was too gentle with Romney, letting him get in a lot of cuts with no jump[ing in to stop the nonsense that Romney was throwing out.  We’ll see if that changes in the next debate.

We're All In This Together

by muon

I was thinking last night that maybe we need a national pep rally more often. Not just Democrats or Republicans or Tea Party or Occupy, but everyone. The only time Americans seem to cheer for Americans is during the Olympics. I think we need to cheer for more than our sportsmen. We need to cheer for each other, and not only every four 4 years.

The DNC was for the most part a very positive event. The speeches didn't ignore what was wrong with America, in fact, many brought to light nuances of issues that voters may never have considered, but the tone of most of the speeches was that, working together, we could fix things. By the end of the convention last night, I think every person in that auditorium felt more empowered than they did at the opening gavel. Chances are, lots of TV viewers were effected the same way.

What difference does it make?

When FDR took office in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, he spoke to the nation frequently. The tone of his words was very much like that of the speeches of the past week. He communicated an optimism in America's capabilities that went a long way toward Americans picking themselves up and making the nation economically healthy once more. We hear about things like consumer confidence, and that's part of it--that is, people feeling secure enough to spend money they otherwise would save for a rainy day. Optimism--a light at the end of the tunnel--makes people quit waiting for someone else to help. If they see something better, they work toward it. Fear, as FDR said, makes us hesitate, then despair makes us sit down and stop trying.

Political views aside--considering solely the tone of the discourse--I can't describe the GOP Convention as optimistic or uplifting. The speeches dwelt on who to blame for America's problems. When the subject turned to mending those problems, we heard, essentially, Romney, Ryan, private companies, and the Religious Right will fix everything (details to be disclosed after the election). The tone was "We'll decide what's right for America," taking even their own audience out of the process.

I prefer to be asked "What's good for America? And how can we all make it happen?"

As former President Clinton put it: "We're all in this together is a far better philosophy than you're on your own."

Voting A.B.B.

by Ruth A. Sheets

The latest of many many polls has the upcoming presidential election essentially tied.  I find that incredible. Generally, an incumbent is reelected when he does a good job, that is, improves the economy from the time he took office, ends an established war, passes legislation to support the middle class, and takes care of the poor to some extent.

President Obama’s reelection should not even be in question this year since he presided over a country whose stock market rose more than 5,000 points, pushed a health care program which, although not perfect, does increase significantly the number of people who will be covered, and designed a stimulus program that employed a lot of folks to improve our infrastructure.  He also has championed a tax reform that would increase the share the haves will contribute and gives extra money to the middle class who will spend it to help the economy.  He is continuing the war in Afghanistan, but has ended involvement in Iraq.  His support of veterans far exceeds anything by previous presidents.  He wants to get us to the top of the world in energy and innovation.

So how can he be tied with someone who has no clue about the life that more than 99% of the population lives, who is a war hawk with no experience of what such hawkishness will cost, who has no concrete idea of what would build the economy?  Mitt Romney is not even in the same league as President Obama in his ability to empathize with Americans.  He believes that he got where he is only through hard work and his own brilliance (which, of course, he didn’t; it was his family’s wealth that gave him the leg up).

Why would poor folks even consider Mitt Romney? He thinks that the programs in place are sufficient to help the poor, and are even harmful since they promote laziness and a bad work ethic?  Why would women support someone who is in favor of restricting all kinds of rights for women?  Why would small business people support someone who has no sense of how valuable government support of company start-ups is?  Why would any public worker like police, fire fighters, teachers, etc. support someone who, along with his party, blames these workers for being the vampires who are sucking the life out of the economy?

What is it that Romney supporters see in him, a mediocre politician, businessman, and governor? 

I believe it is not so much what they see, but what they do not see.  The antipathy of many Americans toward President Obama is directly related to his racial mixture.  He is self-identified as African-American. 

Some of the Romney supporters tried him four years ago and were expecting miracles.  If one looks at his record, it does not include miracles, but some significant achievements.  President Obama got one chance.  He did not give every American exactly what they wanted, so he is branded a failure.  A minority person gets only one chance and the results must be amazing or, kick him out.

On a smaller playing field, I have experienced this phenomenon.  As a seriously visually-impaired person, I have known since childhood that to be seen as equal with non-disabled persons, I have to be very much better at whatever I am doing.  When I make a mistake, it is not like a non-disabled person’s mistake.  I must fear for my job, position, or reputation.  Asking for help is seen as a significant, sometimes crippling weakness.   Then the double whammy hits.   When I am better at something, the resentment of people around me can be isolating and painful.

Being the first of anything is hard, but in this culture, being black and first is nearly impossible, even for someone as talented as Barack Obama.  If he can’t be painted as incompetent, a fool, or some other stereotype of African-Americans, he is called an elitist.  He gets the double whammy too. 

So, why do so many people support Mitt Romney? People who have no economic or political reason to?  The answer, no matter how inept Romney is, he isn’t black and there are a lot of people who vote A.B.B, Anything But Black.    

