My Many Reasons to Not Vote for Mitt Romney...

I only vote for candidates that I can say I support. I don’t waste it to vote against someone; settling for the lesser of two evils means you still have evil.  I’m not a fan of Mitt Romney; never have liked him, probably never will.  But I also consider Barack Obama to be one of the worst presidents in American history; so I won’t be voting for Obama.  For the first time since the mid-1980s I haven’t felt I could truly support any of the candidates.

So, for the last many weeks I’ve been weighing what truly matters to me and where the two major party candidates align to my beliefs.  Based on that I discovered that even though I wouldn’t vote for Obama, there were many reasons I couldn’t vote ‘for’ Romney either:

Core Beliefs – Romney’s views and positions seem to change based upon whose votes he is attempt to gain at that point in time.  He comes off as someone who will tell you what he thinks you want to hear.  By contrast, President Obama seems to have very strong core beliefs, yet chooses to keep them mostly secret from us and only tells us the little snippets that he wants us to know.  I’m more concerned by what he has NOT shared than what he has. BOTH FAIL

Purpose in Running – Romney’s main objective has been to be President.  It is one thing to run because you have a vision for leadership and that takes you to the Presidency, it is another thing to simply seek the position.  By contrast, since President Obama’s meteoric rise to power, his approach has been ‘Barack’s way or no way’ as if he is the US Emperor rather than US President; which leaves me to believe he too simply sought the power of the position. BOTH FAIL

Jobs – Romney promises to create new jobs.  I certainly don’t have a problem with creating new jobs; but I do have a problem with ANYONE in the government being looked to as the source of those jobs.  We are all better off if the government stays out of our way and allows US private enterprise to do what it has always done best.  Romney claims to be a free enterprise kind of leader, yet he panders for votes by promising something that should be in sharp contrast to what he claims are his views.  By contrast, President Obama has no problem with government being the source of new jobs – so much so that he has expanded the size of government at an alarming rate literally creating a whole bunch of new taxpayer funded jobs.  He also likes to brag about creating over 5 million new private sector jobs – but that’s a lie; the fact checkers say it’s less than 350,000. BOTH FAIL

Moral Ground – I’ll start by saying I find the ‘separation of church and state’ concept to be a bogus one.  It was born from a single sentence, taken out of context, in one letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a minister – not included in ANY official documents.  And yet our society has grasped with gusto at this little straw in its vain attempt to keep God at arm’s length.  That having been said, it’s still good to see a politician be willing to take a stand on moral issues; even if such a stand costs votes.  While this may not be politically wise, it reveals a great deal about the candidate’s character – and that is what I want to see.  On far too many occasions Romney has either waffled on moral issues or has dodged them entirely.  (I mean really, why couldn’t he even laud the tremendous grassroots support of Chick-Fil-A?)  By contrast, President Obama claims to be a Christian but then oversees an Administration that seems bent on knocking the legs out from under Christianity in our nation.  Whether it’s forcing Christian business owners / organizations to pay for contraceptives for employees or using the IRS to restrict First Amendment rights to Free Speech, the Obama Administration has shown itself to be no friend of God. BOTH FAIL

Immigration – Another topic where Romney walks a thin, very moderate line.  Actually he tends to avoid it as much as possible, except to accuse of President Obama of failing, and falls just short of pandering for the votes of those who support granting rights to those in our country illegally.  By contrast, President Obama has very clearly made it known that he has no regard for state sovereignty as he not only overrides state immigration laws, but attempts legal action against those states who have the audacity to try to look out for their needs when his Administration has failed to do so. BOTH FAIL

If I stopped there I would be deadlocked – forced to either go 3^rd Party or not vote for a presidential candidate at all this time around.  But even though I have to cross out both of the candidates in these areas that truly matter to me; there are still a few areas where I may be able to find hope:

