Romney, Ricketts, And The Right

In what I can only attribute to excellent reporting by the NY Times, a plan to re litigate President Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright, among other things, was thwarted when the Republican proposal was made public. The add was the brain child of Fred Davis a Los Angeles-based strategist who is known as "Hollywood Fred" among his friends and colleagues and has been credited with coming up with some of the most creative and downright bizarre political ads in recent campaigns. His latest offering was to be financed by Chicago Cubs owner, an T.D. Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts. ( Another Wall Street billionaire working behind the scenes for Romney, what a shocker.)

The proposal which Republicans, including Romney now repudiate, has been suggested as an after thought that had no real consideration. Really? Lets look at the facts. The proposal created by Davis called, The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama - The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good. was a 54 page after thought that included plans to spend millions on inflammatory TV ads using everything from Rev. Jeremiah Wright to images of the September 11th attacks to show the truth about Obama's alleged secret plan to destroy America.

In response to the proposal Obama campaign manager Jim Messina pointed out in the words of one of these guys, they want to "do exactly what John McCain would not let us do" in the last election. and the plan was to be financed by a single billionaire. Of course once the plan was uncovered, Romney, Ricketts, and Davis ran for cover. Dan Baker head of the super PAC Ending Spending Action Fund, which was going to promote the Ricketts proposal was indignant, “We run an organization based on fiscal responsibility. They know we asked for a document based on ending spending, fiscal responsibility and jobs in the economy. This is far afield from that.”  Baker said it was “deeply troubling and unfair” for their organization – and Ricketts, who funds the super PAC – to be associated with the proposal, since they had never approved anything in it, and didn’t commission such a proposal. “The world is full of bad ideas. This is one of them,” the super PAC president said. “This wasn’t a proposal we requested at all. We never funded it.”

The fact of the matter is, off the cuff proposals don't get 54 page color presentations created for the review of the man who is going to foot the bill. Clearly this is just another example of the depths to which Mitt Romney will stoop to become President. It is a classic behind the scenes snap shot that was stopped before it could be put in motion. This is the post "Citizens United" political system in which we operate. A system where a choice few can spend unlimited funds hidden in the undisclosed shadows behind the curtain of a super PAC.

So Romney and the rest of his cronies cry repudiation, like a murderer who gets caught and says he's sorry. Then in classic Romney form claims the President is running a campaign of "character assassination",this is a bigger disconnect than him claiming credit for the auto bailout! Are you kidding me? He became the Republican nominee during the primaries by carpet bombing his opponents into submission with over $30 million dollars of ads that (you guessed it!) were pure character assassination. It's no wonder this man won't talk to anybody but FOX, how many sides of his mouth can Romney talk out of? It's much more than what it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop I promise you. Romney is a shifty political chameleon funded by an American plutocracy designed to keep them rich, and rest of us content with the status quo. He is so out of touch with the majority of Americans, yet he stays competitive in the polls? Which only goes to show you that outright hate for one man, will make you vote for any boob just because he's the other choice available. It is madness on a national scale, and yet another indictment of who really runs America.

Who Is Mitt Romney?

That really has become the question hasn't it? He loves to define President Obama, but shies away from giving any kind of definitive definition to himself? So he opens himself up to being defined by the media, and the only time he directly tries to refute these definitions, he runs to FOX News where he can hit as many softballs as he wants. He is the product of sound bites from his wife, and the campaign shills he deploys to say what he can't. He has a long reputation for being on the politically expedient side of every issue, after all, he has been running for office since 1994. So he can't hide from 18 years of videotape that proves this to be true. So who is he really? For lack of a better image from his own campaign, the picture is not a pretty one.

He is a man of privilege born with a silver spoon in his mouth. A prep school prig who physically attacked those that he deemed as different. A corporate raider that put profits before people. He has morphed from a Governor who was a moderate, to a "severely conservative" presidential nominee. He has multiple homes, some with car elevators. He wrote an editorial called "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" then has the gall to take credit for the auto industry turnaround. He is a product of Wall Street that wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank banking regulations. This in light of the latest Wall Street nightmare where J.P. Morgan Chase lost 2 billion dollars and counting, on risky investments. Jaime Dimond the company CEO, was rewarded for the massive loss with a 23 million dollar pay package, and an overwhelming vote of confidence from the shareholders. These are Romney's people.

Are you an auto-worker? He owns several cars in fact, his wife drives a couple of Cadillacs. Do you like football or NASCAR? He knows a few team owners. Struggling to make ends meet? He's not, he has $250 million dollars. As a matter of fact, I bet he will wager $10 thousand dollars this is all true. The man has done everything short of lighting a cigar with a hundred dollar bill as he approaches the podium.

The question becomes, is this "class warfare" as Republicans would have us believe? or has Romney become a symbol of the 1% in this country. a club that gets smaller with each passing year. Can Mitt Romney really understand the day to day struggles of the average American? Do we want the next president to come from the very environment that almost destroyed our economy? We know this, he will throw his own health care measure under the bus to get elected president. He will keep his mouth shut when people say President Obama should be tried for treason, or a gay soldier asks if he will reaffirm "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", or when his own foreign policy consultant pick, an openly gay man, is opposed by the hard right. On all of these, crickets. A disingenuous laugh or smile, an awkward chuckle followed by "I don't recall that...but I'm sorry" If you don't remember what you did why would you apologize for it? Answer: Because he does remember what he did, and he can't afford to alienate anyone. He has proven time and again, he will do anything, say anything, support or reject anything, that he thinks will help make him President.

Such the cautious candidate, deploying his surrogates to do the heavy lifting while he tries to figure out what he should say next. A man who wants you to reject President Obama, while what we know of him is less than flattering. He can't even get enthusiastic endorsements from his own party? Last week in an e-mail put out at 11pm, former rival Rick Santorum finally gave his luke warm endorsement in the 13th paragraph of a 16 paragraph message. Yesterday, President George W. Bush endorsed Romney with just four words while the doors were closing on an elevator. He said "I'm for Mitt Romney" Strong praise for the man who wants to pick up where George W. Bush left off. Is this really who you want running the White House?  He is the same old song from the Right, less regulation, less education, low taxes for the rich, Big Oil subsides, limiting women's rights, gay rights, voting rights, anti-union, weaken environmental safeguards on what we eat, the water we drink , and the air we breath, and do it all with a straight face in the name of "Freedom". Sends a chill down your spine doesn't it.... and not a good one.

President Obama Endorses Same Sex Marriage, Good Or Bad?

