Post Election Thoughts

Here are a few "day after" thoughts on the national election results...

Republicans

• You lost the Presidential race and you need to move on. Sure, it was close in the popular vote, but you lost that and - more important - were clubbed in the electoral college. Your team has won a lot in the past (Reagan, both Bushes, Congressional majorities for the most part over the last 20 years)...but not now. Obama is the President. He is not a foreigner, a socialist, a communist or the anti-Christ. Cleanse yourself of that baggage. He is the twice elected President of the USA. Accept and move on.
• You need to re-think how you approach national races. Your strategy of trying to win by maximizing voter turnout in areas you have an advantage (rural/suburban, white, male, older) in hopes that this counterbalances turnout in the cities and among minorities and women? It failed. It might have worked in 2000 or 2004, but the nation is changing demographically. It's becoming a more ethnically diverse and accepting place. Doubling down on right wing policies that appeal to middle age white guys in the countryside ain't cutting it and won't going forward. Reinvent your party and have a shot. Don't and really risk not seeing the White House for quite a while.
• You need to legitimately work with Democrats to get things done rather than instantly go back to the "party of no" mode to spite Obama and try and set up a R win in 2016. You need to re-define your idea of compromise as something other than demanding the Democrats coming over to do what you want or "no deal." The nation is tired of all that and you are not serving the citizenry by doing that.

Democrats

• Go play the lottery right now. Why? You just got REALLY LUCKY. Recognize that Obama's victory is not some sort of massive mandate for his leadership and ideas. You should not gloat. 
• It's time to get specific. A lot of Obama's campaign - and many Congressional candidates too - was more about not electing the opposition (and wow, the Rs sure put up candidates that were easy to target that way). You did not really run on a clear vision with specific ideas for the next few years. You need to get specific. Set a few clear goals and work to get them done. 
• You too need to work with the Rs. You need to try and work with conservatives to achieve your clear goals. That should be your default first move. It's the right thing to do and will likely result in more things getting done. But...you also need to know how to put pressure on the Republicans if or when they revert to simply obstructing everything you want to do. Figure out what will motivate them and exploit that. 

Commence Republican Spin

Several hours now since the Supreme Court handed down its decision upholding the Constitutionality of the nation's healthcare reform law.

I've noted that Republican talking points are concise and consistent:

• This is a tax and represents a HUGE tax hike on Americans - they're saying this because the law was held Constitutional by the Court as they determined that Congress could tax Americans if they did not have health insurance....and thus compelling them to buy insurance. So, taxation is the mechanism that makes the law hold. The law has not changed, but this "tax" interpretation is the one now from the right and you will be hearing A LOT about it over the next few months. 
• The act will actually raise healthcare costs and limit coverage to Americans. This is the typical Republican playbook. Take what your opponent is running on or claims that they make and reverse them. Convince Americans that their "strength" is their weakness. Facts need not be considered. 
• It represents a program we simply cannot afford. So says the party that ran our economy into the ground and manufactured our massive debt when they ran all branches of the government from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009. Sorry. Try again. You have zero credibility on this.
• We will move to repeal it legislatively. Now this is a true statement. They will. I suspect we'll see the first try in a few days and then more tries into the election season. And then certainly if the Rs control any amount of Congress or the Presidency come January 2013, they'll try again.

And in the case of Mitt Romney...of course he is saying all these things too...but doing so after supporting and passing a virtual carbon copy of the national law in his state while he was governor. Since that is public knowledge, you can see that Mitt is literally counting on Americans to be short-term-memory morons and just go with whatever he is saying today.

Gas Prices and the Presidential Election

Four years ago I wrote about how gas prices would magically come down during the Presidential election cycle. You can see my posts HERE and HERE.

The premise of my posts at the time was that oil companies and the energy sector of our economy has enjoyed such spectacular and historical profits with Republicans in the White House that they would be willing to take a hit for a few months to help ease one very painful economic issue that most Americans ascribe to "the economy"...and therefore, in theory, lessen their likelihood to turn out to vote or to vote for Obama on the need for a better economy and more likely to be open to vote for McCain.

Based on my personal experience at my local gas pumps that year, I can say that I was right in my prediction about prices.

