Post-game analysis

I’ve been reading a lot the past few days about the campaign, election night, demographics, and post-election freakouts. Cut me some slack, guys. It’s my thing. Or one of them, at least.

Here is a great read called How a Race in the Balance Went to Obama, which appeared in the New York Times. I enjoyed it a lot, and I look forward to a book about this campaign. It fascinated me on a couple of levels.

First, the demographics and campaign strategies were just amazing to me. Team Obama built a database of potential voters, and targeted them for registration based on algorithms they had developed to find people who might support Obama. They registered hundreds of thousands of new voters in this manner. I believe that both the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns will be studied as models of how to run a campaign. I don’t blame President Obama for getting choked up when thanking his team...they were awesome in the truest sense of the word. Their strategy was almost flawless: build the narrative of Romney being an out-of-touch plutocrat in the summer, when Romney was still trying to regroup and refresh the coffers after a brutal primary campaign. It worked very well.

The demographics are also fascinating. No real surprises, other than minorities, women, and youth expanding enough to offset the slight loss of Obama’s white supporters. Hispanic voters were HUGE in this election, coming out strong for Obama, and that lesson seems to have sunk in almost immediately with the Republicans, as moderate voices like Sean Hannity—hahaha I just cracked myself up there!—admitted that they need to rethink their hard stance on immigration. The truly big story here is that many conservative voices are saying that they really need to consider being more inclusive. Gee, do ya think? They’ve been all, “Yeah, we think 47% of you guys are takers and moochers, we don’t want all of you to have the right to marry that MOST of us do, and we think all you women who want birth control are a bunch of sluts...but hey, can we count on your vote?” What the hell?! It’s kind of funny when you think about it.

It’s that sort of disconnect from reality that brings me to my second point about what really struck me in my reading. I recall reading on election day that Romney told reporters that he had only prepared one speech: a victory speech. I figured it was just a show of bravado, trying to project confidence as the polls started closing and the votes started being tallied. Not so. He really had not prepared any sort of a concession speech, because he really thought he was going to win. By all accounts, he was completely gobsmacked by his rather decisive loss, as were his wife, his running mate and his wife, not to mention his staff and supporters. They ALL thought he was going to win.

I’m really not sure what was going on there. Was their internal polling really that bad? Did they just choose not to believe all the external polling? Did he really feel that sort of inevitability—as Ann put it, “It’s our turn”? Did his campaign try to hide the bad polling results from him, or brush them off as invalid? To what end? Did the ClusterFox spin delude millions of Americans? (That last one was a rhetorical question.) It all smacks of gross incompetence to me. And I’m seeing so much of this denial of reality happening lately. If you don’t like a poll result, ignore it. If your personal beliefs don’t allow the possibility of evolution, ignore thousands of books and scientific papers and hours of research on it. No no no...don’t read them! That’s dangerous. Better to just ignore them. If you don’t like the facts of something, or a truthful quote on the matter, just say, “I don’t believe it.”

I have honestly never seen such an obstinate refusal to accept facts, math, and reality. There is very much a tendency to lash out at those who have been an advocate of reality all along; just ask Nate Silver. I’ve seen people lash out at me for providing facts. As someone who kinda digs rational thought and thinks that reality is the best place to be, this is very bizarre to me.

I would say that the Republican party needs to do more than start relenting on the immigration issue. They need to grow a pair and start repudiating those within their ranks who dismiss science, rationality, and reason. Stop kowtowing to these voices of unreason within their own party, and stop treating anyone who isn’t a white male as “the other.” I would think this would go without saying, but...there I go again. Being all rational and junk.

Hit me baby, one more time

Ahhh, what a glorious evening was last night, and what an enjoyable day today.

I’m tired, because I was so wired last night that I was up until 4 am. I did next to nothing today, other than reading through the analyses and various takes on what happened, the demographics, and so forth. I kept the TV off all day, I didn’t feel like talking to anyone, and I just enjoyed the moment as I read my fill. I didn’t even spend a whole lot of time on Facebook, reading various reactions. I needed the time to regroup, take it all in, and let out the mental breath I’d been holding for about two freakin’ years! Whew!

I gave myself 24 hours to gloat, and I’ve posted a few items today that were definitely of that ilk. I’m not a mean-spirited person, for the most part, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t ecstatic that President Obama not only won four more years, but did so by beating one of the most cynical, mendacious candidates I’ve seen in some time. There have been times when I felt rather sorry for a losing candidate; I even had a twinge of that in 2008, because despite my anger at McCain for foisting the Grifter Palin upon us, he gave a decent and honorable concession speech.

Not so Romney. For some reason, he refused to make the phone call to President Obama for about an hour and a half after the race had already been called by the networks (if not Karl Rove, haha). When Romney finally did give his speech, I found it to be perfunctory and stiff, and it reeked of the attitude that he truly felt that he was entitled to win, and in fact, believed up until the end that he would. Most accounts say that he had not written a concession speech, only a victory speech. I believe this might be a classic case of hubris and nemesis. I can cut him some slack on the tone of it, I suppose; it’s not easy to lose. However, McCain (as well as Hillary Clinton, when she conceded the Democratic nomination to Obama) showed that concession speeches can be gracious and that the person who didn’t win can do so with decency and strength. Romney’s concession speech showed little of that.

