Category Archives: Home
November 11, 2012 Rove spends $300 million to get out the vote…just not for Romney!
Karl Rove Tries To Convince Donors He’s Not The GOP’s Solyndra
Rove told Fox that Obama won by “suppressing the vote.” Not by, say, imposing voting restrictions that disproportionately affect certain demographics, but by running mean ads about Bain Capital. And while Rove did the best he could (“The first group to respond to attacks on Bain was American Crossroads”)
Let me get this straight…so we somehow suppressed the vote by highlighting that Romney attacked the auto bailout, called 47% of Americans degenerates, and questioned his record at Bain, which ultimately drove Republicans, Undecideds, and moderate democrats to exercise their right to participate in the electoral process by casting a ballot for the guy that Rove and a bunch of billionaires didn’t want people to vote for? Well, I guess we really did suppress the vote…if that means we informed and organized the electorate to turn out in vast numbers to vote against billionaires and idiotic lies, then yep…I’d say that’s precisely what we did.
On a positive note, under president Obama, we’ve increased funding for community colleges something “the architect” may want to look into as he looks for a new line of work.
Well, he was kind enough to defend Bain, maybe someone over there will throw him a bone.
You finally got what you deserve and you are finally going to be seen for the political hack that you are. Good luck Mr. Rove!
- 1 comment
- Posted under Election 2012, Home
October 6, 2012 No Matter How Many Times you Say it, It’s still a Lie
In Wednesday night’s debate, Mitt Romney deliberately tried to confuse voters about where he stands on many issues. I want to clear up where President Obama and Mitt Romney agree — and where they disagree — on one particularly important issue: Social Security.
President Obama and Romney agree that we need to make gradual changes to make sure Social Security stays solvent over the long term. The disagreement is over how to do it — and that’s where President Obama and Romney have fundamentally different ideas.
President Obama will under no circumstances agree to put your retirement at risk by privatizing Social Security, and he will reject any plan that slashes Social Security benefits. Because Romney opposes any effort to raise a single penny in new revenue, his Social Security plan is forced to rely solely on big benefit cuts to maintain solvency — analysis of a similar plan showed current workers would see cuts of up to 40 percent that would badly hurt their financial security.
Romney and Ryan also supported the Bush privatization plan that would have exposed Social Security benefits to the financial crisis that devastated many pension funds and retirement accounts.
Plus, do you really want to elect a man who’s economic plan involves to rubbing out Big Bird?
Tags: 2012, Big Bird, Debate, Economics, flip-flop, Governor Romney, Mitt Romney, Obama, PBS, President, Republican, Romney, Truth
- 2 comments
- Posted under Election 2012, Home
October 5, 2012 My Voice
What matter’s most in this election are the people of this nation. You can listen to the experts, the talking points, and even the candidates themselves all day long. In the end it comes down to reaching as many people as you can and explaining to them why you believe in you’re heart that you’re candidate is right for you. So while you may not always get people to come over to you’re side, you will be surprised at the willingness of people to simply listen to what you have to say.
For me, I believe in this President because he has inspired me to participate in what I have always known was inside of me. I have always held very strong opinions, but I can’t help it that someone gave me the opportunity to get involved in something greater than just one person. That is something I have always felt in my heart, President Obama simply gave me a voice so I could share it with others.
I will never forget that.
Tags: Obama, Politics, talking points
September 20, 2012 Is it 2008 or 2012?
September 18, 2012 What Mitt Doesn’t Get
“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…these are people who pay no income tax…”
Here is what you don’t get Mitt:
Government involvement does not simply equate to entitlements, or handouts, or any other term used to cast a broad net over any and all taxpayer funded program.
First, lets gets some basic facts out of the way.
Entitlement transfers to individuals have increased by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. So yes, both parties are responsible, but this spending has actually increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
Some sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts:
The welfare state is growing at an unsustainable rate. Billions are siphoned off by our enormously bloated defense budget. Spending on senior citizens continues to skyrocket while investments in America’s young families, and educating future generations has been on the decline.
Yet, these are not the sensible arguments Mitt Romney made during a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year. The standard bearer for the Republican brand has effectively divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the takers. If anyone is guilty of engaging in class warfare, it’s the man that just dropped the atom bomb.
Moreover, Mr. Romney’s comments suggest that he doesn’t know much about the nation that he hopes to govern. Who are these government freeloaders—this 47 percent who believes they are victims? Is it the Iraq war veteran that goes to the V.A., or the college student that applies for a loan? Maybe its all those senior citizens that rely on Medicare after a lifetime in the labor force.
