How to Judge Candidates for Political Office

It’s midafternoon on Christmas day 2011. The kids opened their presents early and then faded away to nap. We haven’t had our Christmas dinner yet, but my mind is already fast-forwarding to the New Year. What will the year hold for me, for my family, and for the United States?

Those are unanswerable questions because the future remains as elusive as it always has. Suffice to say, I’m no Nostradamus. I have no mysterious powers that will permit me to create wonderfully vague, ambiguous, and elusive words, phrases and sentences that highly intelligent people like Joe the Plumber will interpret and assign certaintities of time and place to catastrophic events in my name.

I’m just an ordinary guy who lives a low-key life without a lot of daily drama. In short, I’m no politician. I’m just Bob, the guy who lives next door in a neighborhood that’s been around awhile and is beginning to show signs of wear and tear but still is called home to a lot of nice people with a kind of benign nosiness and a tendency toward arguing in favor of their pet loony belief.

Because I’m the only normal man among a bunch of wierdos, I’ve learned to recognize their predictibility and hence foretell their future actions and reactions. For example, one of my neighbors is a man named Bob. People can’t seem to tell the difference between us. But Bob  is predictible. He is absolutely certain that the election of that Kenyan guy as president was the first step in the takeover of the United States by the Soviet Union.

Forget for a moment that the Soviet Union ceased to exist a couple of centuries ago. Forget that the President of the United States is a white guy from Kansas. Forget that Shirley Temple was an ambassador to Tanzania or someplace. But remember that Bob will blame every occurrence in the universe on Brock O. Bama. Bob is predictible.

George Romney is also predictible. George is going to say something today, say  something different tomorrow, and revert to his original something day after tomorrow. Nutt Gingrich is predictible. Everytime he has an affair, he will blame it on his love for our country.

Rick Perry is predictible. His hair is always perfectly coiffured and he talks in a silly fake Texas accent. Ron Paul is predictible. He’ll lambast black people and blame his words on ghost writers. Michelle Bachman is predictible. She’s smart and tees off everyone else because Tea Partiers can’s handle smart women, or smart anyone for that matter.

If you haven’t grasped my drift yet, peredictibility is at the heart of political analysis. In the field of human resources, the experts tell us that the best gauge of how a new employee will perform is how that employee performed in the past.

The same general rule applies in the world of politics. If you want to figure out how a candidate will perform as President of the United States, take a detailed look at his or her past performance. Be careful, however. The responsibilities and authorities of the President far outweigh those of any other office in this country public or private.

As Richard Nixon once said, “Don’t listen to what I say. Watch what I do.” That’s a brilliant observation. Nixon may have been a crook, but he knew a lot about human behavior.

And it’s good advice for anyone who really wishes to assess the current crop of Republican candidates for the presidency. Ignore their debate performance. Ignore their slick ads. Ignore the pronouncements of their supporters.

Look at their records. For example, if a candidate has supported a bill or a law, ask first and formost, “Who benefits? Does the law provide tax breaks or other good things to the one-percenters?” If it does, you will have a firm fix on the strong possibility that the candidate’s policies as President will follow a similar tack.

Once you’ve completed your analysis by collecting the facts, preparing a spreadsheet, and gnashing your teeth because you can’t find an iota of difference between any of them, throw away the whole pile, close your eyes, whirl around three times, and then vote for Obama.

Judge Not…

If you haven’t figured it out by now, Newt Gingrich is a man of grandiose dreams and loony ideas. He once remarked that he was going to change the world. Didn’t Hitler say that? Or was it Caligula?

Newt’s latest crazy uttering is about the United States Federal court system. In a nutshell, he says as president he would arrest judges whose decisions he disagrees with.

Yes, I think a couple of Supreme Court justices are totally unqualified to sit on the bench. Think Scalia and Thomas.

These are justices who are widely known to believe in the same things Newt does. Maybe Obama could arrest these bozos for the lunatic decision to make people out of corporations.