It’s all a moot point, of course. Mittens is toast. I would be very surprised if he runs for office again. The endless parsing of the votes and the breakdown of the demographics have already begun. (Note to Republicans: your white guy base is dwindling.) It’s been fascinating to watch not only the demographics, but the hilarious freak-outs of various right wing pundits and “celebrities.” Donald “The Dorito” [thanks for the nickname, Holly!] Trump called for a revolution (at least until someone apparently told him that that might be considered treason, and he removed that tweet), batshit crazy bobblehead Victoria Jackson cried that America had died, and pants-shitting draft dodger Ted Nugent called Obama supporters pimps, whores, welfare brats, and “subhuman varmints.” I would like to give the Republican party a word of advice: until you start condemning these wingnuts, calling them out for their hyperbole and hatred, and start signalling that you do not find such rhetoric acceptable, you are going to continue to hemorrhage supporters. As long as you continue to build your coalition on white, conservative, religious-motivated voters, you will continue to hemorrhage supporters. And unless you let go of your death grip on your bibles and your religious-based social attitudes, you will continue to hemorrhage supporters. Don’t believe me? Fine. Just keep going the way you’re going. In about a decade or so, we’ll see how that is going for you, okay?

Another interesting takeaway from this was the rise of the statistics gurus. My own “personal” guru (at least the one I’ve been reading since the last election) is Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight blog. For the past three months or so, it has been a daily check for me. It’s even become a joke among liberals who were wigging out about Obama’s chances for re-election: Keep calm and check Nate Silver. Nate took a lot of flak from the right wing pundits (and even a few on the left) who felt that gut instinct would triumph over statistics and math. Peggy Noonan (insert Seinfeldian ‘Noooonan’ here) based her declaration that it was going to be an overwhelming victory for Romney on seeing lots of Romney yard signs in a particular neighborhood. Mm-hm. Maybe they feel that their jobs are threatened? No worries...the world will always need talking heads. But the complete refusal of so many to accept the polls and/or the math—and even the reality—was rather mind-boggling to me. Nate, who bases his statistical model on all the polls that are taken, both nationally and statewide, was fully and completely vindicated when he successfully predicted the outcome of every single state. (Florida still hasn’t been called, but it seems that Obama is going to win it.) In the last two elections, that makes him 99/100 when it comes to calling the states. I think a whole lot of people owe Nate Silver a big fucking apology today!

As for predictions, I made mine back in early September, with a political email group I am involved with. Here was mine:

Obama 326

Romney 212

Obama wins OH, PA, WI, CO, NV, VA, FL, NH

Romney wins NC, IA, MO

The only one I got wrong was Iowa. If I had made my prediction more recently, I would have put Iowa in the Obama camp, as well, but that’s the problem with making your prediction so early on! Again, they haven’t called Florida yet, but it looks likely Obama. When that happens, it will be Obama 332, Romney 206. I’m more than a little pleased with myself! But I owe it all to Nate Silver. So for those who kicked sand in Nate’s face, just stop it, you guys! Leave Nate alone!

So that’s that. This concludes my period of gloating, and now I’m ready to move on and help to make shit happen. I don’t wish Mitt Romney or his family any ill, but I can honestly say that I’m very glad he lost. I did not find him a likable candidate, nor an honorable one. (Please note that I specifically used the word ‘candidate,’ not ‘person.’ I don’t know him as a person, so I don’t feel that I can make that inference.) There is plenty of work to be done, and I hope that our legislative branch will get off their asses and start doing it. I foresee many letters and emails in my future, as I try to keep their feet to the fire.

After all, we all want what is best for the country, right? I think we can all agree on that. We might disagree on how to go about it, but as Joe Biden said in his debate with Paul Ryan, “Facts matter, Martha.” Just ask Nate Silver.

One picture

Game time

What a long, strange trip it’s been. After a seemingly never-ending campaign, we’ve come down to the end of it, and it’s just a matter of waiting for results to roll in. I’m hoping we’ll get a clear picture tonight, and based on all I’ve been reading, we will.

I think my guy is going to win, but of course I’m nervous and anxious anyway. I’m not going to go into polls, momentum, demographics, or anything like that in this entry. It is what it is, and time is winding down. I can say that although I will still enjoy reading political books and analysis, I’m looking forward to not being all but consumed by the latest polls and reporting. My brain will be happy for the reprieve.

It’s been a weird day for my emotions. I started out almost giddy, in a high state of hilarity and laughing at silly things I found online. Then I moved into determination, as in “We’ve got to win this.” Then I was feeling a little sad, because I love this stuff, it’s been fascinating, and in some ways I hate to see the excitement end. Now I’m just trying to be patient as we start to wait for results. I think it’s a safe bet to say that I will end up shedding some tears tonight.

In the meantime, I’m sporting my “Hoosiers for Obama” t-shirt, and I’ve got a pork roast going for pulled pork sandwiches tonight. Seems like good comfort food for tonight, and maybe barbecue, cole slaw, and baked beans will work some mojo on North Carolina and turn it blue again!