His comments suggest that he doesn’t understand our nation’s culture, or history. America’s welfare state has expanded. Still, America remains one of the hardest working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours, take fewer vacation’s, and retire later in life than nearly anyone else. And Americans overwhelmingly believe that hard work is the key to success.
Mitt Romney believes his comments are directed at the 10 percent of undecided voters in the middle. Again, Romney’s beliefs show a gross misunderstanding off American political culture. The people who actually receive the lion’s share of government spending are not big government lovers. They are Republicans! They are senior citizens, and middle-class white men with high school degrees. The people who have benefited the most from government entitlements are middle-class workers, not the dependent poor Obama supporters that Mr. Romney would like you to believe are the beneficiaries.
If Ronald Reagan were still alive today, he would be accused of being a socialist. I say this because Mitt Romney, and the Republican brand have lost all sense of the social compact. A notion embraced by President Reagan and the Republican Party in 1987 when 62 percent of Republicans believed that government has a responsibility to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.
Finally, Romney’s remarks suggest that he knows absolutely nothing about ambition and motivation. According to his formula, people who are forced to make it on their own without any help whatsoever have drive. People who receive help have dependency.
This is absolutely ludicrous. No parent believes that they should deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. Most parents try to shower their children with benefits so they have the opportunity to succeed, to do better than they did.
It is no mystery that people are motivated when they feel competent. They feel competent when provided with opportunities that result in success. Not when they are deprived of those opportunities. So you are wrong Mr. Romney, and you don’t have the slightest clue who the American people are.
- 1 comment
- Posted under Election 2012, Home
July 18, 2012 Rush Limbaugh Rises
Rush Limbaugh recently addressed the apparent similarity between the current Batman villain— Bane, and Mitt Romney’s old venture capital firm Bain Capital. Given Limbaugh’s “do anything-say anything” approach that keeps him basking in the public spotlight, I propose making Limbaugh the enemy in the upcoming film. Personally, I don’t think its a stretch for the caped crusader to take on the pill popping conservative talk show host who attacks everyone from accomplished female law students to the minds of millions of Americans who have been brainwashed by years of red-meat rhetoric. Yes, I think Mr. Limbaugh would prove a worthy adversary.
- 2 comments
- Posted under Home
May 20, 2012 Presidency for Sale
A Return to the Gilded Age
“A Tail of Today” – Mark Twain & Charles Warner
Who owns the presidency? An odd question perhaps; but for a race defined by unprecedented spending, state of the art technology, and million dollar ad buys; looking back seems to be the only way to make sense of this election—one that will surely redefine history…again.
While many of these tactics are by no means new, they are being implemented on a scale we have yet to witness; a scale that stands in contrast to so much of what this country was founded upon.
Looking back corporations and big money have always been closely tied to public office. Take England for example; corporate influence established a strong hold during the early years of the 17th century when Elizabeth I granted a royal charter to establish the East India Trading Company, one of the first major corporations.
As corporations began to generate large sums of money, they increasingly became involved in politics, despite the wishes of colonial America. To be clear, this was not a precedent our founders wanted to establish—a lesson today’s Tea Party would be well served by. In fact, opposition to corporate influence was essential to the American Revolution. Colonists dumping tea into Massachusetts Bay were rebelling against the moneyed interests of wealthy corporations and politicians that wielded tremendous political influence. It’s ironic that the original Tea Party was a public outcry against clientelism, graft, and corruption among elected officials; modern Tea Party and conservative ideology is an abhorrent contradiction and a disgrace to all those that fought and died for our nation’s independence.
Legalizing Fraud…
Unfortunately, corporate influence over public policy has only increased and become less regulated over time, especially with the rise of super-PACs—a kind of corporate-political action committee that can engage in unlimited political spending “independent” of candidate and party. Super PACs are essentially what this nation is turning into—corporations, organizations, and wealthy individuals with unlimited amounts of money and the ability to raise funds without legal limits. So its not a far cry to say that 2012 is a return to the corruption and shoddy ethics of the Gilded Age, which influenced business and political discourse in late 19th century America.
Fast forward to recent events, and the similarities are striking…
On Thursday, The New York Times reported that conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade, was considering a $10 million plan—“The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good;” the plan stated it would do “exactly what John McCain would not let us do in 2008.” It would capitalize on President Obama’s relationship with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a “big, attention arresting way,” read the proposal. It further detailed a plan to hire an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who would act as a spokesman; the aim was to paint the president as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”
This is just one example of what we are likely to witness over the next 6 months, and I promise it will get worse. The real takeaway though is the influence and ability of these enormous fiscal entities to say whatever they want without any oversight. In 2008, candidate Obama dominated John McCain in every aspect of fundraising. Small donations poured in from millions of individual supporters giving the Obama campaign the ability to outspend the opposition at every corner. This time Republicans are attempting to drown out that support with a wave of cash from a handful of super PACs.
