It Doesn't Work?

Everybody says that negative campaigns don’t work. And yet, it seems like every campaign eventually devolves to a series of name-calling and mud-slinging.

Everybody I know hopes that their guy won’t engage in such stupidity … but they do. Instead of actually explaining HOW they will do whatever they’ve promised to do, or exactly WHAT they think needs to change, and how it will effect Average Joe, they tell you what their opponent has done that they think is wrong. And if they can’t find enough of those types of things to tell you about, they will twist the facts or even make them up.

If negative campaigns don’t work, why do they do it? I suspect because negative ads DO work. If candidate A can throw enough dirt onto candidate B, then A will look better, especially since most voters have no idea what is true and what is not. I like that some of the news programs have started to ‘fact check’ things the presidential candidates say, but what about the more local candidates?

Even when the fact checkers say, “This statement by candidate A is absolutely wrong,” candidate A and his campaign continue to repeat it, over and over again, as if saying it a few hundred times will make it true. It doesn’t. But by repeating it that many times, they can drill it into people’s minds that it is true.

I hate negative campaigns. They don’t give me any INFORMATION to allow me to make an intelligent decision. But that’s one more reason why the candidates engage in them. They aren’t looking to inform you; they want to convince you. I suspect the candidates resort to mud-slinging because they really don’t have any idea how they are going to solve the problems of the day. So they have to convince the voters that their opponent is even worse.

What a Politician!

I call myself an Independent, because I don’t completely identify with either party. Most times when I vote, I’m voting against the one I think is the less desirable, rather than anybody I actually like.

So, Romney’s been visiting overseas. Apparently, he’s trying to show the American people that he’s ‘ready’ to be President. I’m not impressed.

He hasn’t managed to impress the people of the countries he’s visited, either. He stepped on toes (verbally) in England and Israel. When he tried to avoid any more problems by keeping his mouth shut (except for a well-rehearsed speech) in Poland, one of his ‘helpers’ lost his temper and used vulgar language telling reporters to have some respect in the holy Polish location they were in. Seems to me if the Polish people were insulted by the reporters trying to ask Mr. Romney questions, they would been even more insulted by the language used by Mr. Romney’s helper.

I did hear that the candidate’s assistant later apologized, but I have to wonder … did he apologize to the reporters for having lost his temper? Or to the Polish people for using such language in their sacred location? Is he still a member of Mr. Romney’s staff?

In my opinion, staff members are extensions of the candidate. If a staff member does something truly embarrassing, then I wait to see what happens. If that staff member faces consequences, that gives me a clue where the boss stands. If the staff member doesn’t face any consequences, then the boss is condoning whatever the staff member did.

In any case, I’m not thrilled with the prospect of having a president who insensitively insults some of our best allies. How would he treat countries we aren’t that close to?

True Colors

The more I hear about George Romney, the more I think I would have liked him. But I was too young to vote in 1968, so I didn’t pay any attention to politics. What little I know about George Romney is the bits of information I’ve learned from comments made during his son’s current candidacy for President.

When George was a candidate, he released a dozen years of tax returns. He wasn’t required to release that much, but he did it. To me, that says he wanted people to know he had nothing to hide, and was willing to go beyond what was required. A man of enthusiasm.

I don’t see those qualities in his son. I understand his father’s example of releasing a dozen years of taxes has become standard practice with presidential candidates. Surely Mitt knew that, but now that he is a candidate, he has released only 1 years’ tax form, and promised to release 2011’s “as soon as it’s done”.

Wait. It’s July and he hasn’t done last year’s taxes yet? Surely his bookkeeper knows these have to be done every year, right? You would think any bookkeeper working for someone as rich and important as a presidential candidate like Mitt Romney would have everything organized and streamlined so they could get his taxes filed on time.

“You don’t have any need to see any more tax forms,” the Romneys say. How about the need to know as much as possible about the person who may be elected the next president? Aren’t the American people entitled to that?

And now I hear that a group of people who had collected a few thousand signatures on a petition asking that Mr Romney release more tax forms did not find him in his political headquarters. No one in that office would accept the petition on Mr Romney’s behalf, and the people with the petition were escorted from the premises. Yeah, Mitt Romney sure does understand the American people.

There’s a saying that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. But I think Mitt is a whole different kind of apple than his father was.

Are 'Family Values' Trademarked?

I saw a ‘photo’ posted on Facebook the other day. It said Family Values are eroding. Then it asked if possibly that could be because both parents have to work and don’t have any time to spend with the children and after paying the bills, there’s no money left for family hobbies or other ‘luxuries’.