In light of the Presidents very bold position embracing same sex marriage in this country, I have some thoughts on this very important, and very divisive issue. Many of those who read me on Facebook may not know this, but I am a 46 year old openly gay man, who has been in a long term committed relationship with my partner Jay for almost 17 years. I applaud the Presidents historic and ground breaking announcement as one more step in his administrations support for not just marriage equality, but gay civil rights on the whole. However, when the champagne stops flowing, and the LGBT community starts cleaning up from its celebrations, there are some hard facts to face. Look at the map below:

40 out of 50 States have Constitutional or State Law bans on same sex marriage, 40! Now national polling may be trending in support of same sex marriage, but this chart is a sobering fact. The Democratic National Convention is going to be held in North Carolina this year. Considered a major new swing state that Obama carried by the narrowest of margins in 2008. On Tuesday North Carolinian's voted to Constitutionally ban gay marriage by 61%... 61%! Think North Carolina is a swing state now? My guess is a resounding No!

Yes this is an astounding moment in American history, and while liberals and progressives may be over the moon, somebody needs to make a reality check here. It took great courage for President Obama to announce his support for same sex marriage, but the political fallout could be devastating. Lets look at this pragmatically. Some of you may say "well the people who don't support marriage equality weren't going to vote for Obama anyway." and that may be true, but here are some things I'm concerned about:

1. This isn't just going to effect the President's re-election bid, but those Democrats in very close races trying to hold the Senate and re-take the House. Namely the razor thin Senate races in Montana, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Indiana.
2. This very issue is what cost John Kerry his shot at the Presidency in 2004. Gay rights initiatives in several states that year, helped galvanized conservatives to get out the vote.
3. This plays well with younger people, there is only one problem? Young people don't vote!
4. This doesn't just galvanize conservative in states with gay referendums, but in the country as a whole.
5. The Presidency is decided by independents. For many people sitting the fence, this could become the deal breaker that pushes them to Romney, especially in the bumpkin and bible belt.

Now I could be wrong, the initial Republican response has been to ignore the issue and focus on the economy. However, don't think for one minute Karl Rove and his ilk won't be jumping all over this for the next 6 months. I hope I'm wrong, I hope the Republicans think this is no longer an issue they can win with?, but I doubt it. MSNBC's Chris Matthews has been coining a phrase all week that I find very appropriate. "Don't get so far out in front of the band you can't hear the music". I hope in 6 months he not only hears it, but that it plays all the way up to his re-election. The President has made a courageous move, and taken a tremendous gamble. This will be a true test of the better angels of our nature as a people. Will it prove we are as evolved as some polls would suggest? or do we in fact, still have a lot of work to do, to make an America that embraces all its citizens.

Another One Bites The Dust

Last night in Indiana, the longest serving Republican in the Senate was shown the door in a big way. State Treasurer and Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock, put an end to Richard Lugar's almost four decades of service to the Hoosier state. The Mourdock win was a resounding defeat for the long time Republican moderate, who clobbered Lugar by 21 points 61% to 39%.  So yet again another Republican moderate gets kicked to the curb by a hard right conservative idea log. Mourdock will face Indiana's Democratic 2nd District Representative Joe Donnelly in the general election. Donnelly who is known as a Democratic moderate, may now put what would have been a Republican Senate lock under Lugar, up for grabs in November.

Richard Mourdoch vs. Richard Lugar

Conservatives had long targeted Lugar for defeat, arguing he represented a Republican establishment in Congress that has acquiesced to the Democratic party. They singled out Lugar's votes for the bailouts, in support of the president's stimulus and votes to confirm U.S. Supreme Court nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as evidence of his "RINO" (Republican in name only) status. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were among the high-profile politicians who offered public support for Mourdock's campaign.

In a speech to supporters last night Lugar said he was “optimistic about the future of Indiana and the United States” and said the deep partisan divides exemplified by conservatives like Mourdock “are not insurmountable.” In a second statement he issed later, Lugar went on to say “If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator...  but that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington.” Lugar elaborated by continuing,  "He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it. Mourdock himself said this morning on The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, his definition of bi-partisanship is to get Democrats to support more conservative ideals.

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe said in a statement Tuesday night. "This is just one more example of the hostile takeover of the Republican Party that we've been working on since 2009." Translation: another die hard member for the party of "No". So once again the Republicans have put in play a sure thing, by bowing to Tea Party types, and hard line conservatives. President Obama carried Indiana by less than 1% in 2008. Current polling has Mitt Romney up 9 points in the Hoosier state. If that trend continues, Donnelly is going to have his hands full trying to defeat Mourdock in the fall. The question now is Mourdock is obviously the pick for Republicans. However, can he translate his hard line conservative message into an appealing tone for independents, and moderates of both parties? I guess we'll find out in November.

The GOP Continues To Amaze

For a political party that has so many serious issues with the American electorate, you would think they would at least try to tone down the divisive policies and campaign blunders. Fortunately for Democrats they just can't help themselves. In the ongoing Stalinist purge of moderates from the party, the latest Senator on that hit list is Richard Lugar (R-IN). Fueled by Tea Party radicals who think Lugar is to close to the center, his challenger Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock currently holds a 10 point lead over the incumbent 48% to 38%. One more example of a Republican party that continues careening to the hard right.

In the ongoing "war on women" that Republicans call a "fantasy", here are two more current examples of that fantasy at work. A battle is raging in Congress to keep student loan interest rates from doubling. The current rate of 3.4% would go to 6.8%. Student loan debt recently surpassed credit card debt as the largest burden on our current and future work force. Democrats want to get the money from payroll taxes and by slashing tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. Republicans want to take the money out of a fund in Obama's health care law that funds cancer screening for women.

In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer just signed into law the Whole Woman's Health Funding Priority Act.  The act cuts off funding for family planning and health services delivered by Planned Parenthood clinics and other organizations offering abortions. "By signing this measure into law I stand with the majority of Americans who oppose the use of taxpayer funds for abortion," Brewer said in a statement. However, Arizona does not provide tax dollars for abortion, but backers said the law is needed to make sure that no indirect monies are funneled to organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide abortion and other health services. Officials at Planned Parenthood Arizona, the state's largest abortion provider, said the law means that thousands of women in the state may now go without life-saving cancer screenings, birth control and basic health care. Arizona joins six other Republican controlled states who have enacted similar legislation. Three of them Kansas, Indiana, and North Carolina are facing legal challenges.