I also find that I remain in awe of our right to vote. We have our share of problems with our voting process (Can we please get rid of the abhorrent Citizens United? And can we follow the lead of other countries and ban advertising? What a horrible waste of money.), but I will always be grateful that I am able to cast my vote as a free citizen. I take it seriously, I do my best to stay informed, and I feel that it is an honor that should not be ignored or dismissed. I will never understand anyone who doesn’t care enough to vote, and it makes me question their intelligence. I’m not kidding.

So batten down the hatches, folks! It could be a bumpy ride tonight. I’m going to do my best to keep my adrenaline in check and not completely wig out. I hope you are able to do the same!

Excoriated

In my previous entry, I wrote about why I support President Obama. In this entry, I’m going to write about why I do not support Mitt Romney.

I could go into detail about the many of his policies with which I disagree, or about how I disagree on a very basic level with his vision of our country, especially concerning those who are less fortunate; I could also talk about his embrace of trickle-down economics, even though that cute little experiment has failed miserably for going on four decades now. Honestly, what does it take to get people to understand that lower tax rates don’t create jobs and drive the economy? It’s all about demand for goods and services. So there are deep philosophical differences I have with Governor Romney.

But as I was thinking about all of this, I realized that I could distill my dislike for Romney into one simple phrase: he lacks a core.

He may have that when it comes to his faith, and he probably has it when it comes to his family. When it comes to policies, however, he has no core. We’ve seen his frequent changes over the years in almost everything he’s dealt with. NBC published a fairly lengthy article on Romney’s changes on foreign policy over the years. And that is just foreign policy! It doesn’t include his many changing stances on marriage equality, abortion, and as far as I can tell, virtually every other issue he has encountered in his entire political life. As the saying goes, you’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.

This goes beyond simple evolution of stances on issues; I think we all grow and learn and change as we get more experience. For example, I’ve written before about my change from supporting civil unions only to full-on support for marriage equality. However, you won’t see me changing my stance on that again...ever. That was the culmination of years of thought, the exchange of ideas, and simply knowing and loving several gay people over the course of years. No...Romney’s changes happen frequently, and oddly enough, seem to coincide with his political campaigns. As candidate for Governor and Senator of the decidedly liberal Massachusetts, he took a moderate, even left-of-center stance; in the presidential primaries, he moved far to the right according to the dictates of the far-right factions of today’s Republican party; as the Republican nominee, he is distancing himself from those remarks—some made just weeks ago!—in order to court the moderates and independents. His head is spinning faster than Linda Blair’s in “The Exorcist.”

I can appreciate the changes that people experience in their lives and that cause their stances on issues to evolve. What I can’t appreciate, and actually abhor, is anyone who engages in crass attempts to change the core of their convictions based on popular opinion, or based on what particular bloc of voters they happen to be courting that day. I find this sort of blatant ass-kissing deplorable. It speaks very strongly to me of the character of a person, and makes me question their ability to make proper decisions. I’ve always hated a bullshit artist, and I can spot them a mile away. Mitt Romney reminds me of drunken frat boys trying to get into my pants in college, saying whatever they thought would appeal to me in order to get there.

America, Mitt Romney wants to get into your pants. Show some respect for yourself and walk away. You really don’t want to take that Walk of Shame on November 7th.

Why I support President Obama

I really need to stop apologizing at the start of every entry for not updating sooner. It’s the new normal. I’ve been pretty absorbed with polls and articles about the election, but I’m also on the verge of burnout, so I’ve been trying to balance it with some general reading, quiet time, and fun things like Notre Dame games. I find myself growing increasingly disillusioned with news channels and journalists (other than my real-life journalist friends, who seem to have their shit together more than many of the national journalists!), and I find myself withdrawing from much of it other than the political blogs that I read. But we’re getting close to the dénouement, aren’t we? And I am delighted to get to use the word ‘dénouement.’

Anyway, I thought that as part of my advocacy, I’d lay out exactly why I supported Obama in ‘08 and why I am still supporting him in this election. In no particular order....