Negative Campaigning, Really?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This morning on the news, I heard someone lamenting that we are already experiencing negative campaigning on the presidential trail.  Mitt Romney is demanding that Barack Obama apologize for his comments about Romney’s  time at Bain Capital and Obama refuses.  President Obama is demanding that Romney release his tax returns and Romney refuses.  Is this really negative campaigning?

There are clearly some discrepencies in Mitt Romney’s story of when he was and was not at Bain Capital.  Is it negativity to want to know the truth?  Is it negativity to ask for tax return information from a candidate who has loudly demanded such information from his opponents?

Negativity is Thomas Jefferson’s party calling John Adams’ supporters “herds of harpies”  and calling Adams’ time in office a “reign of terror” in 1800.  Negativity is the atomic bomb ad against Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the Willie Horton ad by George H.W. Bush in 1988.   Negativity is what the Swift Boaters did to John Kerry in 2004.  There is nothing so far in this campaign that comes even close,. 

So, what is going on here?  It seems that when opponents of Republicans expect candidates to make public there credentials, describe their plans for the country in some detail, or explain their personal or business history, it is negative campaigning.  It seems that the smears are only to be used by Republicans and the superpacs who love them.  Democrats and others are just supposed to stand by and put up a feeble defense.  This defense makes them look guilty of whatever they have been accused of.  Defense is not as popular as offense in American society today.  The guy who delivers the first punch must have the story right or they wouldn’t say it.  Ha! 

I am not a fan of negative campaigning, but the one thing one can be sure of, it works and it is hard to stand against.  People scream that they don’t like it, but they vote for the guy who says the most negative things.  If you are not sure of this, look at the 2010 mid-term elections around the country. 

Democrats will pay for their unwillingness to initiate some honest negativity for years, maybe even decades, and so will the 99% in America.  The one percent is delighted and ready to strike again.  This time, President Obama struck first.  I hope he can keep the pressure on Mr. Romney and not compromise or feel remorse for demanding the disclosures Americans deserve. 

HEALTH CARE AND THE SUPREME COURT

by Ruth A. Sheets

So, President Obama has publicly stated his position on the upcoming Supreme Court decision concerning the health care plan.  The criticism of his statements is truly ridiculous and “much ado about nothing.”  Is it possible that the “right” has so little to complain about him lately that they are grabbing at straws.

Okay, enough with the cliches.  Mr. Obama is a Constitutional scholar and knows far more than his critics about what is and is not proper related to the Supreme Court.  He has the right of any citizen to remind the Court that they should not be partisan.   He knows that despite the conservative justices’ declaration that they despise “Activist Courts,” they, themselves have been as “Activist” as any recent Court:  declaring corporations to be persons and giving an election to a candidate who did not win despite voter fraud, among other decisions.

The health care law “Obamacare,” is challenging in many ways and whatever decision the Court comes to will be controversial.  According to polls, fewer than half of Americans asked said they did not like the law, but when asked about specific provisions, responded favorably.

Outside the Supreme Court building last week, people in both camps protested loudly.  On the one side, people cried “Health care for all!  The mandate means taking responsibility!”  The other side yelled, “We want freedom!  We want choice!”

Which of these arguments would carry the most weight with average Americans? 

None of the interviewers who spoke with the people in the crowds asked follow-up questions like “How do you think the mandate means taking responsibility?  What do you mean by freedom/choice?”

To me, the group demanding health care for all and people taking responsibility does to a great extent frame the issue and the reason the group was there.  Calling for “freedom” and “choice” says very little. 

Is this freedom to not have health insurance, yet expect to be cared for in the Emergency Room?

Is it freedom to have pre-existing conditions that are not covered for themselves or their family?

Is it freedom for insurance companies to refuse to cover expensive but necessary care?

One can’t help but wonder if the Supreme Court justices are considering these things.  As a nation, we commit to caring for one another.  For the first time in a long while, we have a chance to improve the quality of life for many Americans with minimal sacrifice.  I fear, as President Obama does that our unelected Supreme Court, for partisan reasons may destroy this opportunity.   

Growing Number of Americans Believe Obama is a Republican

President Asked To Produce Voter Registration Card

In the emerging field of GOP presidential candidates, only one acts remotely presidential. Maybe because he IS the president.  What's disturbing is that he's acting Republican, too.

The logic here is that something like 1/3 of registered Republicans believe President Obama is Muslim.  Many of them believe he was born in Kenya. I'm pretty sure ALL of them believe he's a liberal.  Well, it's been proven he's not Muslim, and wasn't born in Kenya, so doesn't it follow that he's not a liberal?

This week the president has been engaged in tete-a-tetes with Speaker Boehner.  The plan they seem to be agreeing on sounds an awful lot like Speaker Boehner's original plan, with maybe one or two concessions on the Speaker's part.  Seniors citizens will still be allowed to breathe, for example (assuming breathing isn't contingent on decent healthcare and a home to live in).  Millionaires and billionaires will still get a share of the tax money the rest of us pay in.  If all these rich folks would hire just one person per household with their ill-gotten tax-cut gains, more than 8 million more Americans could be employed.  A recent poll showed that none of the extremely rich are creating jobs at all.  Surely, if we're giving them money to create jobs, why aren't we demanding they do so?  If I give you $5 to go get me a sandwich, you'd better show up within a reasonable amount of time with my food or I'll come looking for you.  At best, I'd never trust you to go get me a sandwich again.  At worst, you'll know better than to volunteer again.