Oh, wait. That’s not what Newt proposes to do. He wants to arrest only liberal judges. Or in the jargon of right wing screwballs, Activist Judges, meaning judges who vote in favor of civil rights for the poor and disenfranchised.

Newt, in fact, would completely dismantle Brown v. Board of Education, a ruling in 1954 that overturned the separate but equal facilities under which Blacks had to endure the ignominy of virtually unfunded Black public schools. According to Newt, giving Blacks an educational chance is unconstitutional.

And yet in his mind arresting judges is perfectly constitutional.

But Newt doesn’t stop at arresting judges.

Before he arrests them, he will have them face an Inquisition before the U.S. Congress to justify their decisions.

There’s really more to Newt than we know, though. He also wants to eliminate child labor laws so that schools can fire their janitors and kids can do the work, all in the name of kids learning how to be responsible adults and support their fired parents.

But that isn’t all. Newt is a well-known fornicator of women other than his wife. When asked to explain his peccadillos, he offered an excuse from patriotism, which I will paraphrase.

“I love my country so much, and I worked so hard on behalf of my country that I got caught up in the moment.”

I don’t think I can add anything to my strong belief that Newt Gingrich should aptly be named Nutty Gingrich and those who support him are ripe for incarceration in the nearest loony bin.

But I will admit that his excuse for screwing his intern while impeaching Clinton for having a little pseudo sex in the Oval Office is a novel one.

Quick thinking insanity. I like the sound of it.

Peace on Earth Good Will to All

December 17, 2011—Special to SF Bay Area
from our Western New York Correspondent
Beverly Anna

——-Today, I am  very proud  to call myself an American.  I am very proud to point out and remind my fellow Americans about a promise made by our President… Barack Obama.   Before he was elected, then Senator, and presidential candidate, Barack Obama made a promise  about ending this ill conceived  war in Iraq…honorably.  He also made a pledge to bring our  brave soldiers home.  He kept his promise.  The war in Iraq is NOW  finally over and our soldiers will be home for the holidays. For all of these troops  and their families… peace of mind  will be at hand.  Their loved ones will be united and there will be peace in their hearts. We celebrate our soldiers. We commend them for a job well done!  We also  mourn , with a heavy heart, those who will not be returning home…

——-In the world community, I believe respect for America is on the rise. I am sure many Iraqis  thought we  would stay in Iraq forever because  of their oil and that  America would have our soldiers there indefinitely. Unfortunately there  are those in America today who are still very vocal on keeping our mililtary troops in Iraq.  Like a nightmare phantom from the past, Dick Cheny spoke his diabolical views on the airwaves recently.

————-The American people support bringing our troops home. President Obama is bringing them home.   President Obama has proven to the World Community that America can be trusted once again and that we are not  so fast on the trigger with this present administration.   President Obama understands and respects the diversity in the world community. With President Obama as leader of the Free World  …. diplomacy and well thought out plans and a strong desire to work together with other nations has brought us closer to something all thinking and moral people desire…PEACE ON EARTH . And Peace in the Middle East is not an easy task…I do believe this tactic of diplomacy and working with other countries and not always alone is a better way.

————–President Obama is intelligent and rather than be quick on the trigger… he works to affect a common ground on all fronts… He is calm, cool, collected and very focused. Under his watch, we captured  Bin Laden, under his leadership and willingness to work with other nations and the United Nations he was able to provided the leadership that went on to overthrow another dictator.. Gadafhy.  I believe once again this has shown the world community  that we are NOT the country that takes over nations and occupies them with military troops ad infinitum .  I think our President also has proven to the American people that he would be much more thoughtful and utililze every diplomatic channel before committing our sons and daughters in harms way in direct contrast to the previous administration.