For the exact same reasons, I now predict that gas prices will rise steadily over the next several months and into prime time election season. To be clear...the energy sector wants a Republican as president for the major deregulation and massive tax breaks they believe a conservative will bring to their industry. Therefore, it benefits them for the electorate to have a reason to be mad at the Democratic incumbent and more likely to vote for the Republican alternative. Gas prices are such an ever day reality in virtually every Americans' life that a steady or steep  rise would really hurt. So, I think oil companies will find ways to raise prices during this election season.

Sure, you'll hear about the threat of a nuclear Iran, reduced refining capacity in the U.S. and general screwed up global economy as reasons. And yes, some of those things do have an impact on gas prices here in the U.S. But think about this: four years ago we were in "hot" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the absolute depths of the economic crises...and prices at the pump when down!

No, what you need to do is compare all that international and infrastrcuture reasoning with the motivation of US energy companies to sustain record profit margins on a quarterly basis...and my opinion is you see the primary reason for gas prices going up now. It's a long term strategic play by big oil to do what they can to maximize the chances of a Republican winning the presidency...and more seats in Congress if possible.

So to close, gas prices at the local Shell station near my house in the Seattle area at $4.09 per gallon today, March 13, 2012. I'll check back with you in the early summer and then October to see where we're at and if I'm correct on my prediction.

Santorum Wins Benefit Obama

If you are a Democrat, Obama supporter or simply someone who cannot stomach turning the reigns of government back to the very people and ideas that crashed our economy, ran up the debt and entangled us in wars in the middle east...

...the victories last night in the Republican primaries in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota by Rick Santorum are valuable for three reasons:

• First, it means front runner Mitt Romney must keep his focus on his Republican challengers rather than Obama. Mitt has to spend time, money and resources battling it out with the likes of Rick and Newt rather than making stuff up about Obama and repeating it over and over again like it's the truth. Romney's dilemma benefits Obama.
• Second, it signals that the hard core social conservatives are still very powerful in the R party...which of course is not the mindset of mainstream American. The more Rick wins, the more planks from his very, very conservative platform will need to be taken seriously by the Republican party as they nominate their general election candidate and what he will run on - no matter who gets the nod.
•  Third, Rick's wins just strings out the whole Republican nominating process...opening up more opportunities for the R candidates to say things that will get them in trouble "I pay 15% tax," "colonies on the moon," "abolish birth control," "I'm not concerned with poor people," etc., etc., etc. The circus continues and as it meanders along, it tosses out "gotcha" material for the Democrats to use later in the general election.

Thanks Rick.

Reactions to State of the Union and Response

A few reactions to the State of the Union address and the Republican response...

It was very informative to see the distinct Republican contingent sitting in stony silence when Obama talked about how Osama Bin Laden had been killed and when he spoke in favor of eliminating tax incentives for companies to offshore jobs to other countries.

The rest of the chamber was applauding, and I have to believe most Americans also are in favor of such radical notions of killing Bin Laden and eliminating tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas.

So, the Republicans sitting there by contrast in silence spoke volumes about their values. Think on that for a minute.

Then, in the Republican rebuttal they trundled out the supposed rational moderate of their party (notice he is not running for President, however) who proceeded to unpack the same old hypocritical, conservative BS where all of a sudden they are concerned about debt and "big government." People, while both parties are certainly owned by big business and certainly we all agree that huge debt is not good, the Republican Party presided over the crashing of our economy.

Quite literally, during their control of the House, Senate and Presidency, their prescription for the economy - low taxes for the rich and corporations, doubling down on oil as our energy source, and deregulation of most sectors - is the exact reason we're in our situation now. The Republicans are not credible....not. Dress it up as a "respectable" moderate all you want, but that guy is saying the same thing that Newt, Romney, Paul and Santorum are.

What they are credible on is the ability to take what they are guilty of and projecting it on their opponents. So, through them we get Obama as the debt creator, Obama the job killer, Obama the class warrior, Obama the creator of big government. Sure, Obama should have more balls, but these things are not true. But hey...just say it in your "rebuttal" and it starts being taken as truth.

In closing, I will repeat my questions...