As for Republican Nominee Mitt Romney, Richard Grenell is resigning from Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign less than two weeks after being hired as a foriegn policy consultant. Grenell’s reputation as a quick-witted and sometimes confrontational spokesman, was hoping to bring a different component to the Romney operation. So why the quick departure? Grenell is openly gay. He took so much heat from the ever increasingly intolerant Right, he was forced to resign. He said that while his sexuality “was a non-issue” for Romney’s team, he struggled in the face of a ”hyperpartisan discussion of personal issues.” tactful if not a load of crap! Here are some of those "discussions".

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, took issue with Grenell over his criticism of the Bush administration’s failure to sign a December 2008 U.N. resolution that called for decriminalizing homosexuality across the globe. “It’s concerning that you would have somebody tapped to be potentially in an administration that would continue the policies that we’re seeing in the Obama administration,” Perkins said. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association shared his disappointment with the Grenell pick on Twitter: “Romney picks out & loud gay as a spokesman. If personnel is policy, his message to the pro-family community: drop dead.” “We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons,” said Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades. “We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”

In a nutshell, no room in that massive Republican tent for an openly gay man. The man was forced out by hard line conservative wingnuts, and if Romney really wanted Grenell to stay, he would have had the balls to stand up and say " I'm sorry some people feel that way, but Richard Genell is the man I want for the job." However, Romney is being killed in so many demographics right now, he can't affords to piss off the few groups that are with him. Which is a poor commentary on his character as someone who will not stand behind the people he picks, but rather the people he bows to. On a lighter note, what gay people in America see in the Republican party is beyond me? It's like Jews for Hitler, whatever people in the gay community see there, just boggles the imagination?

Renewing Our Lease In Afghanistan

For years the Republican party has claimed the mantle as masters of foreign policy and defense, well not any more. Increased counter terrorist efforts, coupled with a major rise in predator drone strikes, have most of the al Qaeda leadership looking over their shoulders, while trying to operate a very diminished organization.. The war in Iraq is over, and 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden is dead. This week, on the one year anniversary of Bin Laden's death, President Obama went to Afghanistan to sign an agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The agreement was a blueprint for the long-term U.S. role in Afghanistan, including aid and advisers. The deal provides Afghans with reassurances that they will not be abandoned when most NATO combat troops leave in 2014. For Obama, it was an opportunity to draw a line under an unpopular war that was started by his predecessor.

I have been critical of the war in Afghanistan. For its years of lacking a strategy, for its financial cost, and the most importantly, the cost in lives that have been sacrificed and to what end? The President reaffirmed that conventional U.S. combat forces would still leave the country at the end of 2014. No permanent bases would be installed, and the U.S. role would continue with the training of Afghan troops, as well as, special forces contingents to be used for counter insurgency. The agreement leaves an American military footprint in Afghanistan for 10 more years after regular forces are pulled out. We will remain in country until 2024.

I have mixed feelings about this move. First, I applaud the fact that conventional combat troops are still coming out. I further agree that special forces, and drone strikes need to be the primary counter-terrorist tools. In fact I have always said this. As for renewing our lease in the country for 10 more years, I am a bit skeptical. This continues the financial drain of billions in aide, and military intelligence, to an Afghan government that is corrupt, and often unbalanced. Hamid Karzai has been proven to be mentally unstable on several occasions, not to mention the man is a crook. To continue to see billions of are taxpayer dollars flow down the rat hole of corruption that is the Karzai government, is disturbing at best.

However, it is clear the main motivation behind this move is Afghanistan's position on the map. The country sits right between two of the most troubled nations in Asia, Iran and Pakistan. Just like other countries before them, Afghanistan is going to try and become a deterrent to its neighbors of doing or attempting. The question then becomes is it worth it? After signing the agreement President Karzai said, "By signing this document, we close the last 10 years and open a new season of equal relations." Equal for who? I understand the reasoning for the strategy, but 11 years of war leaves a bad taste in your mouth. The billions we have already spent, doesn't help either. Then of course you have the thousands who have been killed or wounded in the conflict, that for a lot of years, took a back seat to the debacle in Iraq. Now we've signed up for 10 more years? I understand it, but I don't have to like it. As for the money we will continue to pour over there... I just think it would be better served at home. It's like paying robbers to stay away from your house, while it's being eaten by termites.

One Good Speech Does Not A President Make

In my last post I pointed out the above average effort delivered last week by former Governor Mitt Romney. In a speech he called "A Better America Begins Tonight". It was a departure from the usual discomfort you get from a Romney speech. However, after the dust settles the fact is he can say what he thinks people want to hear, but he can't run from his record, or that of the political party he stands to represent.

He and his friends on the Right would have you believe there is no assault on women and women's health, but the over 1000 pieces of legislation put forward by Republicans on the state and federal level speaks for itself. They can call it fabricated, a distraction from the real issues, a way to divide America, but that doesn't change the facts. If you follow me, you know what they are, if not, check my previous blogs about women's issues. They say the election is about jobs and the economy. Ok, lets run with that, Romney consistently says the stimulus was a failure, and the current recovery to slow. This was answered brilliantly this morning by White House campaign aide Robert Gibbs on NBC's Meet The Press, when he observed the Romney campaign is basically complaining that President Obama didn't clean up George W. Bush's mess fast enough.

There are so many obstacles Romney has to overcome. So even if his new message resonates with some people, the facts weigh like an anchor around his neck.  He has double digit shortfalls with women, young people, independents, and Latinos. Yet, you will see a lot of polls out there that say this contest is a dead heat. Well they said the same thing in 2008 and President Obama won with 364 electoral votes, over double what John McCain received. In the popular vote he won with 53%, which in today's electorate is big.

The major difference is Obama's appeal in the big money states, places where Mitt Romney is struggling. Remember the political pundits want to keep you on the edge of your seat, tuning in tomorrow for the latest poll numbers, and yes the popular vote is probably going to be decided by 2 or 3 percentage points. Regardless, the election is going to be settled by that handful of swing states, and Romney is weak in most if not all of them. His own party leaders endorse him like some kind of political leper. "He won the process", or "he is the peoples choice", how's that for high praise. There are even some people like former Governor Rick Perry who says he wants to run for President again in 2016, which presumes Romney doesn't have a prayer in 2012, way to rally the troops Rick!

What it boils down to is this. In a recent poll of Republican voters 2 people were voting against Obama vs, the 1 that were voting for Romney. This speaks volumes about their presumptive nominee. If the man can't connect with his own political party, how is he going to connect with the American people? That my friends is his biggest hurdle of all, and right now he doesn't have a poll long enough to get over it.