• I am a woman. I truly believe that Obama accepts women as equals and supports our right to equal pay for equal work. The very first piece of legislation he signed into law was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which promised exactly that. He also supports our right to choose, our right to affordable health care (more about that in a moment), and our right to control when or if we become a parent.
• I am a scientist. President Obama has launched a campaign to promote STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) for America’s youth, encouraging kids to get into these fields in order that we can continue to compete globally. He is probably the most science-friendly President we’ve had in a while, and I believe that these areas are where our future lies. I also love and support arts and music education, but I think an extra emphasis on science education is sorely needed.
• I am a former health care worker. President Obama was able to do what has been needed for some time: pass comprehensive health care reform. Millions more Americans will now be able to get health insurance, and preventive care will be a part of that. Electronic medical records will result in less duplication of tests, and outcome-based payments will start to move us towards a focus on wellness and outcomes rather than inefficient fee-for-service payments. Is it perfect? No. (Personally, I’d like to see single payer insurance, such as Medicare for all.) But it is a very good start, and we can continue to build on it. Joe Biden was right. This was a big fucking deal.
• I care about the less fortunate. Unlike President Obama’s opponent, I don’t feel that the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax are lazy moochers who feel entitled to government handouts. I believe the majority of them are hard workers who are doing their best to provide for themselves and their families, but need some help from the rest of us. The sad truth is that it is almost impossible to support a family of...say four...on minimum wage. I do not begrudge them the help from our government, or paying taxes for that purpose; that is part of its mission, to promote the common good. This is probably the greatest difference between the two candidates and the two major parties: a “we’re in this together” attitude vs. a “you’re on your own” attitude. I want to see ALL Americans succeed and grow prosperous, and I believe that President Obama shares that wish. I do not sense that from his opponent.
• I want to stop waging war. I know it is sometimes necessary. But I want a President who pursues diplomacy first and considers military involvement a last resort. I want a President who considers all the options (such as monetary sanctions), and doesn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to conflicts around the world, one who understands that war is not to be worshipped or glorified; it has real costs, both human and financial. A President who, in his or her youth, didn’t protest in favor of a war, even as they were avoiding it themselves. President Obama has increased benefits to veterans and their families, including increased money for college tuition, an increase for the VA budget, and tax breaks for firms that hire veterans.
• I want to see an increase in jobs. President Obama has a plan to invest in infrastructure, education, and clean energy. All these things will create jobs. The most important driver of job creation is demand; consumer confidence is up, housing starts are up, and continuing the middle class tax cuts (as the President wants to do) will allow the biggest group of consumers to continue to drive that demand.
• I believe in equal rights for all Americans. I was heartened when President Obama came out (so to speak) in support of marriage equality. Sure, ol’ smilin’ Joe might have forced his hand a little sooner than Obama was prepared for...but that was a good thing. The Democratic Party then added marriage equality to its platform, so it was a win-win situation. It’s high time we stopped treating a portion of our citizens as less than other citizens. It’s not right, and the Obama administration is on the right side of history on this one.

I originally became a supporter of Barack Obama when I read his book The Audacity of Hope. I felt that he had a reasonable and cogent vision of how best to guide our country. I still feel that way. I believe he will continue to govern for every American, not just the rich ones, and not just his own supporters. I see nothing wrong with asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a few percentage points more in income taxes and lose a few loopholes that allow them to game the tax system. I see everything wrong with giving the wealthiest Americans more tax breaks and asking the middle class to take on more of the tax burden. Prosperity for all doesn’t come from letting rich people keep more of their money. They are not the job creators. The middle class, which purchases the vast majority of goods in this country and creates the demand for those goods, are the real job creators. I feel that President Obama understands this.

You might have noticed that I didn’t delve into personal traits. I could have...I like our President’s rational, cool demeanor. It’s obvious that he loves his wife and daughters very much, and that’s great. I love it that he loves basketball. But I don’t base my voting decisions on such things. I base them on policy, and I mostly agree with Obama’s policies. It always made me laugh when I’d get emails from online friends saying, “Did you read this about Obama?? Do you agree with this?!?”, knowing that it was something that I wouldn’t agree with. Since when does any politician embody everything we want? There will always be things I don’t agree with, but I am supportive of the majority of his policies and the decisions he has made in his first term.

You might also notice that I did not rail against the President’s opponent. I’ll save that for upcoming entries. I want to make it clear that I am not voting against the opposition; I am voting for President Obama. We are going in the right direction, on the right path to recovery, and America needs four more years.

Oh yeah...and THIS:

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!

Today on Facebook and elsewhere, I noticed some of my liberal friends having a bit of a freak-out over Wednesday night’s debate. The pundits immediately declared it a crushing Romney victory...which was odd, because Ken and I didn’t see it that way at all. Immediately afterwards, I said that I’d give a slight win to Romney, both because of the low expectations for him and because of President Obama’s lackluster performance. Ken felt the same way.

Of course, the following day, teeth were gnashing and voices were wailing. I wish I could have passed some smelling salts out to folks. I stepped back for a moment, read several stories about it, and really thought about my perception of the debate. One thing became clear very quickly: Romney may have seemed forceful and sharp, but he was not very truthful. I’m being nice. He LIED. A LOT. I’m not going to list them all here. Do you know why? Because there are so freakin’ many of them! Besides, others have done a fine job with checking up on what he said. You can read about it here (Mittens is bad at math edition), here (Bullshit Contest edition), and a comprehensive list here (Lie, lie, and lie again edition). My initial hopes that people would start doing some fact checking and calling Mittens to the shed for his lies turned out to be true. The teabagger base types might have loved his chest-thumping, testosterone-laden silverback impression, but I’m guessing independents and undecideds were not quite as enamored of the display...especially when he blatantly lied about numerous things.

I couldn’t help but laugh at the absurdity of one exchange in particular, in which Mittens disputed the $5 trillion tax cut claim made by Obama. Never mind the fact that the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has estimated that the tax cuts that Romney champions would amount to that over the next decade. The exchange went something like this:

Obama: blah blah blah your $5 trillion in tax cuts...
Romney: I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut.
Obama: Yes, you do.
Romney: No, I don’t.
Obama: Yes, you do!
Romney: No, I don’t!