It seemed really straightforward to me, and I’ve been watching this kind of stuff go on for the better part of my life, so I didn’t figure it was really anything new, just something that was being pointed out ... again. At the time, there were 2 comments for that posting; the second one taking umbrage because the posting was ‘obviously’ aimed at Republicans.

Huh?

I know the Republicans like to spout the phrase ‘Family Values’, but when did they trademark it so that nobody else could use it? When did anything that uses the phrase and wasn’t spouted by them somehow become an insult to them?

Family values are suffering, just like the ‘photo’ said. It’s been happening for a long time. About every 4 years, it becomes another hot phrase in the political arena. I don’t want a political party that merely talks about family values; I want the party that understands how families are struggling, and tries to do something to address those problems.

Religious Freedom

A lot of politicians seem to look to our ‘Founding Fathers’ for support for their way of thinking about an issue, such as gay marriage, a woman’s place, etc.  While I respect our Founding Fathers for setting up our country, I think of them as people, not as gods incapable of making mistakes. I have three points to make here.

#1 – A lot of modern  politicians seem to have adopted an extreme religious stand, as I see it, and for some reason, they feel they must shove their opinion and beliefs down the throats of the rest of the country. They may say how much they admire our Founding Fathers, but they completely ignore that the Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution. And right in the preamble to the constitution, the Founding Fathers asserted they wanted to ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’. Have you looked up the meaning of ‘liberty’? The very first meaning given in my source is, “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.” Of course, I don’t imagine any despot actually sees themselves as one. And how can a religious belief be despotic? When people who don’t hold that same belief are forced to act as if they do. If that isn’t religious persecution, I don’t know what is.

#2 – It also seems like these politicians have forgotten – or chose to ignore – that our Founding Fathers lived in a different time period. Not only has the date changed, but technology has changed, our language has changed, and our social morals have changed. These people want to pretend that times were much better when our Founding Fathers were putting together our nation. Really? I’ve used outhouses, sweated through summer camping trips, cooked over open fires and wood-burning stoves. That’s enough to convince me that I don’t want to go back. I’ve also been inoculated against small pox and polio, suffered through gall bladder attacks and have friends who have had a knee replaced, allowing them to walk again. Do I want to forego modern medicine to be crippled or die in agony? No thanks. The present is where I want to be, at least until the future gets here.

#3 - How would the Founding Fathers feel about being used to support a particular religious belief as a political stand? I don’t think very many would like it. The Founding Fathers were a varied lot; Roman Catholics, Episcopalian, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, anti-clerical Christians and deists. If they were trying to incorporate a particular religious bent to their plans for a nation, how could they possibly have agreed what that bent would be?

Our Founding Fathers were capable of thinking for themselves, did not cater to their religious beliefs while trying to formulate a plan for a new nation. I can only hope that modern Americans can think for themselves enough not to mix oppressive religious beliefs with political issues.

Who Would Have Thought?

So, Mr Warren Buffet – a wealthy man I have come to respect – has been taunting other wealthy people to ‘pay their fair share’. The first response to his jibs was, “If you feel so strongly about this, make a donation to the government.”

To which Mr Buffet returned, “I will if you will.” So far as I’ve heard, he’s only matched the donation made by one other person, even though that person had made his donation before this spitting match began. I have not heard of any other elected officials – wealthy or otherwise - making any effort to personally alleviate the budget crisis for Mr Buffet to match.

Reminds me of that old saying, “Put your money where your mouth is.” Only, I think that refers to gambling, right?

Then Mr Buffet started talking about how unfair it was for him to pay a tax rate of about half what his secretary pays. He feels the wealthy should pay at least the same tax rate as the middle class. A LOT of people have mulled that over, and according to the polls I’ve seen, over 70% of the American people think that would be fair. Mr Obama thinks it would be fair. Somebody actually introduced ‘The Buffet Rule’ to Congress.

Well, who would have thought? It never came to vote, even though it had a simple majority of support. (Anybody know which Republicans supported it? That might be interesting to know.) But to keep it from being voted on, the wealthy Republicans banded together and filibustered. I’m sure the idea of having to pay more taxes than they already do seems like a personal attack on them.

Have they ever stopped to think what their lifestyle would be like if the 99% of the population who are NOT wealthy suddenly decided to ostracize them? No cooks, no maids, no butlers or gardeners or chauffeurs, no nannies for the kids, no pilot for the private jet. Now let’s get serious about it; no secretaries, no receptionist, nobody to work in their factory or office or whatever. Nobody to serve them in the restaurants or the night clubs or the bank … Who would have thought the 1% could be that dependent on the good will of the 99%?