Foreign Policy – Romney has very little actual foreign policy experience (unless you include offending the British at the outset of the Olympics).  But he does articulate the concepts of running an international business – and many of those same concepts would serve him well in managing our foreign policy.  By contrast, President Obama’s foreign policy seems to be for the United States to subjugate its status to whatever the whims of the international community area.  He shows greater interest in currying favor with the United Nations than actually being leader of the free world; and his failure to lead or even hold ANYONE responsible for Benghazi should be grounds for impeachment whether he’s re-elected or not. ROMNEY WINS

Tax Policy – Romney understands that the only way to truly alleviate the tax burden on the middle class is not through further raising taxes on any groups, but rather increasing the number of revenue generating businesses who can hire more workers thus creating more tax payers and consumers which in turn fuel the growth of more revenue generating businesses.  By contrast, President Obama would have us believe we can tax ourselves into prosperity.  He would have us believe that ‘trickle down economics’ have never worked – which is yet another of his lies.  He would have us believe that Bill Clinton’s tax policies resulted in a balanced budget – conveniently overlooking the Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t allow Bill to spend excessive amounts like Barack has already done.  He would also have us believe that a family with a combined income of $250,000 is the same thing as a millionaire.  Our economy has started to rebound not because of Obama’s economic policies, but in spite of them. ROMNEY WINS

Bi-Partisan Efforts – Everyone is sick of the bitter, deep partisan divide in our nation today.  While I am personally turned off by Romney’s wishy-washy RINO status, I’m also reminded of the old saying: “only Nixon could go to China”.  Maybe the Des Moines Register got it right when they cited Romney’s past of being able to work with Democrats in Massachusetts as proof he might finally be the guy to successfully reach across the aisle in DC.  By contrast, despite his grand statements about inclusion when he was first elected, President Obama made it clear you were either with him or against him from day one.  He was the one who drew the line in the side and he was the one who forced Republicans to either blindly support him (as Democrats did) or fulfill their duty as the minority party to challenge and question policies.  When they actually did their job, he isolated them and even used some of the slickest insider moves ever seen to shove through Obamacare so fast not even its supporters really understood what they were inflicting upon an unsuspecting nation.  President Obama is incapable of bipartisanship unless it is everyone agreeing with him. ROMNEY WINS

So, in the end I have two candidates that I don’t care for, neither of who gives me anything I like on the issues that matter most to me.  But I can find a handful of additional topics which I am able to find a reason to honestly say I can support one candidate over the other.  So on the eve of the election, I am finally able to list all the reasons I won’t be voting for Mitt Romney… and thankfully a few reasons that I will.

Dissecting Post Coverage of the VP Debate

On October 11, 2012, Vice President Joe Biden and US Representative Paul Ryan squared off in the one and only Vice Presidential debate. There is a lot of analysis of the debate itself going on... but I want to take a different approach. I'd like to actually exam the post-debate coverage and see what we can learn from that coverage itself.

 

When debate had ended, I flipped between 3 networks (intentionally avoiding FOX News) and was greeted by the same thing on each: journalists lauding Biden for his strong performance and for ‘taking command’ of the debate by not allowing Ryan to make points that might score with voters. They talked about how pleasant and reassuring his constant smiling was, and how it made him seem more personable. But the best was when one pundit referred to some of his ‘folksy’ comments and compared him to having appeal similar to Sarah Palin! (Seriously?)

 

And yet, the very next day the REAL results began coming in and – while neither can claim a knock-out punch – the notion that Biden ‘won’ or was seen as ‘in control of the debate’ seems to be unraveling rapidly as actual normal people weigh-in. The media is in a tail-spin trying to run interference for the Obama/Biden campaign, twisting themselves into pretzels attempting to explain away the results that are now being documented.

 

CNN Poll: Debate watchers split on who won VP debate

 

Nowhere is this better seen than in that bastion of journalist integrity – CNN. In this single article we learn a great deal:

1.      Poll results qualified as being taken from a Republican-leaning area (when is the last time you saw it reported when a poll was taken from a Democrat-leaning area?)

2.      Specific notation that the “poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans” because it is only from those who watched the debate (again, when is the last time you saw that qualification being made / reported?)