Mitt Romney May Have A Pulse After All

Last night, in what most consider the official end of the Republican primary season, Mitt Romney swept the 5 state primaries being held in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. As all his competition has faded away, the wins were merely confirmation of his status as the presumtive Republican nominee. However, something happened last night that we have not seen before. In New Hampshire, when he gave his victory speech to a room full of enthusiastic supporters, a chill ran down my back. Behind the podium, Mitt Romney gave the speech nobody (including me) thought he was capable of giving. I'm not sure if he got a new team of writers, but the speech was rhetorically brilliant.

It was called "A Better America Begins Tonight"  and here is a taste, "Four years ago, Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?" Romney continued. "Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?" He continued, "That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now," Romney said. "It's still about the economy … and we're not stupid." He went on to assert President Obama will run a campaign of "diversions, distractions and distortions." Tough words from the league leader in that department, but the message was lucid, genuine, and had the potential to have great appeal to the masses.

Now when you look closely, naturally it doesn't pass the smell test. It was laced with contradictions and inaccuracies, but it sounded great. So why does this present a problem? Because we have an electorate of which 50% maybe more, can't find the United States on a map. These are the people who consistantly vote against their own interests, and eat up this kind of non-reality based nonsense. There are a few tell tale words and phrases you always find in these speeches.

The first one that jumps out is "Freedom". Republicans love to talk about your freedom, the government is taking away your freedom to own a gun, practice your religion, choose your health care, uphold the Constitution, be an individual unencumbered by the ever present hand of government. It's catchy, makes you want to rap yourself in the flag and dream the American dream. However, it's also a lot of crap! The American flag is NOT a Republican symbol, as much as they may want it to be. It plays into their whole us vs. them mentality, take our country back bullshit.

They love to invoke the "Founding Fathers", as if they have some kind of exclusive channeling ability to interpret what they would do 236 years later. The fact is, the founding fathers are probably spinning in their graves knowing how deteriorated our civil discourse has become, and how polorized our government has become.

Another common word from the Republican lexicon is "Choice" it is often used with freedom, and ironically when you look close enough the choice is rather bleak. You have the choice to die or go bankrupt with no health care. The choice to give tax breaks to the rich, while teachers and fire fighters, and research gets cut. The choice to have an agency that protects our air, water, and food. The choice to go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place.  Funny thing about choice is, they are very selective as to where it applies. You shouldn't have the choice to have an abortion, or get contraception, you shouldn't have the choice to be manipulated by insurance companies, or whether to be legally lied to, or pay more just because you're a woman, or have unnecessary invasive proceedures. No these choices don't apply.

The bottom line here is Mitt Romney found a message last night, a message that could have legs. However, like all Republican messages they lack one very trivial yet important aspect, the truth.
The message was fantastic, but it's not supported by the facts. The problem then becomes in an age where misinformation is treated just a well as the real thing, Romney could capture a lot of folks who don't know the difference, and even worse don't care.

America's Crisis Of Confidence A Commentary

As more clues about the Secret Service, and GSA scandals dot the headlines, it raises the specter of a much greater problem we currently face as a nation. Since the explosion of social media in the past decade the flood of information we are exposed to on a daily basis has become both empowering, and overwhelming. Both information, and misinformation, is readily paraded out as fact to fill the new need produced by the often insatiable 24 hour news cycle. The result, snap judgements, political gridlock, ideological entrenchment, and more importantly, the ultimate destruction of faith in our government, and our leaders.

There is a reason Congress has an 11% approval rating. There is a reason compromise has become a dirty word in our politics. There is a reason we are suffering from an general crisis of confidence. For all its benefits, the daily flood of what passes for information these days, has exposed us to a perception that we never before knew, and the devil is in the details. We have come to realize, as a people, that knowledge is a very sobering power. The nation is speeding along an information highway that never stops, and has no exit. Today there are papers, magazines, television channels, internet sites, that cater to what we like, what we want, and what we believe. If you don't like what you see you can just listen, read, or watch any number of outlets that will have exactly what you're looking for. Now some may say this is a wonderful thing. The free exchange of ideas just waiting for your input, on an ever expanding range of social media outlets.

If you like food there's a show for that, if you like sports there's a web site for that, if you like games there's a system for that, if your conservative there's a radio program for that, a liberal, a blog site for that. We have become a country that sees what we want, hears what we want, and believes what we want, and if you don't like what you see, what you hear, or what you believe, you can just keep looking until you do. The result, the polarization of our people, our society, our leaders, and our government. Are you in the majority or the minority? The 1% or the 99%? An advocate for Wall Street or Main Street? Liberal or conservative, black, white, gay, straight, man, or woman. Whatever represents who you are, it's easy to find the right combination to fill your needs.

In the end, all this instant information has made scandal and dysfunction the norm. While it simultaneously undermines our politics, our sports, our religion, and anything else that cannot stand up to the daily rigors, and insatiable scrutiny, that drives the 24 hour news cycle. Our politicians are corrupt, our sports hero's are on drugs, are priests are pedophiles. Which brings me back to a government agency that wastes taxpayer money, and a Secret Service that sleeps with prostitutes. Like the soldier who no longer flinches at the horrors of war, we have become numb. Washington is racked by scandal, remains divided, and no longer functions. The American past time baseball, 100 years old and counting, has hall of fame records and players tainted by scandal and controversy. The Catholic church has abused generations of children, as evangelical preachers run mega churches, while doing cocaine with their gay lovers. We have become instinctively skeptical of our political leaders, our spiritual leaders, even our baseball heroes, because scandal has become the norm in every facet of our lives.

This is the world in which we find ourselves. The public trust is at an all time low, and all of our political and social institutions have fallen victim to the need for a story, real or imagined. When the events of life are consistently presented through this lens, trust cannot help but be a casualty. All we can do is try to rise above the scandal, the cynicism, and the hypocrisy, in the continued hope that good will somehow prevail in a bad situation. The first step is knowing how to rise above the daily bombardment, and filter that lens with the very thing it tries to take away, the truth as you know it in your heart. The problem is, sometimes that's not as you want to see it, but how it is.

Florida Representative Allen West, What Crazy Looks Like Up Close

You may, or may not, have heard the latest deluded ramblings from Florida Representative Allen West. He made headlines this week with some comments he made at a town hall meeting. On Wednesday, West was responding a question from a constituent asking “What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists?” to which he replied,“That’s a fair question. I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party,” He went on to say, “It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.” He stood by his remarks going even further, “I really wish that, standing here before you, was Allen West and President Obama,” West said Tuesday, “We could have a simple discussion. But that ain’t ever gonna happen.” “Why not?” an audience member asked. “Cuz he was too scared!” West responded.