————–ON the home front …Peace on Earth has a different aspect.  There is cetainly no peace on earth  for a family with no job… whose unemployment benefits are running out.  There is no peace on earth for a child who is hungry and homeless because his family has  been evicted….  since they can no longer pay the rent or buy food..  There is no peace on earth for an elderly person who can’t afford the copays on medicine and has to make a choice on food or medicine , or a mother who has NO health care and is dealing with catastrophic illness.

————–Social justice means being fair.  Peace on Earth  is not just the lyric in a song, or a Bible  passage, or a line in a Christmas card. It is a moral view… a  philosophy, a way of thinking, a way of acting that seeks to make life better not just for yourself… but for ALL people.  This is an election year and I do see a clear choice.

————All this gridlock and filabustering … simply because the Republicans DO NOT WANT THE WEALTHY TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE… while cutting programs that actually benefit people in dire straits and with overwhelming needs disgusts me.  They have had trickle down economics for more than 8 years….where are the jobs?  Overseas. Income inequity has never been greater. The middle class is disappearing.  Another trend I see is such vitriol against this President and that there is a willingness to watch Americans suffer just to blame President Obama. He inherited a mess. The mid term election results… have put a  major road block  in everything he has tried to do.

—————I believe this whole group who are debating now are  totally out of touch with the troubles and trials of average American people.   President Obama inherited a fiscal mess.  He truly UNDERSTANDS the need for health care for every American .  He believes every American should be  contributing their fair share to solve these fiscal woes.  Statistics have proven the rich have gotten richer, the middle class is diasppearing and trickle down does NOT work.  Where are the jobs?  They are overseas.  Why are some republicans  so adament about protecting these tax breaks for the very wealthy?  Vested interest, totaly lack of empathy…or simply the desire to see, as one Republican  senator has stated… that  the goal of all Republicans should be to defeat President Obama.     Is that their main objective?  Looks like it to me.

————–Well, Peace on Earth means many things… I think President Obama has a good understanding of what these words mean…on the home front and in the world.   Peace on Earth and Good Will to ALL,!  Yes, ALL people no matter what religion, gender, culture or deomographic group.

———–Peace on earth, Good Will To All … can it be?????

I think is can.

I’m a Gagger

I’m a Gagger. You know what that is, don’t you? It’s someome who will gag at the sight of a dentist.

That’s me. When I type the word “dentist,” I gag.

I’m an Anticipatory Gagger. Five days before a dental appointment, I gag. Even if I don’t have an appointment, I’ll gag at a toothpaste ad.

I once gagged two years before a routine cleaning. Worse, I gagged continually from start to finish while filling out an insurance form.

Okay. You get it. I’ m a Gagger. An Antitipatory Gagger. I’ve always been one.

Lately, though, it’s been worse.

My phobia has begun to extend beyond the simple act of gagging in the dentist’s  office.

Sights and smells of certain things now cause a little bile to rise in my throat.

For example, I was reclining on the bed clicking my TV clicker as I usually do when all of a sudden I not only gagged, I not only reguritated a little bile, but I let loose a stream of green pea soup ala Linda Blair in The Exorcist.

The cause of my sudden distress…

I distinctly heard a deep voice intone, “And now ladies and gentlemen, we bring you the umpteenth debate between the Seven Dwarfs vying to become the Republican presidential candidate against Barack Obama.”

I grunted, “Huh?” and leaned forward.

Yep, there they were.

The 21st Century reincarnation of

Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, and Sneezy.

You match the fairy tale names with their real–life counterparts. I can’t. To suggest, even humorously, that Snow White’s admirers are even remotely connected to the bozos and bozo-esses on stage is an insult to dwarfs everywhere.

Why? Something was slightly askew about this current group. They seemed more like  a bunch of Hollywood dummies dressed in odd clothes, as if having been placed on a a Star Trek set.

And whereas the original Seven Dwarfs were lovable and cuddly, the current crop appeared vaguely false in every respect, evil reincarnations like the pods in  the Body Snatchers.

Moreover, when the clan on stage opened their collective mouths, they always uttered the same words, “It’s all Obama’s fault.”