Argument Clinic, anyone? Good grief.

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that the reason I saw the debate so differently is because I was expecting facts, and I got them from Obama. I know enough about some of the topics that I knew that Romney was lying about several things. So I was rating the winner on substance. I should have known better, because people often determine a winner based on style rather than substance. (I believe that it was also in the media’s best interest to make this a closer race than it is at the moment, but that’s a topic for another day.) Romney came across as forceful and combative, and Obama seemed listless and disengaged. I do understand part of the reasoning there...sitting Presidents should behave in a presidential manner, and all that...but he was a little too cool and detached for many people. (Although I appreciate that in him, I know that not everyone does.)

So some folks were a little wigged out. Obama has lost the election. Obama blew it. Romney’s going to win. Dogs and cats living together. A new Nickelback album. I finally sent an email to some friends saying that everyone needs to take a deep breath. This was ONE DEBATE in an entire campaign. Romney lied, the fact checkers are on it, and he provided all kinds of fodder for Obama ads. (Sure enough, one was released in seven swing states the very next day.) Obama is known for his competitiveness, and you can bet that he will not be that passive in the final two debates. One is a town hall format—and we know that Obama does well connecting with people in town hall formats—about domestic and foreign policy, and the final debate is about foreign policy. I wonder if Osama bin Laden will be watching that one? Oh, wait! He can’t, ‘cause he’s DEAD!

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that debates usually don’t matter. Almost everyone has already made up their minds who they are going to vote for by this time, and that seems more true than ever in this highly polarized atmosphere. There is a very small percentage of undecided voters (many of them could also be considered uninformed voters who have not been paying much attention and aren’t into politics at all), and an even smaller percentage of those are in swing states. An undecided voter in Texas who votes for Obama isn’t going to matter fuck-all to the electoral college vote, just as an undecided voter in Illinois who ends up voting for Romney isn’t going to matter. So the target audience is not a huge number of people. As for those who have already made up their minds, do you really think that debate is going to swing someone like me? Do you really think I sat there and watched that and said, “Hey...I think I’m going to rethink this Romney guy”? Not on your life. Will Romney get a bump in the polls? Undoubtedly. Will it be enough to change the trajectory of the race? History says not.

It’s time to put away the smelling salts and get a grip. Team Obama and the DNC raised over $150 million in September. Today’s job report was, overall, good news, with the unemployment rate down to 7.8%. Jobs are expected to be added for the holiday season, optimism is rising, and a majority of people feel that the economy is improving (that’s because it is). The stock market closed today at 13,600+, up almost 25% from a year ago. The facts are on our side. We’ve still got work to do, and we’ve got about a month to do it. Anyone who thinks that debate completely changed the game needs to do a little more reading, because there are more forces and influences at work here than that.

This video seems like a good way to end things today. Buck up, liberal citizens. It’s not over till I say it’s over! Well, technically, it’s Congress who validates the electoral college vote, but...oh, never mind, just watch this!

And ROCK THE VOTE! 

Be afraid

Over the past few days, I’ve found myself feeling more engaged politically. Don’t get me wrong—I’ve been reading things all along and doing my best to keep up with the latest. However, I finally feel like I am in battle mode, ready to start taking things on.

Maybe it was the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act; maybe it was President Obama’s wish to extend the middle class tax cuts; maybe it’s a matter of seeing the lies and misrepresentations about the President, the ACA, and pretty much everything else about him. It probably doesn’t matter what it is, but it seems that my dander is up.

As always, I will do my best to remain calm and rational, and to not lose my temper. I will do my best to not use completely insulting or pejorative terms (although “Mittens” is here to stay). But I’m ready to fight the lies with facts. I don’t claim to be an expert in politics, or any kind of policy wonk, but I’m not completely in the dark about it, either.

I will also do my best to not make it all politics all the time here, and try to mix it up a little. We’ve got lots of fun things coming up, including several concerts and tickets to all the Notre Dame home football games. I’ve got plenty of books to get to, and of course, we always love our movies. However, you can expect plenty of political stuff going forward.

You have been warned. [grin]

Gettin’ my vote on

Today was primary day here in the great state of Indiana, and although I initially hadn’t planned on voting (reasons to follow), I couldn’t bring myself to NOT vote!

[Does anyone remember the old voting machines? With the little levers, and then the big lever to register your votes? I never got to use one for a real vote, but I recall using one in a mock vote in school. Filling in an oval is not nearly as much fun as these monstrosities!]

I think there are other states like this, but in Indiana’s primary, you have to vote in one party’s primary or the other; you can’t vote in both. I had two choices today: I could choose a Democratic ballot, although most nominees were running uncontested, or choose a Republican ballot, where there is a primary race that is garnering national attention—incumbent Richard Lugar vs state treasurer and teabagger darling Richard Mourdock. I considered casting a strategic vote in the Republican primary, because my current Congressman, Joe Donnelly, is running unopposed as the Democratic nominee for this Senate seat. Senator Lugar is a stand-up guy, and I have voted for him in the past, but I’m not crazy about his recent pivot to the right to appease the teabaggers, so I would definitely vote for Donnelly over Lugar. Lugar is a stronger candidate against Donnelly, so Mourdock would be a better opponent if we want to pick up the Senate seat, and that was my possible strategic vote.