3.      A poll in which “one-third of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans” (aka 33.3%), 34% Independents, and 31% Democrats is dismissed because it “indicates that the sample of debate watchers is more Republican than an average of recent CNN polls of all Americans.” (which confirms for us CNN polling generally is more Democrat-slanted)

To be fair, the sampling for CNN’s survey is only 381 people with a 5% margin error – making the results basically irrelevant. And yet look at how hard the media feels the need to explain them away!

 

Polls show Joe Biden is vice presidential debate winner (an intriguing headline on its own – since only 2 polls are covered and 1 of the polls actually says Ryan won)

 

But if you’re a Democrat, it’s okay; CNN assures us that this CBS News’ poll gave Biden the big win. However, when you look at the info on the CBS News poll, the survey population is only up to a whopping 431 people. But we are again assured, this time by CBS, that these results can be trusted because CBS also declared Romney the winner of the first debate “using the same basic methodology.”

 

We know that the fairly evenly split group that CNN talked to basically called the debate a tie. But the CBS News group not only gave Biden a commanding debate victory (13%); they pretty much ranked Biden higher in every single question asked following the debate. So let’s dig a bit into exactly who these “uncommitted voters” were in the CBS News poll.

 

Poll: Biden takes debate over Ryan, uncommitted voters say

 

VERBATIM FROM THE END OF THIS ARTICLE (my emphasis added):

 

The "uncommitted voters" who participated in this poll are either undecided or have chosen a candidate but say they could still change their minds. (If you've chosen a candidate, you are NOT "uncommitted", you've acted on your gut preference already.) They are less likely than voters overall to identify with either of the two major political parties: 58 percent call themselves independents (does this mean they are REGISTERED Independents or just consider themselves to be independent?), 17 percent identify as Republicans, and 25 percent say they are Democrats.

 

This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK's web-enabled KnowledgePanel?, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 431 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate.

 

Oh, BTW, this poll ALSO has a margin of error of 5% - making its results statistically invalid as well. As if 381 people or 431 people could possibly reflect the views of over 40 MILLION voting age Americans; and even if they could – do you really think on a national level there are 25% Democrats to only 17% Republicans… how is that “representative of the U.S. population?” And yet again, look how the media seems almost desperate to create a narrative in which Biden is the winner.

 

Joe Biden's smiling: Was there a method to his madness?

 

This analysis contains what may be my favorite of Biden's performance. It purports that not only were Biden's actions wrong... but that it was completely intentional, planned, and that he was coached to do exactly what he did for the sole purpose of benefiting President Obama:

 

So the challenge for Obama (in the 2nd debate) will be to carefully calibrate his next performance, correcting his previous mistakes without making it seem like he’s overcompensating.

 

And that’s where Biden’s incessant, aggressive smiling comes in. By taking his own animation level right through the roof, Biden may have given Obama a little more room to emote on Tuesday, without seeming like he’s overdoing it.

 

Because everyone just saw what overdoing it looks like – thanks to Biden.

 

So why, you may ask, would the media be working so hard to make Jokin’ Joe look so good? Actually, the gracious folks at CBS News provided that answer in the very last paragraph of their story above: “Finally, even a draw is probably a victory for the Obama campaign. The Romney/Ryan campaign came into the debate riding a wave of momentum from Romney’s victory in the first presidential debate. A tie in the vice presidential debate may effectively blunt that momentum, and allow President Obama to turn the tide in the next presidential debate.” (In other words, they admit that Biden really didn’t do as great as they want us to think… so they are trying to do their best to slow down Romney/Ryan to give Obama a chance to reclaim his mantle of superiority.)

 

Just watch – no matter how Obama performs in the 2nd debate, he’ll be the hands-down winner. In fact, the media pundits probably already have scripted what their responses (and the post-polling results) will be...

 

All That's Missing Are the Links...

If this article is correct (Researchers: Ancient human remains found in Israel) then ‘modern’ human beings were in the wrong place at the wrong time… at least as far as the Theory of Evolution, in it's current incarnation, would have us believe.