Now maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Senator Joe McCarthy's communist witch hunt ended in the 1950's after McCarthy drank himself to death? Is this guy for real? Do you understand now why nothing can get done in Washington? Do you think compromise is in Allen West's vocabulary? This is a rising star in the Republican party, another ideologically rigid wing nut, who is detached from reality. Congressman West, and those who more subtly carry his standard, are the reason we have consistent gridlock in this country. Oh but don't just take my word for it, let the Congressman speak for himself. He are some of his greatest hits.

“You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!” — July 19, 2011 in an email to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, where he also called her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable” member of the House.

“So I’m here as the modern day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the Underground Railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.” — August 17, 2011, on Fox News saying he wants to lead black voters away from the “21st century plantation” of the Democratic Party.

“If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the [Democratic] Party because they have an incredible propaganda machine.” — December 15, 2011, linking the Nazi propagandist Goebbels with the Democratic Party while talking to reporters in the Capitol.

“No. I like chocolate chip ice cream and I will continue to like chocolate chip ice cream. So there’s no worry about me changing to vanilla. I like to, you know, ride my motorcycle. What do you want me to do? You want me to change my behavior and ride a scooter? I’m not into that.” August 9, 2011, answering the Sun Sentinel’s question, “Should gay people change their behavior and not be gay?”

So, have a little better understanding of why nothing gets done in this country? I'll even do you one better, do you wonder how people like Allen West get elected? As civility in our political discourse reaches yet another new low with the likes of Rep. West, where is the Republican leadership here? Where is John Boehner, or Eric Cantor, or Mitch McConnell? Even Mitt Romney would not address West's comments personally? Isn't it over a line to call your fellow members in the United States Congress communists? The silence is deafening. Basically what it comes down to is this. You have a wack-a-doodle from the Rights lunatic fringe, who oddly appeals to a lot of the Republican base out there, and they are using him as a cash cow. His special brand of Right wing looney tune talk fires up a lot of people who want to hear what West is selling, and they in turn throw cash at him to say more. 

It is a sad commentary on the state of the Republican party that people like Representative Allen West thrive. He fits the ever decreasing ranks of a political party that consistently promotes fear, promotes anger, and promotes ignorance.  He represents everything we don't need in America, and in 2012, it is scary to know he has a willing and enthusiastic following.

Bad News For Mitt Romney

A new ABC News/Washington Post Poll has eventual Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in big trouble. Still reeling from his 19 point gender gap among women, this latest poll reinforces those numbers. Ever since Romney became the de facto nominee, his numbers have been stagnant, while the presidents have been on the rise. In fact, he has the lowest favorability rating recorded since 1984. He's the first likely nominee to be underwater (seen more unfavorably than favorably), in ABC/Post polls in eight presidential primary seasons over the past 28 years. So lets look at the numbers.

Overall Personality Approval Rating:

Obama: 56% (+21)
Romney: 35%

Approval By Women:

Obama: 58% (+21)
Romney: 27%

Approval by Men:

Obama: 53% (+9)
Romney: 44%

Among Registered Voters:

Obama: 54% (+11)
Romney: 43%

Among Independents:

Obama: 53% (+19)
Romney: 34%

President Obama also holds a strong lead among moderates. He has a higher rating among liberals, than Romney does with conservatives. He is even among whites, but leads among non-whites, Hispanics, people with income both above and below 50K, young adults, and people both married and un-married.

Three numbers that are devastating for Romney are 1) A 21% gap among women 2) A 19% gap among independents 3) A 40% gap among Hispanics. If these numbers hold Romney doesn't have a prayer. However, with 6 months to go anything can happen, but it's clear Romney has his work cut out for him. Even now with the nomination in the bag, many Republican leaders in Congress are still hesitant to endorse Romney. If his own party thinks he's a leper, how can he expect to generate enthusiasm among the American people? There is no question the primary process has left him damaged. The question now is with so many negatives against him, can he close the gaps and repair the damage by November? Barring some kind of economic collapse, I thinking probably not.

History Supports Health Care Mandate

One complaint about President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is that it forces uninsured people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, an argument the Supreme Court will have to consider before making a ruling on the law this June. Those opposed to the law tout the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, history would prove them wrong. Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge, has found several examples to the contrary.



In 1790, at the very First Congresses second session, page 134, a law passed called "An Act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchants service," Section 8, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen. how's that for a health care mandate?

In 1792, at the Second Congresses first session, page 417, a law passed called The Second Militia Act of 1792 ("An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.") The law required nearly every "free able-bodied white male citizen" age 18 to 44, within six months, "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges," along with balls and gunpowder. A rifle could be substituted. The purpose was to establish a uniform militia.

Finally in 1798, during the fifth Congresses second session, page 77, was passed the Marine Hospital Service Act ("An Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen"). The law expanded the 1790 act and required every ship owner or master coming into a port to pay 20 cents per seaman for every month each worker had been employed. The funds, which could be withheld from the seamen, were used "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established" in the port. Leftover funds were used to create hospitals for those mariners.

In regard to the blessing of our founding fathers to such requirements, over 20 of the original 55 framers were involved with this legislation at one time or another. The 1790, and 1792 bills, were signed into law by the father of the country, George Washington. The 1798 act was signed into law by another founder, President John Adams. Professor Elhauge adds "I don’t think anyone objected to any of these laws on constitutional grounds, which presumably someone would have if it was obvious that the original understanding was that such an obligation would be unconstitutional." He continues, "This precedent (like the others) disproves the challengers’ claim that the framers had some general unspoken understanding against purchase mandates. In oral arguments before the court a few weeks ago, the challengers also argued that the health insurance mandate was not “proper” in a way that allows it to be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause. These precedents rebut that claim because they indicate that the framers thought not just purchase mandates but medical insurance mandates were perfectly proper indeed."

So there you have it. It's to bad Professor Elhauge couldn't be with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli when making the governments case. However, maybe the Justices will happen across this information as we have, lets hope.

NOTE: A special thanks to loyal long time member Richard Bondurant, for bringing this to my attention, way to go Rich!

Hillary Rosen "Controversy" Is A Republican Nice Try

As one of many media manufactured crisis we are going to see in the next 6 months, the most recent comes from democratic strategist and CNN contributor Hillary Rosen. She recently created a firestorm with her comment attacking Mitt Romney's wife, Ann. In a discussion where Rosen was trying to point out the only way Mitt Romney can connect with women is through his wife, she said Ann Romney had, “never worked a day in her life”. So the media ran with it and turned it into an attack on stay at home moms. Ann Romney responded to Rosen by saying, “My career choice was to be a mother and I think all of us need to know we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make choices to have a career and raise a family, which I think Hilary Rosen has actually done herself. I respect that, that’s wonderful. But there are other people that have a choice, and we have to respect women and all those choices that they make”.