Ultimately, I chose to vote today (there was a judge I wanted to vote for) and chose the Democratic ballot, because I just could not cast a vote for Mourdock even though I have no intention of voting for him in the general election. Although I disagree with some of Lugar’s votes, I believe he has done his best by his state and by his country, as well as making the world safer for everyone with his work on nuclear arms reduction. I couldn’t vote against him. I think it’s shameful that he has been targeted by the teabaggers because he has worked across the aisle and has been willing to compromise on certain votes and issues. This ideological purity test that is happening with the Repubs lately is just sheer insanity to me, and I don’t see it getting better anytime soon. They can go as crazy as they want, but I won’t aid and abet their idiocy. Part of this was Lugar’s fault, too, for not taking the threat seriously.

Anyway, it looks like Lugar is going to lose, so in the fall it will be Mourdock against Donnelly. As the state treasurer, Mourdock has more name recognition statewide than does Donnelly, so my advice to the Donnelly campaign (if they read this...and I’ve had a few visits from various Washington, D.C. offices, so it’s possible) would be to come out of the gate hard, and start defining Mourdock as an extremist and all that junk. Donnelly is well-known and fairly well-liked in his own district, but he definitely needs to get a real jump on this and define himself—as well as his opponent—statewide.

After my errands and a good workout, the sun had come out enough to burn off the fog, and it ended up being a pretty nice afternoon. I got some reading and sun time in out on the deck, which was an unexpected treat. As an extra-added bonus, I saw a boy hummingbird at the feeder, so the boys have joined the girls! Yay!

Mitt ‘n Grits

It has been with a high state of hilarity that I’ve watched video of Mittens Romney campaigning in Mississippi over the past few days. You really can’t make this shit up.

Mister I’m Worth $200 Meeeellion Dollars is working hard to convince average working folks that he’s just like them, and he seems to be trying especially hard to do this in the South by learning their lingo and having “strange things happen to him.”

It was bad enough when he was campaigning in Michigan and uttered that perplexing thing about liking the trees in Michigan because they’re the right height. What? But this week in Mississippi, he cranked up the Awkwardometer and started saying things like “Mornin’ y’all!” and “I like grits!” (Grits One and Grits Two)

You know, I don’t hate the guy. I completely disagree with him on most of his policies, I think supply-side economics has been proven to not work, I think he’s spineless and kisses Rush Limbaugh’s fat ass, I think his criticisms of President Obama’s foreign policy is disingenuous at best and a deliberate, pandering lie at worst, and I think his religion’s practice of baptizing people into the Mormon faith—even Holocaust victims, who are, you know, JEWISH—after their death is obscene. But he seems like a decent kind of guy for the most part.

But I have never seen anyone so completely unable to connect with people. I often feel socially awkward, but this guy makes me feel great about my social skills. It’s almost painful to watch at times, and sometimes I almost feel sorry for him. Then I remember that it’s all deliberate, he has people telling him what to do, how to act, what to say...and instead of coming across as a regular guy, he keeps hammering home the fact that he’s richer than the vast majority of us will ever be. (And he also wants to lower taxes on himself and those on his level...don’t forget that part!) It’s really just embarrassing now. He’s not a regular guy, and he never has been.

As we begin to see the return of Candidate Obama, the contrast between the two is astounding. Obviously, much of what President Obama does is calculated; I’m not naive. But I also think he has a genuine understanding of and a concern for most Americans. Mittens may feel that way (but I doubt it), but is simply unable to get past that rarefied air of privilege. Obama is also a fantastic speaker, with great oratory skills.

It’s fairly obvious that Mittens will be the eventual nominee. I look forward to the debates between him and President Obama. Mittens is no slouch as a debater, but there have been many awkward moments, especially the combative ones with the moderators (“You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want. Okay?”), and he gets very defensive about his taxes and wealth. But Obama comes across as authentic and genuine, and Mittens comes across as exactly what he is: a really, really rich guy.

It will be fun to see the personae that Mittens adopts in the coming primaries. Perhaps we’ll get to see some Native American stuff in the southwest (certainly no LATINO stuff...get real!). Maybe he’ll don a 10-gallon hat in Texas and shoot a varmint. Illinois might give us a glimpse of ‘20s Gangster Mittens, and I can hardly wait to hear him talk about his love of ‘sport’ in Indiana, especially that ‘hoop’ game (“Boy, you Hoosiers really love your basketball, don’t you? I saw that movie, you know. Wasn’t that a great movie?”) and the upcoming Indy 500 (“Boy, you folks sure drive fast around here. I think I took a wrong turn when I was trying to get here, and I just kept going around in circles, and then they gave me some milk to drink. Ha! Ha! Ha!”)

Jeez, the guy is the Borscht Belt comedian of the political world. Ba-dum-tsss!