Isn’t it funny that with every new ‘break-through’ discovery of archeology there is also a required revision to the Theory of Evolution?  For something that is now continually taught to our school children as ‘unquestionable fact’, it sure doesn’t seem to have a very solid foundation upon which to stand.  And yet how many changes to the Theory of Creation (or the broader theories of Intelligent Design) have these discoveries required?  But which one is taught as fact and which one will get you mocked and ridiculed if you voice support for?  Hmm… (Intelligent design advocate denied tenure at ISU)

But what I really find of most interest is the response from the scientific community - so passionate are they to defend Evolution - that they are immediately skeptical of this find, insisting that it would be presumptive to make any quick decisions based solely on the discovery of a tooth.  While you may be saying that this is indeed a logical response, take a look at the following info (found at http://www.ronharrod.com/evolution.html about mid-way down the page):

Physical Anthropology

With the exception of a couple of specimens for which there is currently incomplete data, every missing link proposed by anthropology since its inception as a discipline, has eventually been disqualified as a bridge between man and more “primitive” creatures. Some of the “missing links” which have been proposed are as follows.

1. Nebraska Man “Nebraska Man” never existed (as a man). This supposed missing link was fabricated from a single tooth. The tooth turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Incidentally, Nebraska Man was introduced as evidence “proving” evolution in the famous Scopes trial.
2. Piltdown Man Piltdown Man (another none existent “man”) was constructed from an ape jawbone and pieces of a human skull. The bones were filed and stained to make them look older.
3. Colorado Man Colorado Man was constructed from the tooth of an extinct horse!
4. Neanderthal Man It is now known that Neanderthals were completely human. As a group they show signs of some type of osteo-arthritic degeneration (downward, not upward evolution).
5. Cro-Magnon Man Cro-Magnon Man was fully human (cranial capacity of 1650cc). These people produced art and artifacts that testify to a high degree of intelligence.
6. Heidelberg Man Heidelberg Man was constructed from a jawbone found in Germany in 1907. This jawbone is virtually indistinguishable from modern jawbones of natives living in New Caledonia, who are of course, fully human! By the way, this may be a good time to point out the fact that evolution is the bedrock of racism and beliefs regarding racial superiority. You see, if you really believe that creatures having a jawbone like Heidelberg Man are subhuman, you would naturally believe that the natives of New Caledonia are subhuman–and you'd probably treat them that way. This explains why thousands of aboriginals were slaughtered like animals in modern times. It also explains way the Germans were willing to commit genocide against the Jews and other so-called “inferior races” during World War II.
7. Various Australopithecines The australopithecines were simply apes. Human bones have been found which are older than the australopithecines, so it is difficult to imagine how these creatures could be the link between man and the “lower species.” Charles Oxnard (an anthropologist) performed extensive computer analysis on the Australopithecines and concluded that they did not walk upright.
8. Ramapithecus Ramapithecus was supposedly the oldest hominid to be found, dating from around 14 million years. As it turned out, Ramapithecus is now known to have been only an orangutan.
9. Java Man (Pithecanthropus) Java “Man” was discovered in 1880. He was a composite of ape and human bones found in a gravel pit. The fact that both human and ape bones were found in the same pit at the same level was kept secret from the public for over thirty years while this “find” was being used as evidence for human evolution.
10. Peking Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis) Peking Man was discovered in Peking, China. Skulls were found with the backs of the skulls bashed in. Also simple tools were found at the site. It was assumed that these creatures (cranial capacity of about 1000cc) manufactured and used the tools on one another. However, there is clear indication of human activity at this cite and it is known that monkey brains have been a delicacy in some cultures from ancient times (some folks still eat pig brains), so it appears now that the tools were used on the monkeys rather than by them!

Did you notice how many so-called ‘missing links’ have been foisted upon an ignorant public based on the EXACT same tiny amount of evidence as has been uncovered in Israel?  But the difference is that these leaps of evolution-based faith were committed by those who wanted desperately to prove Evolution as absolute truth.  However, consider how many of these discoveries have actually stood up under legitimate scientific review.