For example, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads—one of the largest and most influential of the super PACs intends to raise $300 million by Election Day. The Democrat’s are unlikely to receive this level of support from super PACs, which speaks volumes as to how the GOP and the Romney campaign intend to run this race. When a mere 5 corporations make up the bulk of American Crossroads’ major contributors, it is clear that an elite group of very wealthy donors are attempting to put a price tag on the Oval Office. These corporate donors are spread across nearly every major industry in American—Bob J. Perry, President of Perry Homes, Houston Texas ($7 million); Wayne Hughes, founder of Public Storage Inc. ($2.3 million); Trevor Rees-Jones, President and CEO of Chief Oil and Gas ($2 million); Dixie Agriculture ($1 million), American Financial Group and Alliance Resources ($2 million).
And while the Democrats have sought funds from various progressive super PACs, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) found that this new wave of “independent” donors are mostly on the Republican side. True to form, they have risen to take advantage of court rulings easing restrictions on political expenditures. Spending by these conservative groups during the 2010 midterms eclipsed $400 million. It remains to be seen what the final number will be in 2012 once all the receipts are counted, but if early donations are any indicator, Americans on both sides of the fence don’t just need a voice, they need a megaphone if they are to have a stake in the outcome of this election.
Finally, I would like to digress for a moment in my remarks…
I still have faith in the American people. I profess that at times I have become pessimistic, or downright cynical. However, if you look at what the average American is bombarded with on a daily basis, is there any wonder as to why we often vote against our own interests, or why opinions are so conflicting? Sit in on any political science or public policy course in this country and observe how these topics are discussed. They are not presented in a partisan—right or wrong manner. Rather, they are taught within the context of both past and present. They are meant to inform so that you are capable of evaluating both sides of an issue. You are not informed by turning on 15 minutes of network news every morning. Instead, you are getting a sensationalized opinion, which leads you to believe you have taken a position based in fact.
So…I would like to leave you with a few facts
Around the time of the Boston Tea Party, Parliamentary races were underway in England, races that were not funded by the citizens of Britain, or the colonists in American. Instead, large corporations made generous contributions to the race and nearly every representative in parliament owned shares. This is precisely why restrictions were placed upon corporate wealth and influence in government when America’s founders began to organize our own government and the constitution that would bind it.
Perhaps one of our greatest patriots, and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, wrote a letter in 1802 to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin. In his letter Jefferson wrote,
If the American people ever allow private banks and corporations to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property and their dignity until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father’s conquered. I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
America must to be aware that no matter where your political views lie the fact remains: corporations are not a substitute for the people; they are not the voice of the people. People are people and that is a fact.
Tags: 2012, Conservatives, Election, flip-flop, General Election, Governor Romney, Iowa Caucus, massachusetts gov, Mitt Romney, Nomination, Politics, Republican, Rick Santorum
- 2 comments
- Posted under Community Organizing, Election 2012, Home
May 10, 2012 Thank You Mr. President…
Today America witnessed something truly inspirational. We witnessed what it means to lead. This nation was founded on the principals of freedom and equality. Our founding fathers fought to preserve these principals and to ensure that America would be a place where people would be free to speak their minds and express their beliefs without fear of persecution.
Today, millions of Americans are more secure in their convictions because our President had the courage to stand up and unequivocally express his beliefs in stating, “same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
Thank you Mr. President. Thank you for showing us what it means to be a leader.
May 8, 2012 An American Truism & the Path to 270
When it comes to presidential politics, nothing is more certain than the importance of the Electoral College. So what is it; why is it confusing, controversial, and a bit mind numbing at times? And what made 270 into an American truism?
The Electoral College: A Brief Overview
In 1804 Article II of the Constitution established a precedent for electing the President of the United States. While over 90 million Americans cast a ballot every fourth November for their presidential pick, it is not until mid-December that the president and vice-president are actually elected by the votes of a mere 538 citizens—the “electors” of the Electoral College. So when you vote for a presidential candidate your vote is simply used to instruct the electors from your state to cast their votes for the same candidate. For example, if you vote for the Republican candidate, you are really voting for an elector who will be pledged to vote for the Republican candidate. Once it’s been determined which candidate won the majority of your state’s popular vote, the electors release all those pledged votes and award them to the candidate. Thus the popular vote, which is made up of all those individual votes cast by millions of voters within your state determines how the electors will vote.
So why does all this matter? Well to the average American it really doesn’t, but for a Presidential campaign, the Electoral College is the ultimate numbers game. It dictates how a candidate will campaign, what issues to focus on, which states to target, and where to allocate resources.