• Who do you think will be the first and primary beneficiaries of a Republican presidency and Congressional control? Will it be the mother or father in a poor to middle class family who finally gets a job because somehow the magic of tax cuts for the rich unleashes a new wave of new jobs? 
• Will it be the elderly who will suddenly benefit from lower housing and drug costs because of the "unseen hand of the market" forces prices down following more deregulation? 
• Or, will it be the Wall Street bankers, energy companies and the upper class who suddenly get new tax breaks and less regulation on their businesses? 

I think we all know the answer. And we know this because WE JUST LIVED THROUGH IT over the past 10 years.

Something Not to be Thankful For

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving yesterday.

There are many things to be thankful for. Republican and conservative stewardship of the U.S. economy over the majority of the last 30 years, however, is not one of them.

A must read that provides the calculated distruction conservative economic theory has had on the U.S. economy is here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

It's a bit of a long article, but well worth you time in my opinion. Besides, you have some extra time on your hands this holiday weekend anyway, right?

Two Points to Consider When Watching Obama's Jobs Speech

As you watch President Obama's "jobs speech" Thursday, or perhaps if you torture yourself by tuning in as pundits tell you what you just heard, here are a few things to keep in mind, at least in my opinion...

Companies need to step up and get back in the game
While government action can and is sometimes necessary to stimulate the economy, the bottom line is that companies create jobs, not government. No, I haven't gone all "supply side" on you, but it is true that companies are the ones who make decisions on the vast majority of hiring - where, how much, for what and when. There's no getting around that. Obama can talk a good game about tax credits or incentives, but if companies don't want to hire...and rather want to sit on their cash...they won't do it.

This is all related to my assertion that, guess what? The jobs ain't coming back. Companies - especially big ones who tend to employ (or used to) a lot of people - have weathered the economic storm and are now getting by without having to hire back costly items such as employees. So they won't.

Nope. Old jobs are not coming back. Forget about it and move on. The hope would be that "something new" comes along to spur growth, offer clear investment and hiring opportunities for companies and help alleviate the unemployment rate...and thus many of our other economic ills.  This is actually the American spirit that has gotten us by in other times. Be it the automobile, the airplane, medical breakthroughs, the space race, computer chips, the Internet...something big has always come along to really boost our economy and usher in new good times. But this isn't happening now. The bubble burst and the ones left holding the money bags are not ready to invest in innovation and new sectors of the economy.

If government can help via stimulus, great. I am for it. But again, it is companies who hire. So, if you are ticked off that companies are not hiring...get mad at them.

We are in a "conservative economy" and have been for quite some time
Without a doubt, you will hear the Rs rebut Obama's recommendations as ineffective, too reliant on "big government," and wrong for the country. And no doubt, those same conservatives will say that what we really need is a big old helping of tax cuts, deregulation and "getting government off our backs" to free up the economy and get it moving again.

But here's the thing...we are already in that type of economy. Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations were enacted 10 years ago and are still in effect. Aggressive deregulation of energy, financial, transportation, housing and other markets has been going on for 20+ years...and got a big boost over the last 10.

And Obama? He has repealed almost exactly none of that.

You think his "big government healthcare plan" is the problem. Nope. Virtually none of it goes into effect until 2014.

Think Obama is the guy responsible for the debt. Wrong again. Our historic and spectacular federal debt was hand delivered to America by Republicans in the short six years between 2001 and 2007 when they ran the White House and both houses of Congress - all on their watch, all in service of the same economic theories they're still talking about today and all while happily raising the debt ceiling without a peep of controversy.

So you see, we ARE IN a carefully and steadily constructed conservative economy. How you liking that?

Put another way, if tax cuts and deregulation are so good for the economy, where are the jobs?

Anyway, a couple things to ponder as you watch or hear about jobs over the next couple/few days.

Rs on Federal Budget - Do As I Say, Not As I Do

As conservatives wage their war on the Federal budget this spring, fueled by rhetoric critical of the governement, here are a couple things to keep in mind.

Conservative states in the USA accept the most (and benefit the most) from Federal government spending and programs. Info HERE and HERE. This is quite interesting for a lot of reasons, but esspecially given that, generally speaking, more liberal leaning states (CA, NY, IL, MI, MN, etc.) have much bigger populations than coservative ones (OK, TX, GA, WY, KS, ND, SD, ID, TN, etc., etc.).