Pledge is for furniture

Can someone explain to me why or how it has become some sort of litmus test for a candidate or legislator to sign a pledge?

The latest one has been issued by the Susan B. Anthony Foundation, an anti-choice group. Several of the Republican candidates signed it, but Romney and Cain refused. Cain cited his reason as that as President, he can’t advance legislation. Romney said that the pledge itself was flawed, with unforeseen consequences; that it’s one thing to defund Planned Parenthood, but entirely another to withdraw federal funding from hospitals all over the country for providing abortions to victims of incest or rape.

You all know me well enough to know that I am firmly and irrevocably pro-choice, and that I find the defunding of Planned Parenthood here in my state and in others to be harmful to women’s health (especially low income women). That is not the purpose of this entry. It’s no surprise that both candidates were attacked for their refusal to sign it, particularly Romney, considering his past pro-choice stance. It’s also no surprise that fellow candidates attacked him. That’s politics. I get it.

The other pledge that has been out there for some time is Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. Norquist must have one hell of a blackmail file on all sorts of legislators, because over 200 Congressmen and 41 Senators have signed this agreement stating that they will not raise taxes unless such raises are accompanied by tax cuts in other areas. First of all, who the fuck is Grover Norquist? (That was a rhetorical question. I know who he is.) And why are so many people kowtowing to him and his stupid pledge? He doesn’t seem to have ever held elected office, and he is basically a conservative lobbyist. Yet somehow he twists enough arms (With what leverage? I have no idea.) to coerce people to sign his little pledge, and vilifies them if they don’t.

Senator Coburn of Oklahoma actually had the guts to stand up to the guy recently in a showdown over ending ethanol subsidies. Norquist had the nerve to say that ending $6 billion in ethanol subsidies amounted to a tax increase, and called for tax cuts elsewhere. The subsidy repeal passed the Senate, with 33 Republicans going against Norquist and voting yes to repeal. Let’s hope this is the beginning of the end of Norquist’s bizarre stranglehold over so many legislators.

Why anyone would commit to signing some sort of pledge (pushing ANY sort of agenda put forth by any group) is beyond me. We are in dire straits at the moment, and the unrealistic and illogical Republican adherence to no tax increases is incomprehensible. Every analysis I’ve read shows that the deficit can only be reduced with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. BOTH. We’re not talking hiking the rates up to 90% (like they were under Eisenhower). Let’s just hike them on our highest earners by about 3%, okay? Let’s all have a dose of reality and understand that compromise happens in politics. It must, if anything is going to get done.

And jeez, grow some balls, politicians. Grover Norquist is not the boss of you. He’s a freakin’ lobbyist. I’m really amazed that I have to point this out to you. Your pledge is to uphold the Constitution, not to kiss the ass of a dude with a Muppet name.

The Dimmer Twins

As originally published on BlogCritics

Palin and Bachmann running for President? How interesting.

The speculation has been endless, especially when it comes to whether or not Sarah Palin will enter the race. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has also shown signs of throwing her toque in the ring.

Bachmann has said that her phone has been “ringing off the hook” with those wanting her to enter the race, and CNN reports that it is looking increasingly likely that she will enter the race.

Palin was thought by most to have taken herself out of the running, but her recent purchase of a home in Arizona (it would be easier to run a campaign from the mainland than from Alaska), news of a movie about her governorship (Shortened though it might be, through no fault of her own. Oh, wait.) in Alaska premiering in Iowa, and the announcement of a bus tour have fanned the flames of speculation once again.

In some ways, I welcome this news (more about that in a moment), but overall, I am both appalled and amused. Let me count the ways:

1) As a woman, I applaud those of my gender being involved in politics. It was a man’s world for decades, if not centuries, and the more women that get involved, the better. However, I would prefer that such candidates have a lot more substance. Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton had a boatload of gravitas; Palin and Bachmann seem to be more about sound bites and appearance than policy. They are very good at firing up their base. They are sorely lacking in the ability to reach beyond that base and deliver their message to others who need to be convinced. Frankly, I find their demeanor and lack of knowledge concerning the Constitution, policy, and various other tough questions thrown their way (things like “Which newspapers do you read?”) an embarrassment to women everywhere.

I have no problem with attractive women in the workplace or in politics. Indeed, it can sometimes be an asset, and I would be lying if I said that I felt that it hadn’t helped me in my career at some point. However, you’d better have the knowledge to back it up. I worked with some attractive women during my laboratory career, but if you didn’t have the knowledge about what you were doing or the processes that took place in the lab, you didn’t get ahead. I expect the same from any politician, whether male or female. When women have often had to work harder and be smarter in order to be taken seriously in many endeavors, I find it a setback to hear some men say, “That Palin is sure a looker, ain’t she?” You don’t get to run the country because you look good in a designer suit and high heels.

I don’t doubt Palin’s or Bachmann’s toughness (although Palin has a disturbing tendency towards vindictiveness, and she seems to have a hard time shaking off the inevitable criticism that comes with being on the national stage), because you can’t be a politician in this country without having a good measure of toughness. However, I also want a good measure of intelligence, and a willingness to work across the aisle rather than simply hammering home every agenda at the expense of the well-being of our country and our citizens.