All states are not created equally:
Think back to your junior high civics course; remember that there are 435 seats in the House of Representatives, proportional to a state’s total population, and 100 seats in the Senate. Based on these numbers we arrive at 538 members of the Electoral College: 100 senators plus 435 representative, and 3 members allocated to the District of Columbia.
Here is where it gets interesting—the 11 most populous states (below), representing over 50% of the population, carry an “Electoral Majority:” enough votes to elect the President of the United States!
Most Populous States & Electoral Count
1. California – 55
2. Texas – 38
3. New York – 29
4. Florida – 29
5. Illinois – 20
6. Pennsylvania – 20
7. Ohio – 18
8. Michigan – 16
9. Georgia – 16
10. North Carolina – 15
11. New Jersey – 14
The Path to 270 in 2012:
So we’ve established what the Electoral College is, and I’ve provided a basic framework for how it works and why certain states are more crucial than others. Now lets take a look at how this applies to the 2012 presidential race and why the Obama Campaign has good reason to be confident.
As noted, presidential politics is all about the Electoral College. Forget the pundits, talking points, and stump speeches for a moment and look at the facts, which are in the numbers. It is absolutely indisputable that the Romney Campaign has a paper-thin margin of error to hit the magical 270 mark, and they know it. This is not a talking point or partisan rhetoric, it is a fact, and while you will never hear anyone from the Romney camp admit to this, the Romney people are acutely aware that the numbers are not in their favor. So while the issues, talking points, and polls will change with whatever way the political winds blow between now and election day, this arduous path to 270 remains.
Take a look at the Electoral Map below, which is a modified version of the 2008 map. Obama carried the popular vote in 28 states and the District of Colombia to capture 365 electoral votes. John McCain won the popular vote in 22 states, but was defeated with only 173 electoral votes. President Obama defeated John McCain in all but two of the most populated states: Texas and Georgia. Now fast forward to 2012— while the President is not likely to hold all the states he won in 2008, historical precedent, current polling, and a little common sense tells us that he will win California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey. Some may argue that states like Michigan and Pennsylvania are toss-up states this time around, but given the President’s record in those states, particularly with the auto bailout and union support, its safe to say that these states will remain blue. The real toss up states this time around will be North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Ohio.
A Narrow Path to Victory:
Its accurate to say that Governor Romney’s only shot at victory is the economy; however, President Obama continues to pull ahead in three key swing states despite recent polls indicating the President trailing Romney on this single strength. In Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio President Obama continues to outpace his opponent in a head-to-head match up. Thus, simply running even, or outpacing the president by a few points will not be sufficient for the former Massachusetts Governor and will not yield victories in states won by Obama in 2008. One of the key factors behind Romney’s disadvantage is his unprecedentedly low favorability rating. Recent polls indicate anywhere between a 20-30 point advantage for the President in this category. Moreover, Mr. Obama leads 55-27 among woman voters; 51-33 among the middle class; 50-34 in leadership abilities, and 50-29 in “standing up for what he believes in.”
So here is what I’m getting at…
Despite what many would have you believe elections are not determined by the economy, or any single issue for that matter. Yes, issue specificity is becoming increasingly important among the younger generation of voters, but a majority of Americans still base their vote on the person. For better or worse, we want our President to not only get the job done, but we want “Joe six-pack.” Americans want to be able to relate to the man in the oval office. This notion harkens back to the founding of this country and a sense of rugged individualism. Remember when George W. Bush campaigned as the guy you could invite over for a beer?
Not only is President Obama a very likable figure—even if you don’t agree with all his policies, he has embraced and mastered his celebrity status. Americans are far more likely to vote for someone they can at least trust and understand…not to mention a guy that shoots hoops, slow raps the news on late night TV, and is on a first name basis with Lady Gaga…than a guy that can’t have a beer because of his religious beliefs. So while a sizable portion of Americans are dissatisfied with a variety of issues facing the nation, history has shown time and time again that Americans don’t back a candidate they don’t know, like, or trust. Especially when the incumbent President has taken unemployment from 14% to 8%, saved the American auto industry, killed the most notorious terrorist in American history, and as recent as yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office declared a $58 billion budget surplus for the month of April—a result of tax cuts and decreased spending. These are among the many challenges making it extremely difficult for the Romney campaign to reach 270.
Even in the extremely unlikely event that Mitt Romney were to win Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio, the last being a state he must win to win the election, he would still lose — Romney 266 / Obama 272.
Tags: 2012, Conservatives, Election, Evangelicals, flip-flop, Florida, fundraising volunteers, General Election, Governor Romney, Nomination, Obama
- 1 comment
- Posted under Election 2012, Home