And, Republican governors - despite rhetoric to the contrary - are all too happy to accept Federal money. Info HERE.

And of course you should remember that the spectacular Federal budget defecit, financial and housing market meltdown and growth of goverment all happened under Republican control of the Federal goverment (WH + House + Senate from 2001-2007, WH + House 2007-2009).

Keeping all that in mind, several adages come to mind when thinking about conservative attempts to drastically cut back Federal goverment spending:

• "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it." I mean, hey, the states that will suffer most with drastic cutbacks will be the states run by conservative politicians.
• "Do as I say, not as I do." While rabble rousing their supporters on a jag of "small goverment" speech, Republican governors quietly take the Federal money they say should not be spent in the first place. Hypocrcy.
• "You made your bed, no lay in it." Republicans and conservative economics got us into this mess, and my opion is that they should be the ones to suffer with whatever remdy is decided. This might happen in conjunction with the "be careful what you whish for" situation because if these people bring down the type of cuts their talking about, voters in their states may decide it's time for someone new.

New Republican "Fixes" for the Economy Are A Sham

Today we see what Republicans in the House have in mind when they talk about cutting the budget deficit.

Why? Because they've floated their outline for budget planning over the next 10 years, and it includes slashing spending by $5 billion, privatizing Medicare and cutting big from Medicaid. However, it also includes exactly $0 tax increases or other revenue sources. So, it's only touching one side of the budget ledger - spending. Story HERE.

You may recall a couple recent posts I wrote about the importance of addressing both sides of the ledger (spending and revenue) as a responsible way to balance the budget HERE and HERE.

Not surprisingly, the "new" ideas from the Republicans are exactly the same as their traditional ideas on economy and government. To me, this proves they are not serious about responsibly reducing the budget deficit and/or they are wholly blind to their addiction to"voodoo economics" of tax cuts for the rich and corporations combined with roll-back of government programs. This approach not only does not work but makes things horribly worse.

As evidence of this claim, I give you the entire history of the United States of America from the 1770s to the 1930s. That's right. Our history is one of boom and bust, boom and bust, boom and bust...all with a relatively small middle class, virtually no government programs or regulation and with wealth concentrated at the top among a very few.

Only in the period roughly between 1934 and the early 1980s did we REALLY break out and grow our middle class and society into the unquestioned economic, cultural, military and standard of living leader of the world. And what do you think was one key differentiation in that 40+ period of time from everything that came before? Responsible government programs and laws - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights legislation, regulation of financial markets and banks and others.

None of that stuff existed before 1932 and much of it has been under attack or rolled back since the mid 1980s. Only when government asserted itself responsibly to address the economic disaster of the Great Depression, mobilize the country for World War II and pass Federal civil rights laws did we flourish as a world power with a broad, deep, employed and comfortable middle class the likes of which had not seen by any society before.

Flash forward and back to recent times. Our current budget crisis was created by turning our back on the fundamentals that made us a great nation. Conservative economic theory and leadership over the past 10-12 years has been wickedly efficient of producing wealth for the already rich and big companies, but as it did so it created the massive budget deficits, shrinking middle class, rising unemployment and overall erosion of our society that we see today.

And what to the Republicans propose as of today to fix the problem they created...more of the same thing.

That's why I call "sham" on what they're proposing. It won't work...it never has...and is most likely just a new way to funnel money to corporations or the wealthy. And we know how that always works out for the rest of us.

Republicans Have Zero Credibility on the Budget Deficit

A friendly reminder as the Republican majority in the House drives the Federal government closer and closer to a shut down over the issue of spending cuts to address the massive Federal budget deficit...

It was this very same Republican Party that created the deficit through massive tax cuts and deregulation, combined with massive spending - particularly in the area of defense and the bailout of financial and auto industries.

That's right. In case you forgot, the Republicans controlled the combination of both houses of Congress and the White House from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009. And in that same time frame, our nation went from a budget surplus in 2000 to the largest deficit in the country's entire history by 2009. Thanks.