On a side socio-political note: it was the Scopes “Monkey Trial” that paved the way for our current imbalance in what our children are taught and what our scientific community continually bombards us with.  If, as noted in the list above, one of the pieces of ‘evidence’ submitted during that famous trial to prove Evolution to be 'fact' was information about the “Nebraska Man” – an entire skeleton that had been built up from JUST ONE TOOTH – then one must ask why that verdict hasn't been subject to greater skepticism if the evidence for it has been discredited.  And even though it has long since been proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig, I would bet you could still find “Nebraska Man” cited in biology textbooks in schools all across our nation today.  It was a lie in 1925 and it’s a lie that continues to be told and retold to this day by those who CLAIM that their goal is to enlighten and foster intellectual growth.

Now this is a great way to welcome the end of the year! It’s like my own special little Christmas present!  I just *love* it when the pseudo intellectual community are forced to argue against the very same type of scientific practices that they have followed for decades…

I think this is about the best time I’ve had with this topic since Ross & Phoebe debated evolution on Friends! 

How's the View From Where You're Standing?

One of the best things about an individual viewpoint is that everyone has one.  Nope, not trying to just sound like a smart-aleck, I'm saying that everyone - and I do mean EVERYONE - has an opinion.  Sure there are those who say they are 'neutral' or 'moderate' or 'open-minded', but ultimately they have a world view that colors everything they see and hear.  And yet we wonder why our nation still seems so divided; even as we try to figure out who is to blame for it aside from ourselves.

Case in point: the sad story of Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.  In the story Almost no oil recovered from sand berms, the reader is treated to several paragraphs about Gov. Jindal’s colossal failure building sand berms that apparently were a complete waste of money.  But if you read the entire story, you’ll eventually see that the same commission quoted as condemning the sand berms for not really doing what they were established to do as a short-term solution goes on to agree that in the context of long-term coastal restoration they will be a “significant step forward.”  So, does that mean the expense was worthwhile or not?  If you don’t like Jindal, you’ll focus on the short-term failure to criticize him; but if you like Jindal, you’ll focus on the long-term success to laud him.  The difference isn’t in what happened or in Jindal – the difference is the eye of the beholder.

But then there are those ‘reports’ of how the economy is (or isn’t) doing.  Back on November 23, the Associated Press told us that the Fed lowers outlook for economy through 2011.  But the very next day, Reuters reported that Data hints U.S. recovery is becoming self-sustaining.  In the first story we were told: “Federal Reserve officials have become more pessimistic in their economic outlook through next year and have lowered their forecast for growth.”  Then in the second story we were told: “New U.S. claims for jobless benefits hit their lowest level in more than two years last week while consumer spending rose for a fourth straight month in October, suggesting the economy is nearing a self-sustaining recovery.” 

So is the outlook for the economy in 2011 good or bad?  The answer may be found a poll conducted by Bloomberg and reported by The Daily Caller on December 13: Poll: Majority of Americans say they are worse off than they were two years ago.  Among the results of this poll were “In a sweeping poll released by Bloomberg today, 66 percent of respondents said that they felt that “things in the nation…have… gotten off on the wrong track,” compared to just 27 percent who felt the country was heading in the right direction. 51 percent of respondents said they were worse off now than they were two years ago.”  And if that wasn’t bad enough, there was also this concerning news for President Obama: “Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the budget deficit, which 60 percent voicing disapproval and only 31 percent approving of his policy. Respondents also rebuked Obama for his performance creating jobs, with 55 percent disapproving.”

Is the economy improving and growing stronger?  Are President Obama’s policies helping the economy?  Were the sand berms a waste of money?  Each question can foster debate because perceptions demand multiple right answers – with the holder of each answer convinced that their position is indeed the sole correct one. 