As soon as Rosen's comments hit the airwaves, President Obama, his chief advisers, and the Democratic party leadership, all denounced Rosen's comment. Nobody in 2012 thinks raising children at home is an easy job, that is not the issue, as much as Republicans would have us believe. Mitt and Ann Romney are Republicans. The latest ABC/Washington Post poll of women voters is Obama 57%, Romney 38%, that's a 19 point difference. It is not a "fiction", it is not the result of Obama's economic policies, it is based on facts. Aside from this incredibly lame attempt to put the President on the defensive, the "war on women" is, and continues to be, lead by Republicans. In their words, in their deeds, in their legislation, Republicans cannot run from their actions.

They want to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides thousands of women access to preventive health care they otherwise would not receive. They want life defined at conception. They have offered hundreds of pieces of legislation to limit abortion, access to abortion, and basic pre-natal care. They want to repeal health care reform that makes women pay more just because they're women. They balked on the renewal of the "Violence Against Women Act". When a Romney aide was asked if he supports the "Lilly Ledbetter Act" (which promotes equal pay for women in the workplace), after a 10 second pause he replied, "I'll have to get back to you on that..." The Blunt-Rubio Amendment to the President's health care reform would have allowed employers to deny contraception coverage to women "at their discretion" the amendment was so vague, employers could refuse coverage basically on a whim. Add the countless state efforts to extend waiting times for abortions, forcing women to have invasive and medically unnecessary procedures. They even go so far as to legalize giving women false and misleading information, like abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, which is patently false. They go even further to include protections for the doctors that, under law, have to provide this information. These are all REPUBLICAN IDEAS they may not want to talk about it, they can claim it's false, or fiction, but the truth speaks much louder than any Republican talking point.

The real question here is when Ann Romney says, "we have to respect women and all those choices that they make”, does that include a woman's right to choose? a woman's right to preventive health care? a women's right to be told the truth? a woman's right to be unencumbered by medically unnecessary and invasive procedures that make a difficult situation even more so? a woman's right to get health care at the same cost as men? That my friends is the REAL question here, and the FACTS say NO!

Santorum Is Out, Let The Campaigns Begin

After 11 state victories, and the highly improbable success achieved by Rick Santorum over the last 4 months, The Republican nomination process is effectively over. After a weekend of soul searching, compounded by the hospitalization of his daughter Bella, Father Rick announced his 2012 race for the White House was over.

Several factors can be looked at for his departure from the race at this time. The health of his daughter, is seen as genuine, but from a political stand point probably not a major factor. The major contributor, from my perspective, is the realization he was not going to be able to carry his home state of Pennsylvania. As badly as he wanted to somehow erase his 18 point loss to Bob Casey in 2006, the fact is the polling just wasn't going his way. Add to that the scorched earth strategy Mitt Romney had put into full force, and Santorum was on the ropes before the fight began. On April 3rd, Santorum held a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania, on that same day he lost by 4 points in Wisconsin. By April 5th, Romney had taken a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania, that's an 11 point swing in just 2 days. The battle would have been hard fought, but catastrophic for Santorum if he had lost his home state for a second time.

As I see it, Santorum's lost his chance at the nomination just before the Michigan primary. One week out, and with Romney on the ropes in his home state, Santorum started to verbalize his radical views on women's rights, contraception, and the role of religion in government. This sent just enough people running for cover, which in turn allowed Romney to win Michigan, and put Father Rick on the slippery slope that ended yesterday in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. In addition, his failure to get off those highly charged and incendiary issues, helped further promote his losses in Ohio, Illinois, and finally Wisconsin. He had an excellent chance at winning the Republican nomination, if he had just not taken the exit to crazy town. Sadly, that is an address that more and more Republicans are calling home, and it will carry a similar cost come November.

So mark your calenders, yesterday began the 2012 Presidential race in earnest. It is going to be Mitt Romney (R) vs. Barack Obama (D). The contrast between candidates couldn't be more stark, and the stakes for the nation couldn't be higher. So let the games begin, and may the best man win.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College, Will You Decide?

There has been an ongoing debate for years on the merits of the Electoral College system set up in the Constitution, and a growing cry to change that system to elect the President by the popular vote. While my initial instinct is to resist any major changes to the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, which this would be, the latest arguments for a popular vote system do hold some merit. To weigh the arguments being made, we must first understand how each system works.

Every 10 years the U.S. Census, by counting the nations population, determines how each state is to be represented in Congress for the next 10 years. A states electoral total is equal to the number of Congressional districts, plus its 2 Senators. For example New Jersey has 14 electoral votes, 12 Congressional districts plus its 2 Senators. Under the current Electoral College system the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state, would win ALL of that states electoral votes. Basically a winner takes all system.

In a direct popular vote system, the electoral votes would be given out proportionally. So say the popular vote in N.J. is split down the middle 50-50? Each candidate would receive 7 electoral votes proportional to the popular vote. It seems reasonable with one major exception. In a system where political power is fought for so tenaciously by both parties, it could open the door to a situation like the Florida vote in 2000, on a national scale. This was the exact sentiment echoed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who recently called this “the most important issue in America that nobody is talking about”. He went on to explain the National Popular Vote movement is “getting dangerously close to achieving their goal of eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution -- without anybody even noticing..." He continued, The national popular vote would give “every precinct in America the incentive to have a recount so that recounts are going on in 50 states … When the national popular vote total is the way the president is chosen, then every vote in America in every precinct in America would become the subject for endless litigation. There wouldn’t be a chance the presidency would be resolved by Jan. 20 in time for swearing in.” This would, McConnell said, be “a catastrophic outcome” and “a constitutional crisis” that “brings this country to its knees. We’ve never had a situation where the president wasn’t sworn in by the date specified in the Constitution.”

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.

So no matter where you stand on this very important issue, it is equally important to at least become aware of the effort that may change the way we vote, and pick our Presidents. I tend to believe "if it's not broken, don't fix it." The current system has carried us this far, I say stay true to the Constitution. When you begin to alter the intent of that document in a major way, by some state legislated back door process, you're opening a huge can of worms. However, if the National Popular Vote sounds interesting to you, here is a link to give you more information about their arguments and goals.

http://www.fairvote.org/solutions-and-the-case-for-reform

Be informed people, the Constitution is about to be changed without amending that very document. A scary proposition no matter what the issue may be.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Is A Colossal Ass Hat

As if the GOP doesn't have enough problems, their fearless leader and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus joined the chorus of looney tunes from the Right. He said, "If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we'd have problems with caterpillars," he told Bloomberg Television, in response to a question about the party's supposed "war on women." "It's a fiction."