Obama himself, during an interview on CBS the following day, summarized events perfectly.

“It doesn’t matter who becomes the Republican candidate, the message will be the same. No help for the poor and middle class.”

But by the time Obama uttered these words, I had already made a decision.

No longer would I gag in the dentist’s office. I would save it for the sight and sound of a Republican candidate.

Obama’s Dilemma

Shortly after Obama became President, he was quoted as saying he would rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two term one.

As the state of his presidency now stands in the public’s mind, he may well turn out to be a bad one term president. Consider—-

In Wednesday’s Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, the latest one, only 22% of the country’s voters Strongly approve of Obama’s performance in office while 40% Strongly Disapprove.

This a bad omen for Obama, but a couple of caveats. Today is today. The presidential election will be in November 2012. Much can change between now and then, and it undoubtedly will change.

Mooreover, polls are known to be notoriously unreliable, and when they are off the mark, they tend to be way off. Consider 1948 when every major poll in America had Tom Dewey ahead of Harry Truman. One newspaper even went to print with the huge headline, Dewey Wins! Well, if you don’t know by now, you may never, Truman won by a healthy margin.

True, the accuracy of polls has increased dramatically since 1948, but today, that accuracy is still plagued with glitches that throw the number off just far enough to instill a false sense of security in an apparent winner and a sense of panic in the camp of an apparent loser. But in this case, the margin isn’t minor; it’s a major concern.

Polls aren’t the only factor in Obama’s worries, however. If he is smart, and he certainly is, he will remember an old adage of politics that I am making up as I type. The players are more important than the polls.

A candidate for the presidency will know the players and how they stand and leave the polls to the numbers cruyncher on his or her staff. The public often ignores the polls but is closely attuned to the important players, especially respected players, the ones who are sometimes referred to as opinion leaders. These are men and women who are respected and whose opinions are highly valued.

Bill Clinton, conntrary to his shady reputaton as a lady’s man and his impeachment for lying under oath, is today a respected elder statesman among Democrats and even some Republicans. He is clearly an opinion leader whose words and actions are meaningful beyond the plain words he often uses.

That’s why an interview he recently granted to a right-leaning media organization, subsequently reported in the Wall Street Journal, is highly significant. In fact his words bode ill for Obama. Consider—-

In the Wall Street Journal Article, Clinton praised Newt Gingrich as articulate with a desire to compromise in solving legitimate problems through the application of conservative principles.

For example, Clinton praised Gingrich for his solution to the problem of illegal immigrants to this country, a soluton that called for a red card for an illegal immigrant rather than the traditonal green card for legal immigrants. Red would signify an illegal alien who has been in the United States for a long time, has worked and paid taxes, and has family members born in this country, but whose “red” card status permits continued U.S. residence without the promise of citizenship.

Clinton characterized Gingrich’s proposed solution as a “thoughtful response.” This may turn out to be the case, but the problem for Obama and perhaps the country isn’t whether Newt is “thoughtful” but that Clinton first of all granted an interview to a conservative media orgazination and second, he praised Newt Gingrich.

Considering Clinton’s status and his respect among many segments of the American voting population, his opinion may turn out to be prophetic. His words will not effect the opinions of core Democratic supporters. Rather, he could conceivanly turn many Independents in the General Election toward the Republican presidential candidate whether that candidate is Newt or someone else.

To many observers, Democratic leaders and the party’s rank and file have been remarkably silent about praising Obama. As I have written many times in the past, Democrats show a startling ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The party is on the verge of repeating its losing history and Clinton’s words may well mean the biggest defeat of all.

The election of a Republican candidate and a Republican Congress would be a catastrophe for this country. Imagine a congress whose every act is approved by a same- party president. If both were Republicans, we could fully expect a return to 1790 as some Republicans have advocated.

Imagine, a Los Angeles freeway covered in horse manure.

Those Water Cooler Blues

I was fooling around on the internet this morning trying to think of something to write about when I ran across an article in the Washington Post headlined “Stop beating up on federal workers.”