But one thing is certain, President Obama is keenly aware that if he is to be personally successful in his goal to be re-elected in 2012, he needs to do a better job of guiding perceptions of himself.  Which brings us to the great tax compromise of 2011.  When Bush 41 reneged on his “Read my lips; no new taxes” pledge, he paid a very heavy political price for it.  His goal was to extend an olive branch to the Democrats who now had a greater Congressional power base.  In the end, they got him to agree to an increase in taxes and then turned around and ridiculed him for breaking his pledge.  President Obama is apparently attempting the same tactic in reverse.  It's not just taxes: Obama defends his credibility discusses how President Obama not only blindsided his own party with a deal to keep reduced tax rates in place but that he also angered organized labor with a call to freeze Federal worker wages.  What would motivate him to take such actions and risk the ire of his own party?  The answer is obviously found in the results of the 2010 mid-term elections that will strip his party of majority status in the House and nearly cost them the same in the Senate… and poll results such as those reported by Bloomberg above.

People will continue to see what they want to see and frame information in the context that they choose.  The question will be – to what extent will the 2010 election results alter people’s perceptions?  It will also be interesting to see who comes out the political winners in two years… will the Democrats return to power with a triumphantly re-elected Obama leading the charge as they are vindicated and embraced once again by the voters?  Or will the Republicans win over the hearts and minds of the people, establishing themselves as the perceived defenders of fiscal responsibility, and possibly sweeping another fresh face such as Jindal into the White House?

Time will tell.  Which is a good thing, since most people will never tell you the viewpoint they hold to!

And the Universe Continues to Twist...

To listen to some commentators, you'd think that the recent election results either mean the end of civilization as we know or it's dawn of a new era for humanity.  Frankly, it's neither.  While there were a few new wrinkles added thanks to the unpredictable "Tea Party" aspect, in the end we still have the same number of elected officials with the same job to do.  While certainly it is important to ensure those who fill those jobs are the best (based upon the opinion of the majority of voters), but the universe does not revolve around them.

The Republican take-back of Congress and many other state-level elections didn't really surprise me.  President Obama's continued denial that voters have said they want an end to his pseudo-Socialist policies doesn't surprise me.  MSNBC staffing their election night coverage with their partisan Liberal commentators who used the time to mock and challenge Republicans rather than report the news as it unfolded didn't surprise me.  However, I've been reading some other tidbits that have left me just sitting back and thinking to myself: "huh... really??" 

First off, have you seen the story of Jammie Thomas-Rasset?  She's the mom from Minnesota that the recording industry has decided to make the poster child of music downloading piracy.  Don't get me wrong, I don't condone theft in any manner, but I can't help but think there may be a wee bit of disproportional punishment going on here.  The record companies want this lady to pay $1.5 MILLION for a whopping (24) songs that she's accused of illegally downloading.  So here we are in an age when Lindsay Lohan can get away with flaunting the law, when Charlie Rangel can have a list of ethics violations against him and still win a 21st term to Congress by a huge margin, and when the first Black President of the United States can get a pass for invoking "move to the back of the bus" when talking about his political opponents.  But don't you DARE illegally download two dozen songs or we're gonna take you down!  Does anyone else find this all just a bit out of perspective?

Then there's the story of the "Nicest Canadian couple" who won a huge amount of money in the lottery, but decided it was more trouble than it was worth - so they are giving 98% of it away to charities.  Of course they are lauded as being so noble and caring.  But one article I read about it said that they had not spent *any* money on themselves - even though the wife "was undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer when the couple realized they'd won the jackpot in July."  Oh, I know what you're thinking - but that's ok, because it's Canada and their health care system pays for everything... WRONG, the taxpayers of Canada pay for everything.  The very least this couple could've done is reimburse for those chemo treatments. 

Before you shake your head and call me Scrooge, just consider if this exact same story was about Rush Limbaugh doing this - would it be reported with the same tone?  You better believe that it wouldn't.  Let's face it, we assign whether someone has 'noble intent' based more on our opinion of them than what they do.  If it's proof you want, look to the news reports that actually criticize BP for - brace yourself - continuing to make a profit in spite of the oil well disaster.  Did BP executives wake up one day and say "let's pollute the Gulf of Mexico just for fun."  Obviously not.  Have they continued to work to fix the problem and paid out on claims that continue to pile up? Yes.  And yet they are not only vilified, but there is clear disappointment among those who would like to have seen them go bankrupt - which really wouldn't have helped pay all of those claims and recovery costs.  We *expect* them to pay the bills because they have the resources to do so... just like the "nicest Canadian couple".  The difference here is that BP actually is paying their way.