Maybe he's confused, Dictionary.Com defines Fiction like this: something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story. An imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but lets check the facts one more time.

The Republican controlled House has passed, 44 bills on Abortion, 99 on Religion, 105 on Family Relationships and Gay Marriage, 67 on Firearms/Gun Control, 552 on Taxation, and conducted 445 Government Investigations, mostly on subjects that were settled, but Republicans wanted to reanimate for political gain. Since the "War on Women" was noted in the context of his comment, I would simply refer you to the recent embarrassment by The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. When Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) held a hearing on contraception with no women at the hearing.



Those bills I note are just on the federal level. It doesn't count the hundreds of pieces of legislation taken up and passed by the states. Against women's rights, women's health care, abortion rights, are these all a fiction? Mitt Romney has a 19 point gender gap with women voters, that's not a fiction it's a fact. These proposals, all of which were generated by the Republicans are facts, not fiction. Republicans don't have a "War on Caterpillars", but they damn near have a war on everything else. Women's issues are just one of many "Wars" the right has engaged in. They attack gay rights, immigration, the poor, health care reform, voters, even the President himself.

This morning Romney's communications director Eric Fehrnstromon, on The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch himself, called all these "Wars", sideshows. He said President Obama has more sideshows than P.T. Barnum, Really? If RNC Chairman Priebus thinks he can wash away everything his party has done, and continues to do, as fiction, he's not only beyond reality, he's a liar too. My suggestion for Mr. Priebus would be a find psychiatrist, and start a healthy course of anti-psychotics. For the leader of the Republican National Committee to, in one broad stroke, try to wipe away years of Right wing efforts to undermine all the issues I list here, that my friends is the real FICTION.

Some Facts About Voter ID Laws

As I have stated in the past, leave it to Republicans to find a problem where one does not exist. Case in point, the surge in voter I.D. laws sweeping the country. The Right would have you believe these as necessary measures to protect against rampant voter fraud. The fact is there is no rampant voter fraud. It is just another smoke screen conservatives are using to suppress votes they generally don't profit from, i.e.: minorities, the elderly, the poor, and the young. They would also have you believe this is not just a Republican effort, but look at the chart below. (click to make larger)

Of the 31 states listed, the 15 states with the harshest voter I.D. laws, that's with a photo standard, or a photo exception, 14 of them have Republican Governors and both state legislatures controlled by Republicans. The number goes up to 20 states if you also count the non-photo I.D. laws. Only 5 states had Democratic Governors and both state legislatures controlled by Democrats. All but Hawaii, chose the non-photo I.D. option. Here is the breakdown: (Click to make larger)



DARK RED: Photo I.D Standard - Republican. Gov. - Republican State Legislatures

RED: Optional Photo I.D. Standard - Republican Gov. - Republican State Legislatures

PINK: Non-Photo I.D. Standard - Republican Gov. - Republican State Legislatures

BLUE: Non-Photo I.D. Standard - Democratic Governor - Democratic State Legislatures

(Except Hawaii which has an Optional Photo I.D. Standard)

LIGHT BLUE: Non Photo I.D. Standard - Democratic Gov. - Republican or Split State Legislatures

So you can see for yourself, when progressives talk about the Republican war on voters, they have the facts to back them up. As well as the efforts in New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Minnesota, where attempts by the Republican controlled legislatures were vetoed by their Democratic Governors. So as Ronald Reagan once said, "facts are funny things", and the intent here couldn't be more obvious. When your party becomes less inclusive, and driven by outdated ideological dogmas, that only appeal to the faithful few, these are the kind of things you try to do. If you can't scare them into voting for you, you try to disenfranchise your opponents most vulnerable supporters, under the guise of addressing voter fraud that doesn't exist. Yet another in a long line of Republican boogie men that have no teeth. So add it to the list, oil and gasoline prices, the attack on religious freedom, as an excuse to attack women's rights, the crusade against voter fraud, always remember... its all a lot of crap.

Romney Can't Deliver The Knockout Blow

Despite sweeping last nights 3 primaries, Mitt Romney just can't seem to put Rick Santorum away. Romney won with 49% of the vote in Maryland, and 70% in the District of Columbia. However, in Wisconsin where the Massachusetts Governor was polling 5 to 10 points in front of Santorum, he only pulled out a 4 point victory, falling within the margin of error. Wisconsin, which many thought of as Santorum's Waterloo, once again failed to deliver the knockout blow the Romney camp was hoping for. Having won with such a weak performance in Wisconsin, can father Rick live to fight another day?

The media, as well as, the Republican establishment, have been saying a Santorum loss in Wisconsin would be his death knell. I'm sure the Romney people want to promote that view, but Santorum refuses to go away. He has pledged to remain in the primary process until Romney gets the 1,144 delegates needed to capture the nomination. So what are the major questions going forward? 1) Can Santorum resist the pressure to get out of the race, so Romney can begin to consolidate his position against the President? 2) Can Santorum survive the 3 week barrage of negative ads that Romney is sure to send his way? 3) The next five primaries on April 24th heavily favor Governor Romney, with the exception of Pennsylvania, which is Santorum's home state. Current polling has the former Senator up by 6 points over Romney. 4) Can Santorum pull off a win in Pennsylvania, and survive into May where the contests shift dramatically in his favor.

Wisconsin is just another in a string of missed opportunities, that have plagued the Romney campaign since January. If he had pulled off the decisive 12 point win he got in Illinois, then yes, I would say Santorum is effectively out. The problem is he didn't, and it is hard to consolidate your nomination with narrow victories and luke warm endorsements. The key for Santorum now is Pennsylvania. The other 4 primaries April 24th are lost causes, he shouldn't even waste his time with them. He needs to hit Pennsylvania hard for the next 3 weeks, and he must win his home state. If he fails, the May contests might fall apart in favor of Romney, who will have beaten Father Rick on his home turf.

If Santorum can make it to May, he has a great chance to give Romney a black eye all month long. Which would look really bad if you are the presumed nominee. The fact is in those states whose populations identify as over 50% evangelical, typically go to Santorum. In those states where evangelicals are less than 50%, Romney wins. So I would submit Pennsylvania, not Wisconsin is Father Rick's Waterloo. If he pulls out a big win at home he lives to fight another day, and continues to be that ever present thorn in Mitt Romney's side. Santorum's biggest problem is time, 3 weeks is a political eternity. One that Romney will utilize to the fullest, but if he can find a way to survive, May will prove to be much greener pastures, and bad news for Romney. One more thing, this isn't about Santorum winning the nomination anymore, it's about giving a voice to all those social conservatives who can't stand Romney, and know in their hearts he's going to get the nomination. It's about showing the American electorate we may have to take Romney, but we don't have to like it, and that is good for just one man, President Obama.