If President Obama is agreeing to all this nonsense, regardless of the fact that the plan won't pass the Senate, I think it follows that, in 2012, the president will be on the Republican ticket. Because, really, who else have they got?

But then, who have the Democrats got?

Peace,

muon

The American Pandemic

America is in the midst of an epidemic.  I don't know the statistics, but based on the people I've talked to in the last year, I'd say at least 30% are infected, with another 10% highly susceptible.  One peculiar symptom of this disease is that the victims become proud of their affliction and reject treatment.  They infect their children, not by accident, but deliberately.

The epidemic?  Ignorance.

Bad enough a bunch of folks in Texas booed at a respected scientist because he said the moon reflected the sun's light.  No one's played that stupid card since Galileo was excommunicated.

Now take Donald Trump (please).  He calls himself a presidential contender yet, does he talk about the economy?  The budget?  The environment?  America's military involvements?  Anything that could be vaguely regarded as a real issue?  No, his main talking point is Mr. Obama's place of birth.  The certification above--what most of our parents took home from the hospital, in lieu of birth certificates--has been floating around the Internet for 4 years now, along with a copy of the president's passport, which you can't get without a US birth certificate.   That should have been enough for intelligent people.  But Donald Trump?  Nuh-uh.

Yesterday, the President asked the State of Hawaii to release his birth certificate to the public.  Did Trump act embarrassed when his claim was proven wrong?  No, he puffed out his chest and took credit for the birth certificate.

I remember a former president in this century who used to do that sort of thing.  You know, the president responsible for all the US soldiers killed in Iraq because of WMDs that never existed?  That whole "Mission Accomplished" thing?

I won't accuse Trump of being ignorant.  Just the opposite--he's cunning, and likes to manipulate people who are ignorant to get what he wants.  Frankly, he's not doing anything different from half the Republican politicians in federal and state governments.  Their policies call for cuts in education.  Why?  Because educated people can figure out when they're being conned.

Lincoln said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time.  What it boils down to is, the more people you can keep ignorant, the more you can fool.  And really, you only have to fool 51% to win an election.

Do yourself a favor.  Seek the truth.  Insist that your politicians talk about issues.  Insist that they do their homework.

Don't be stupid.
muon

An Earth Day tribute to Ronald Reagan

You remember President Reagan?  He was the one who deregulated the air traffic controllers and fired the lot of them.  His new hires are now all beginning to retire at once.  Because of the deregulation, the replacements aren't being trained properly, so they're taking naps while on duty.  How ironic that one of the first controllers to be caught sleeping worked at Reagan Airport.

But let's talk about the environment a minute.  Back in the Carter years, OPEC made petroleum scarce and the price of gas shot up to--gasp--over a dollar a gallon.  Everyone started acting sensibly--buying smaller cars, lowering thermostats, etc.  President Carter began to promote alternative energy sources.  One of his projects was to install solar panels on the White House for a hot water system.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan worked his special magic and petroleum prices came down.  In 1986, Reagan had the White House solar panels removed.  The message:  We don't need no stinkin' unprofitable solar energy.

We're now paying for the Middle East political finagling of those years and the administrations to follow with wars, unrest, and gas prices over $4 and still rising.  We're paying for it more with climate change that's nearly out of control.  The leftover Reagan taming-of-the-Wild-West attitude isn't helping matters.  Unlike the 1970s, people now seem to think they're entitled to their big gas-guzzers.  Small cars are barely advertised.  Homes these days are filled with more lights, and with more and bigger electronics that always pull power, even when they're shut off.  Everyone seems to feel that someone else ought to be doing something to fix environmental problems, but buy a more efficient car?  Turn off the lights and power strips when you leave the room?  God forbid.

Last year, a company named Sungevity offered to donate a full solar system for the White House.  They were refused.  I've read weird excuses for this:  that a White House solar system would only emphasize how expensive they are and show the President as being "out of touch," or that somehow this would encourage every nut out there to donate alternative energy to the White House (is that a bad thing?).

No one who has mentioned the Carter/Reagan solar story has hit on the crucial point:  Since 1986, taxpayers have paid for EVERY DROP of hot water in the White House.  Had Reagan left those panels in place, we would have at least saved money on sunny days.  Over the last two decades, that would have been added up to a fairly substantial savings.

A full solar system on the White House now would not only heat the hot water, but probably make enough electricity to sell back to the power company occasionally.  Imagine, a government project MAKING money.  And if Sungevity donated it, this would be at no cost to the taxpayer.

What the President ought to do to show he gets it about cutting government costs is to have that solar system installed on the White House.  Either that or stop taking hot showers at our expense.

He also ought to encourage companies to RENT solar panels to consumers at affordable prices.  The consumer gets solar energy, the company gets the rent payments plus money from any electricity sold back to the grid.  Everyone wins.  Including the earth.

muon