Also, many of the current leaders of the R party were in positions of leadership then. So, we're also not only talking about the same political party, but literally the same people who created our problems.

Keep that in mind when you see news about the Republicans wanting to address the budget issue. They have zero credibility on what works and what does not.

Republican Playbook: Starve the Beast...the Sequel

The conservative playbook...

• You don't like the Federal government
• You think it should be very small and keep out of the way of, well, pretty much everything.
• You have a lot of reasons for this, mostly related to how much money you think you and your rich connections can make in a massively deregulated economy 
• But, you live in a country that as of the 1930s has decided otherwise - not as much as some countries, but certainly it's the national consensus since the Great Depression that the Federal government has a role to play
• Further, your party has not had a majority in Congress (both houses at the same time) since the 1930s, and you have not had the whole Congress and the Presidency since that long ago too. So, your ability to make change has been limited. See the previous point.
• But, in 1995 you get control of both Houses if Congress and then from 2001 to 2006 you add the Presidency.
• You know that the Federal government runs on money and one way to get it out of the way is to "starve" it...in other words, if you don't fund the Federal government it will not be able to do things.
• In the 1990s, you actually are able to make this happen - literally shutting the Federal government down. But, that backfired because...well, go back to my fourth point above. People didn't like that and you got blamed. Goodbye would-be President Dole.
• In the 2000s, you had a balanced budget with no Federal debt (thanks Bill Clinton for your leadership to get that done), but you still don't like the Federal government, so what are you going to do?
• Oh, how about running up the biggest budget deficit the nation has ever seen and doing so in six years time? Yes, that's what you did when you had the power to do so.
• And you did this knowing that once the debt got so huge that you'd then be able to say that, well, there just has to be cut-backs to make things right. Goodbye Federal government programs and regulation enforcement.
• Sure, you were banking on the American public forgetting that it was your leadership in the 2000s that bankrupted the nation, but that's a bet you are willing to take - especially since you were out of power since 2006 in Congress and since 2008 for the Presidency because you can just blame the incumbents for what you did. Easy.

And that ladies and gentlemen is what we're seeing now. The R majority in the House is demanding budget cuts and reductions in major programs (but not defense) as a bold and shameless attempt to "starve the beast." That's right, drive the nation into unprecedented debt and then use that situation as pretext to cut back on Federal government programs big time to "fix" the problem. And hey, if you and your buddies make a ton of money along the way, great. In your mind, that's all good. That's your America right...I got mine, screw you.

Why Would You Say This?

If you are an elected politician, especially a brand new first timer, why do you say the following as did the newly elected Republican governor of Alabama...

"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

• Is it because you feel morally superior to others?
• Is it because you assume that 99% of the people listening agree with you anyway?
• Is it because you want to convert your state's residents to your religion above all other causes?
• Are you sending a message that non Christians will not be treated the same under your administration?
• Do you feel that your beliefs outweigh the law?

Or is it because you are a first class moron with monumental religious superiority complex?

Tell you what, replace the words "has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior" with "who is a Jew" or "who is black" or "who is a Democrat" or "who is female" or "who is more than 65 years old" and I think you'll get the picture of how monumentally stupid and blinded this guy is.

In any case, this is the corrosive and divisive side of religion rearing its head in a scary way. The governor of one of the states has very publicly said that he does not view all citizens the same way based on his religious beliefs. That there is a religious condition to be met in his eyes before you can be seen as worthy.

That's quite a message if you live in that state and you're not the same religion as him. Are you going to be targeted for special treatment by state agencies? Are you going to have the same protection under the law? Are you going to have access to the same state services as others? Will I have to convert to another religion just to get what I need? To vote?

Here's something else to think about. What's scarier? The governor saying what he did or large number of people nodding their head in agreement?

Here is a little reminder for both the new governor and those agreeing with him...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Recognize that? See that first part? Yes, it's the FIRST AMMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that, among other things, explicitly forbids government establishment of religon.


Seems to me that Mr. Governor is pretty far down the path of violating this.

A Little Ammo for Those Pre-Election Conversations

With the election coming up in just under two weeks, many people will be making up their minds how they are going to vote. While most probably are not influencable, there may be some people who are even as late as election day itself.