Since I used to be one, naturally I was interested because I’ve run across the same kind of article many times in the past.

Federal workers have been easy targets for politicians, mostly Republicans, as well as for the American public.

Republican attacks are generally strategic. But below their whining and sniveling about those slothful, overpaid bureaucrats, their attacks have less to do with conservative ideology than with just plain ole meanness. Republicans hate everybody, even their own kind.

The American public’s disdain for federal employees can be traced directly to an overload of misinformation in the media and from equally misinformed fellow private sector workers around the water cooler.

If those superefficient private workers who are perfect in every way would drink less water and make fewer trips to the water closet, maybe contaminated ground water would clear up as well as the air around water coolers.

Let me see if I can clear the air. Here’s the basic complaint about federal workers in a tea bag.

They are rich beyond compare. Every couple of weeks, they receive paychecks that exceed the annual pay check of Donald Trump’s private nann.y

Their medical benefits permit them access to the best medical care in Death Valley, plus two annual visits to top flight medical specialists in Vegas, along with unlimited trips to the Rivera on “rejuvenation leave.”

Moreover, they work when and where they choose. A few opt for regular working visits to private topless clubs for the specific purpose of inspecting the merchandise, which includes a hand on test to assure customers receive what they pay for.

And you know what? It’s their own damned fault. They have forced “the government” at the point of a gun to pay them these exorbitant salaries and grant them unlimited perks. “The government” is helpless in the face of overwhelming labor union strength and power.

I’ve met a few federal workers who wished it were all true, that their workplace was in a topless club.

Alas and a-lack-a-day. Here’s the way it really works.

Congress and Congress alone is the power that establishes wages, salaries, and benefits for federal employees. The workers have no power to alter this system other than to write their congressman. Federal labor unions have no power or authority to negotiate salaries with the possible exception of the postal union.

However, one element can and often does affect whether Congress grants a rise in salaries or not. Plain ole common sense tactical politics.

There are more than a million federal employees. They vote. And their families vote if they are of age. Politicians are many things but they are not dumb. They cater to this large group of potential voters by buying their votes with salary increases and annual raises based on increases in the cost of living. In another world this would be called bribery. But in Washington DC, it’s perfectly legal.

Federal employees are not dumb either. They gladly accept the raises and perks given to them by a greedy Congress. Republicans often bleat about the system in public while tacitly approving of it when the voting chips are down.

Well, there you have it in a tea bag. So the next time you complain about those lazy, slothful, overpaid bureaucrats, ask yourself a question, punk.

Would you refuse to accept a salary that puts you in a league with the big money boys?

Well, would you, punk?

Go ahead, punk. Make my day.

Refuse.

 

Seven Things Obama Must do to Win in 2012

Special to SF Bay Area from Angelo Saxon
and Our New York Correspondent Angela Emanon

If the Republican Party nominates one of the current candidates for President, Obama will win in a walk-a-way. Romney is the only candidate that might pose a threat, but a closer look at his history will reveal a man who has switched positions on the issues so often and so many times that Obama’s reelection strategists will make mincemeat out of him.

Perry, one time front runner, has proven himself to be a hollow shell, a man with a record as the governor of Texas who has presided not over a trumpeted period of economic growth but over a sham characterized by declining social norms and a virtual collapse of the Texas educational systems at the secondary level.

None of the others seems worth mentioning, including Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain. Bachmann has consistently demonstrated her balloon-headedness, and Cain has recently been accused of sexual harassment by three women. He may turn out to be the political world’s response to Tiger Woods. The chances of him recovering from these indiscretions span the range of odds from nil to nada.

Still, Obama must be prepared. There is always a possibility that the Republican Party will wise up and choose a respected candidate with moderate leanings. As improbable as this may seem at the moment, stranger things have happened.

Moreover, only a fool goes into an election unprepared. Obama is not a fool, but he does tend to be too nice and conciliatory to enemies who have sworn to destroy his presidency.