But my absolute favorite "huh?" moment came last week when I read that U.S. companies are hoarding almost $1 trillion cash!  Seriously?  They are "hoarding" money?  What the article is actually saying is that companies are holding on to their profits rather than reinvesting them, because there remains a LOT of uncertainty in the economy.  Now if your parent, grandparent, friend, neighbor, or co-worker told you that they had decided to try to save back as much money as they could by reducing their expenses because they were nervous about the economy and wanted to make sure they were able to protect themselves in the event that things went sour again, would you mock them?  Of course not, you'd applaud them and admire them for having the discipline to do what so many of the rest of us can't seem to do very well... save money.  And yet, when it's 'evil' corporate America we don't applaud them for being frugal or wise in their business dealings; instead we criticize them for sitting on their money and "hoarding" it.  Personally I find that a bit bizarre - especially since we are now all massively in debt because the government has had to 'bail out' far too many companies that weren't conservative enough in their finances...

In the end, just like the election this week, the universe will continue on.  But I just can't help but think that things keep getting just a little more twisted all the time.

The Death of Political Substance

Some lessons people just never seem to learn.  Take this statement written by the Apostle Paul nearly 2,000 years ago: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:11 NIV)  Can you think of any examples of adults behaving like children?  Well, if you've watched or read nearly anything related to the upcoming election, then you know exactly what I'm talking about!

There were two main reasons our Founding Fathers wanted so much power to rest in the hands of individual voters: 1) because it was the best way to ensure against a dictator or tyrant from rising to power, and 2) because a well-informed electorate would ensure that those representing us would do a good job.  Well, shame on US for failing in our end of that; but the shame is also shared by those politicians who see elected office as a means to their own power, and by a media that has become increasing docile and have failed in their duty to keep the voting public fully informed.

So, in a few days, We the People have our say.  But what will we do with that choice?  I've heard some say they are so sick of politics that they won't even bother to vote - to which I shake my head at their outright stupidity.  If you don't like something, walking away and ignoring it will do nothing to change it! But the fact is, for far too many American voters, we don't even know who the candidates really are or what they stand for.  We get a constant barrage of polling results and we see more news stories about these polls than do about the candidates and issues the polls are supposed to be about!

And in the absence of fact, we fall prey to the fiction that those vying for power are willing to tell if it helps their cause.  Perhaps one of the biggest of these is the ongoing attempt to caste the nation's economic woes as a result of the George W. Bush administration.  While you'll get little argument from me that he was a weak president who spent more than he should've, failed to make tough decisions when he needed to, and yet jumped too quickly to others - the fact remains that the economic collapse began during his presidency because it had been built on a shaky foundation leading up to that.  It's almost laughable that Bill Clinton is now lauded for having such a strong economy when he left office - because that praise ignores that fact that much of that "strength" turned out to be built on flaky accounting practices and phantom bookkeeping.  If THAT is the kind of economy that Barack Obama wants to restore then that should be troubling to everyone!

Then there's the notion that President Obama himself is now pitching - that the likely change to the political landscape that will happen this week is due to 'turbulant times'; ignoring that voter outrage and frustration is a direct response to his own agenda.  To the contrary, Obama has repeatedly indicated that, even if Democrats lose control of both houses of Congress, he intends to continue to push the same extreme and aggressive agenda that has now set his party up for major losses in the mid-term election.  If voters truly embraced what he was doing and genuinely supported a mandate for his brand of change, then his party and those who have loyally supported him would be celebrating the gains THEY would be making this year instead of trying to defend seats that traditionally have never needed defending. 