2) As a progressive, I simply do not care for their agenda. I fundamentally disagree with most of, if not all, their nebulous policies, and their basic philosophy of less government, more local control. Such a doctrine was rejected by our founding fathers (the same founding fathers that Palin and Bachmann seem to love so well, but understand so little about) when they rejected the Federalist papers in favor of the Constitution. The Constitution states clearly in what is known as the Supremacy Clause that federal law is the supreme law of the land. The concept of states’ rights was fought over in the Civil War, and it was rejected. I honestly do not understand this effort to let states reign supreme; if that were the case, there would still be segregation in many southern states.

Palin, Bachmann, and the teabaggers call for a return to the way things used to be, a return to American exceptionalism. They seem to be enamored of post-WWII America. To be sure, it was a time of booming prosperity, but it was also a time of discrimination against blacks and other minorities, women (unless they stayed at home; that was okay), and homosexuals. As for American exceptionalism, they seem to have missed the news that we are falling behind other developed countries when it comes to health care, infant mortality, and education. Part of the latter has much to do with the endless attack upon science education, an atmosphere where teachers are sometimes afraid to teach the scientific facts of evolution because of the blowback they get from highly religious communities. Which brings me to this.

3) Palin, Bachmann, and their acolytes seem to want nothing more than to make our country a theocracy. As someone who firmly believes in the separation of church and state (again, those pesky founding fathers and their assertions that we are not to promote ANY religion; another part of the Constitution that is conveniently ignored by many), I find this the most disturbing of all. One would think that the readily accessible example of various theocracies throughout the world (let’s use Iran as an example) would lead anyone to understand that basing our government upon any sort of religion is exactly what we should not and must not do. It was definitely not the intent of the writers of our Constitution. We do not base our laws upon any religious text. Both Palin and Bachmann seem to be taking their cues on whether to run or not from God, and when Palin met with Billy Graham, she asked him about what the Bible says concerning Israel, Iraq, and Iran. If you want to base your foreign policy on what the Bible says about the End Times, the Rapture, and Armageddon, kindly step slowly away from my government.

4) Finally, as someone who is highly interested in politics and also loves to laugh, I think it would be very entertaining to have these two enter the race. The debates will be hilarious, and will provide plenty of comedy fodder. I suspect, however, that it will not be any sort of a boon to a Republican party that wishes to be taken seriously. For all the talk of Paul Ryan’s “serious and daring budget” (ignore that Medicare part, okay?), I find it a downright knee slapper that the possibility exists that we will see the Dimmer Twins soon engaged in battle. I await such a development eagerly, and I’m sure my fellow progressives do, as well.

Trump: The non-serious non-candidate

*Article first published as Trump: The Non-Serious Non-candidate on Blogcritics (this is my first post there!)

There has been much buzz lately concerning whether or not Donald Trump will run for President. Trump, a master of self-promotion, has blatantly courted the Tea Party by aligning himself with the little group of crazies that just won’t go away, the Birthers.

Trump’s shameless pandering to this group of idiots seems to be paying off. Not only does a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll show Trump tied with Mike Huckabee at 17% for second place behind Mitt Romney, the ratings for his NBC show Celebrity Apprentice are up. (I’ll admit to Apprentice being one of my guilty pleasures. It’s a fun show.) He’s a smart businessman and a good promoter.

However, when he uses the Birther “controversy,” a non-issue that has been repeatedly debunked, to garner attention and generate publicity, it is impossible to take him seriously. He spouts the typical nonsense about how a certificate of live birth is not the equivalent of a birth certificate; he states that Obama’s grandmother in Kenya says she was a witness to the birth, although it has been shown that that was due to a translation error; he maintains that Obama’s mother didn’t have the money to put birth announcements in not one but two Hawaiian papers, although most newspapers publish such announcements at no charge. It’s a silly argument, and Trump makes himself look silly for climbing onto the Birther bandwagon.

Trump doesn’t just make himself look foolish. He diminishes the stature of the office of the presidency. While he certainly has the right to run for president if he so chooses, his pursuit of the Birthers is ludicrous and laughable. Former entertainers can certainly take being elected seriously, and approach the job with the appropriate gravitas. Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono, even Fred Grandy (Gopher from The Love Boat), for pete’s sake, made the transition from entertainment to politics. While they all occasionally had non-serious moments, they embraced nothing so ridiculous as the Birther nonsense. (One could make the argument that trickle-down economics was every bit as ridiculous, but that is a topic for another day.) I suspect that the GOP is not thrilled with this development; when they are struggling to field a serious candidate who has a chance against Obama, this clown is talking Birther blather. When even Glenn Beck says you’ve taken it too far, you might need to realize that you’ve got a credibility problem.

If Trump’s goal was to garner attention and generate publicity, he has succeeded. If his goal is really to be taken seriously as a possible presidential candidate, he is failing miserably, except with a small and deluded minority of the population. Astonishingly, a significant portion of Republicans (51%) don’t believe Obama was born in America. That portion of the population isn’t enough to win an election; Independent voters will be key, and they want no part of the Birther silliness. Nor should any thinking American.