What Does The Paul Ryan Budget Mean To You?

Last Thursday the House of Representatives approved a $3.5 trillion budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on a 228 to 191 vote, largely along party lines. The House vote breakdown was 228 Republicans in favor, 181 Democrats and 10 Republicans opposed. The plan will fail to pass the Democratically controlled Senate, but what is behind this vision for America the GOP affectionately calls "The Path To Prosperity"? Lets look at three keys provisions.

Health Care: Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, or as the GOP likes to call it Obamacare. They raise $725 Billion dollars that would otherwise go to help people get, or keep, health insurance. Beginning in 2023 Medicare eligibility would rise from 65 to 67. Instead of the government reimbursing doctors and hospitals for certain medical services, seniors would purchase a private health care plan among numerous options on an exchange. The government would then pay the private insurer in the form of a subsidy up to a specified amount. Seniors would be given government assistance to purchase private health-insurance plans, or could continue to take part in the current fee-for-service model. However, spending would be capped, meaning risks and costs could shift to seniors as health-care costs rise. Changes to Medicare in the plan would not affect those currently age 55 and over. As for Medicaid, House Republicans would overhaul Medicaid by changing the way the federal government finances the program. Today, it is a matching program which means if a state adds more Medicaid recipients to the rolls in the case of a recession, the federal government helps with that cost by matching a certain percentage. The GOP plan would change the program by block granting it - which means giving a set number of funds to the states. Proponents of this plan say it will give governors the flexibility to administer the Medicaid program as they see fit while giving the federal government some control over the cost, but if your grant money dries up your S.O.L.

Social Security: "In the event that the Social Security Program is not sustainable" the GOP budget plan would require the president and the House and Senate to all come up with ideas to ensure the program's solvency. But Ryan does not offer his own plan on how to ensure Social Security's long-term viability. The buzz word here has been "Individual Health Savings Accounts" meaning, dismantle the government program in favor of individual responsibility. It's like telling an 18 year old to start saving for your retirement, here's how, "good luck with that." Pretty much the same battle we have raging in the Supreme Court with freedom vs. freeloaders. The problem is the same, and the results just as disastrous should such a system go in place. Would you like to be part of the generation that has to provide for your own retirement, if you live check to check, and consistently struggle to make ends meet?

Taxes: Details are still murky -- The "Path to Prosperity" does propose collapsing the six individual tax brackets into just two brackets, taxed at 10 and 25 percent. This would cut taxes on the rich from 25% to 35%, he also suggests closing loopholes and ending subsidies, but doesn't give specifics. To make up for that revenue they propose closing tax loopholes, eliminating special carve outs, and tax credits. They also argue that allowing individuals and businesses that can keep more money will help grow the economy at a faster rate. But the report does not get into specific tax credits, and carve outs, that would be eliminated? Some analyses suggest the only way to generate that kind of revenue would mean raising the tax burden on middle-income earners to pay for the lowered tax rate for the wealthy. Republicans insist wealthy taxpayers benefit disproportionately from loopholes, (even though they can't tell us which ones they'll eliminate?), and they are committed to a progressive code with lower rates for the rich. Ryan’s budget would cut $5.3 trillion from deficits over the next decade, bringing deficits down from more than 8 percent of gross domestic product to 1.2 percent by 2022. It would not balance the budget, however, until 2040. Once again the majority of his plan hinges on budget cuts, and a bigger burden on the poor, and middle class.

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney endorses this plan, but why wouldn't he? It helps the rich at the expense of the middle class. The man has houses with car elevators to build. Democrats critical of the plan said it would cut deficits by hitting programs relied on by the poor and vulnerable, like Medicaid, food stamps, education and other programs. “Because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) during House debate. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the Ryan plan would create “a segmented replacement for Medicare that would burden seniors and end the program as we know it.”


So there you have it, an unyielding assault from the "Haves" on the "Have Nots". A hard nosed, often vague vision of what Republicans want their America to look like. I don't know about you, but for me, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Mitt Romney The Train Wreck That Keeps On Giving

Mitt Romney picked up several luke warm endorsements last week. Namely from former President George H.W. Bush, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), author of the famed draconian Republican legislation that bears his name. Romney showed his support for the "Ryan Budget" which would destroy Medicare and Social Security as we know it. The plan would cost seniors an extra $6000 dollars a year, replace Medicare with a voucher program, slash Medicaid programs potentially kicking 14 Million people out of the system, dismantle the foundations of Social Security, as it currently exists, and give a $187,000 tax break to the rich. In addition to his support for Ryan, he voiced support for embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is facing a recall election in the coming months.

Romney was on the campaign trail in Wisconsin, which holds its primary this coming Tuesday. The latest polling has Romney leading in the badger state, anywhere from 5 to 10 points, against his closest rival Rick Santorum. Many believe the state is a must win for Santorum, but despite that, win or lose, the former Pennsylvania Senator has vowed to stay in the race until Romney gets the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination. So it is distinctly possible the Republican nominating fight will continue well into the final primaries in June.

Let's not forget Governor Romney's gaff of the week. The latest came last Thursday when he unprompted, decided to share an anecdote he described as "humorous." For those who missed the episode and can't watch clips online, the gist of the story is that Romney's father shut down an auto factory in Michigan, and moved production to Wisconsin. The "humorous" part came later, when George Romney's political strategists didn't want a marching band playing "On, Wisconsin" during a Michigan gubernatorial campaign because it might remind voters of the closed factory. Because nothings funnier than joking about shutting down production at a Michigan auto plant and laying off its workers.

The former Massachusetts Governor has a 34% overall approval rating, has a double digit gap against him with women voters, and in the ever growing Hispanic community, has a 70% disapproval rating. He continues to flounder in his attempts to connect on any level, has captured a universal persona of being disingenuous, out of touch, and an out write liar. As long as Rick Santorum continues to nip at his heals, he can't close the deal until he does reach that magic number of 1,144. So with Santorum in for the long haul, even if Romney sweeps the 3 contests on Tuesday, the battle goes on. I'm not sure it's possible to run for President and keep your mouth shut, but if ever there was a candidate that needs to do it, it's Mitt Romney.