Look, my feeling is that turning the Federal government back over to the very same people who ran our nation into the ground over the past 10 years - and that's what we're talking about when we ponder a change in leadership in Congress - is exactly the wrong thing to do.

From what I can tell, most Americans have the political attention span of a gnat on speed, so many may not remember that virtually every single one of our economic problems were designed, created, manifested and grew to disaster proportions under leadership of the last administration and under conservative rule of Congress.

If you feel the same way, below are a few tips for conversations you may have between now and election day with people who may be leaning towards voting us back to the stone age, but perhaps haven't put too much thought into it yet.

• Note - if the person you are talking to is firmly convinced, then nothing you say will change his or her mind or make them think any differently than they already do. Ain't gonna happen. You might want to jab a little for fun, but don't expect to change that person's mind.
• Note - if you are a conservative and reading this, I understand if you disagree. You may want to skim this quick (or just ignore it) and then tune into Fox News for your fix.

OK, here are some tips for potential topics that may come up in your political discussions over the next few days...

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for CANDIDATE X from the Tea Party because we just need to clean house in Congress. Throw the bums out. Send a message.

YOU SAY:
Yeah, things are pretty messed up in DC. That's for sure. But you know, just voting for someone to kick others out may not always be the best thing. I mean, you gotta consider who you are voting for as well. Seems like a lot of the Tea Party candidates have some pretty "out there" ideas like getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. And I'm not even going to get into some of the wackier things some of these Tea Party candidates indulge in (dressing up like a Nazi, being homophobic but collecting rent on a gay nightclub). Just saying, but I'd check out the candidates you're voting for more if I were you.

THEY SAY:
Government is too big. We need to reduce it's size and get it off the backs of Americans. That's how I'm voting.

YOU SAY:
If that's how you feel, I can't see how you'd want to vote Republican. The U.S. federal government grew to its largest size ever in terms of spending and number of people employed during the six years when Republicans ran the entire show - President and Congress Do you really want to hand over control of the government back to the people who made it so big?

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for fiscal responsibility. Our budget deficit is going to kill our economy and our childrens' future.

YOU SAY:

Yes, I agree 100 percent. I also agree that getting the budget balanced and back into the black is the right thing to do. I assume then, that you'll be voting Democrat, right? I mean...hey, lets face facts. The record budget deficits we now have are a direct result of Republican leadership over the past decade and longer. Reduced taxes for the wealthy and big business, massive deregulation of markets, free trade policies, along with increased government spending and financing two wars are all key moves made by Republican Congresses and the Bush White House. We're still trying to dig out from that. You want to give them control again? I say no. And hey, guess who led us out of the last debt crisis and into the back - Bill Clinton.

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for the Tea Party because our freedom and liberty are under attack. We need to get those back.
YOU SAY:
I am not sure I understand? The U.S. economy and culture are the freest in the entire world. Just so I know where you're coming from better, what are you now no longer able to do freely that you want back?

THEY SAY:
I'm voting conservative (or Republican or Tea Party) because of (insert moral, religious or "family values" issue here).

YOU SAY:
I can tell you're passionate about this. But, when was the last time a conservative or Republican controlled government actually delivered on your issue - or any moral values issue? Abortion is still legal. We still have firm separation of church and state. Gay marriage is still legal in a number of states and if anything the tide is going towards more of it. Same with assisted suicide. Seems like the Republicans or conservatives use issues like yours to get your vote and then never deliver. You know...they're using you.

NOTE: you are not going to change a person's mind on their moral issue, but you may someone to think twice about voting for the same type of candidates over and over.

THEY SAY:
I am just not seeing the change that I voted for in 2008, so I am not going to vote. It clearly makes no difference.

YOU SAY:
Healthcare reform has been passed, a stimulus to the economy has helped stabilize it and stave off worse unemployment, the auto industry has been saved and we're starting to dial back our presence in Iraq. Sure, there is more to do and no it's not as fast as I'd like either. But, not voting will basically hand the government back over to the very people who wrecked us before. Not a good move in my book.

THEY SAY:
Unemployment is still really high and Obama and Congress have done nothing to fix it.