Given these conditions, what can Obama do to win reelection in 2012? Here are seven things that are essential to a winning strategy.

1. He needs to incite passion once again for change. He must fire up the Democratic base and independents.  These blocs of voters want and need an aggressive and hard hitting leader. These are the voters who will win or lose the election for Obama.
2. He must directly confront the Republicans’ in all venues about their silly and retrograde ideas and point out strongly and forcefully the proven failure of lunatic policies such as the trickle-down theory of economics.  Among other things, he needs to be more aggressive in championing his policies through congress. For too long, he has permitted a small squad of suicidal crazies to drive his agenda. He must say with stern finality, “Enough is enough.”
3. He has a fiduciary responsibility as the President to surround himself with competent, willing, and able advisors and staff members with the passion to defend the President and his programs at every opportunity. To achieve this, he must replace his relatively benign staff members with those willing to aggressively seek out and destroy Republican policies by pointing out the contradictions between Republican ideals and the real-world effects of their decisions. For example, the Republicans have touted family values as the centerfold of their version of conservative ideology. At the same time, they fight to discontinue unemployment benefits, student loans and decent health care. Worse yet, their rich clients close manufacturing facilities in the U.S. at the cost of millions of American jobs lost to foreign countries and virtual slave-wage laborers. In truth, Republicans talk a good game but they DO NOT provide for the general welfare of families in times of fiscal austerity.
4. He must be merciless in attacking the very strategies Republicans have used in the past with virtually no rebuttal. An essential part of an aggressive tactic is to adopt the Roovian strategy of directly hitting the opponents on their strongest areas. To illustrate, Obama should repeatedly point out the un-American practice of moving America’s manufacturing capacity overseas at the selfish cost of putting Americans out of work and wrecking the American dream. Shout it out. This is un-American and it has weakened America’s national security. For too many years the Republicans have had a free pass when they’ve waved the flag. It’s time, too, to talk about the practice of sending ordinary, hard-working American men and women to die in foreign lands while their top echelon of leaders received exemption after exemption. Dick Cheney is a prime example. As the architect of the U.S. war against Iraq, he received five educational deferments from the Vietnam draft. And then had the gall to say on television that he had other things to do. One wonders what he learned after so many years of “education.”
5. Obama and his supporters must consistently challenge the Republicans to join him in visiting homeless shelters, shelters for abused women, soup kitchens, and homeless camps beneath bridges and under viaducts. Present statistics on the abominable social standing of America in the world are an embarrassment to this country and an affront to human dignity. Arguing that the millions of poor and hungry in this country choose to live hungry and cold insults the intelligence of every thinking person.
6. He must begin now to educate Americans about the Republican-caused stubborn and unrelenting gridlock in Congress, undertaken for no purpose other than to oppose anything Obama. Republican actions fall in the same false and deceptive argumentative category consisting of ignoramuses who are firmly convinced an atomic bomb wouldn’t explode if it were invented by a black scientist.
7. He MUST engage average Americans in public dialogue. He and his spokespersons need to bring forward real people with real stories. Americans are sick and tired of gobbledygook from professional politicians. America is filled with average people who can articulate their real-world problems about such things as an inability to obtain student loans, a lack of health care, a reduction in benefits, and a complete lack of employment opportunities. If these real people point out that Republicans live in ivory towers and never observe or experience the real world, they will be believable. Rather than silver spoons, real people are born with plastic utensils in their mouths.

There are many more strategies and tactics that a political campaign may use effectively. But in Obama’s case, an extraordinary degree of effort, relentless pressure on the opponent and a sincere effort to educate the American public about Republican obstructionism are essential for him to win.

Finally, a note of explanation. We did not use the number seven to suggest some sort of manipulation on our part to reach the subconscious mind of American voters. True, seven is widely believed to be a lucky number. But things just fell into place as we were working through a plethora of information (there’s my favorite word again). Fate was with us.