But the biggest lie being perpetuated in these days leading up to the election is the notion that the economy is now solid and is now recovered - it's just going to take time for it to regain it's former strength.  How any politician from the president on down could make this kind of statement with a straight face is beyond me.  Seriously - by what criteria could any rational person say the economy is in recovery mode?  The only possible way to do is to try to encapsulate data that supports this pre-conceived ideal, while ignoring the other data that would challenge it. 

Yet this type of 'fingers in the ears' approach to governing is becoming far too much the status quo for the Obama Administration.  When the public pushes back against his ideas, he sends his foot soldiers out to brand such outcry as extremist and unrepresentative of America.  And even as he braces for the very likely loss of some who have been his most staunch supporters in Congress (Sen. Harry Reid), the president continues to talk defiantly about HIS agenda and the direction HE feels the country needs to continue to go.  In other words, he is taking the exact approach to governing that our Founders wanted us to thwart by entrusting the power of the vote to each of us.

So, don't let this election day slip past you - make sure you let your voice be heard.  Don't be a child and merely let things happen you don't like because you presume you can't make a difference - be an adult, recognize YOU are the source of the government's power, and YOU have the authority to call the shots.  If you want to have more of a voice in the 'change' that comes than we seem to have had for the last two years, this is your moment to shine! 

As the 2010 Mid-Term Election Draws Near...

First off - watch out for the 'spin' that is taking place from both sides!  When you see a report that seems to almost gleefully report that one side is up or the other is down, proceed with caution.  Odds are that you're looking at one of two things: 1) It's actually an opinion or guest-written piece that looks like a news story, or 2) It's a story written by someone genuinely excited that the side they are supporting is doing well.

Second - no poll matters except the one on Election Day.  And yet, the media seems downright determined to manipulate our collective thought process by conducting polls and then making the results of the polls the basis for what and how they report.  Reality is, most polls are barely valid as the questions can be leading and the same questions asked at a different time of day would probably yield completely different results.  But you don't hear that mentioned; nor do you hear that the broad and sweeping proclamations about how "the polls" are looking are often based on as few as 500 likely voters...

One thing polls don't measure well is indecisiveness.  For example, the story AP-GfK Poll: One-third may still switch candidates makes it clear that a very significant group of voters is out there that no one is really talking about.  Everything is focused on which party will control Congress - so it's all Republican versus Democrat.  But what about those who, even if they are registered with a party, haven't fully decided who they will vote for?  A lot of folks switched to Democrat two years ago to vote for either Obama or Hillary in the primaries - how sure can the Democrats be that those same switchers will still back Democratic local, state, and national candidates?

The real test of where the political landscape currently stands is best determined by watching how those who would stand to lose the most (whichever party is currently in power) are reacting.  For example, after two years of unprecedented spending, President Obama is already indicating that he will likely focus on the deficit in the next two years.  Compare his comments in these days before a mid-term election in which he is likely to lose several of his Capitol Hill supporters with those he made immediately following his election two years ago, and you see a president who is quickly attempting to rewrite some political history to lessen his own negative exposure for the next two years.  Even as he hopes to retain his own party's majorities; President Obama is already posturing for reality if he loses one or both Houses of Congress.

But then there are also the mixed signals that GOP wins could mean cooperation or gridlock.  Much like George W. Bush before him, Barack Obama came to DC saying he wanted to create a new tone of bi-partisanship.  And yet, when it became clear to everyone that Republicans were not going to sign-off on much of the president's aggressive agenda, the decision was made to not only move forward without them - but in some cases to do procedural end-runs to cut them out entirely.  So forceful and so divisive has this tactic been that, even in the face of a reversal in both majorities on Capitol Hill, the White House cannot see 'moving forward' without Democrat majorities.

If Democrats do see huge losses at the polls next week, only a fool would fail to see a connection between the Obama agenda that so many of them supported and these mid-term election losses.  For the White House to indicate that they will still continue to push the same agenda as these past two years - even though voter dissatisfaction will have been loudly proclaimed - would seem to indicate that the President and/or his advisers are rapidly growing out of touch with the very citizens they are attempting to govern.