YOU SAY:
Yeah, I'm disappointed too. But I think it's wrong to blame Obama. I mean, he came into office with high unemployment and an economy just about to go down the tubes. He's done a pretty good job of stabilizing the economy and unemployment rates in under two years.

More important than any of that is the fact that jobs are created by businesses - not the government. To me, it seems like businesses are not innovating to grow - and with it hire people - but rather just finding new ways to lower costs by outsourcing or reducing staff. And, using the recession as an excuse to keep their now lighter employee base small. Maybe it would be good to have a government that encourages domestic innovation and employment.

It's a Republican Affair

Well, Republicans don't disappoint do they?

First this week we find out that a Nevada Senator John Ensign who consistently runs on "family values" and was one of the first and loudest to condemn Bill Clinton for his infidelities while president has himself been having an affair. News here.

Now it comes out that the governor of South Carolina has been having an affair too. News here. While I'm unaware if the governor uses "family values" as a primary issue, he has been previously mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012 for a party that uses that issue A LOT. So, not sure how much credibility he'll now have for the socially conservative Republican party base.

Throw in the Larry Craig situation from 2007, the Ted Haggard scandal, Limbaugh and his drugs and serial marriages, as well as a number of others...and you have a lot of major Republicans out doing hypocritical and naughty things. And I think it's the hypocracy that's the key because while Democrats are no less likely to step out on their spouses (Spitzer anyone?) they usually are not running for office on a platform of morality as many Republicans do.

You'd think that doesn't bode well for these people specifically or the Republicans generally in the 2010 and 2012 elections, but the conservative base of the Republican party seems to have a short memory for moral lapses when it suits them.

It's all just one big Republican affair.

Debate: Re-Run from 20th Century for McCain

Did you hear it last night in the debate?

Yes, that familiar set of Republican campaign assertions - my foe is a tax and spend liberal, he'll raise your taxes, he's to the far left, he's inexperienced, he'll increase the size of government, he doesn't get it.

Like a broken record from 1984, 1988 or 1992...McCain made these points over and over again last night. Like a familiar dispatch from the 20th Century. 

Weak stuff as a central argument if you ask me...especially from a guy whose political party has dominated for the last 28 years. 

The debate was close in my book, but at least Obama presented himself on par with McCain and got plenty of zingers in that I see now making the rounds on the news today.

McCain Dusts Off “Socialist” Charge

Yesterday, presidential candidate – and old man – John McCain rolled out that great Republican campaign chestnut...."my opponent is a socialist." McCain raised the issue with the nice little statement, "I don't know if Obama is a socialist," and then proceeded to talk about his opinion that Obama's voting record was "to the left" of liberal Senator Bernie Sanders.

Traditionally, this “boogie man” charge has been a tried and true scare tactic to push everyday Americans to vote against Democrats and, in doing so, voting against their own interests (better healthcare, more affordable education, more jobs, clean environment, etc.) in favor of Republican candidates who serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy. There’s a great book on this subject called What’s The Matter With Kansas? A short read, it’s worth checking out.

Ever since the Russian Revolution in 1917, conservatives and the wealthy in this country have recognized the treat of even a whiff of socialism represents to their established control over the economy and wealth. So, they have aggressively used “Red baiting” in campaigns through the decades. And really, it’s been quite successful. Only when the economy completely collapsed in 1929 and The Great Depression ensued did the public call the conservative bluff and vote into office leaders (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democratic Congress) willing to actually create programs for the common good (Social Security, Medicare, the SEC and FDIC are great examples), as well as public works projects to get the country back to work. At the time, FDR was indeed called a communist by conservatives for doing so. Thank goodness he persevered and was not assassinated like another high profile so-called “socialist” Democrat – Huey P. Long of Louisiana.

Ironically, once in office, Republicans are the ones who act as “socialists” by using the public’s collective revenue (your taxes) to deliver spectacular tax breaks, loopholes,, investments, subsidies and trade policy to authorize, aid and abet corporations and the wealthy in their goal of maximum private profit in the shortest period of time.

Given his advanced age, perhaps McCain is so old that the Red baiting worldview is the one he relates to best and, through instinct and default, goes to this Cold War campaign tactic.