October 11, 2012

Well, cynical me, it follows the Rove playbook

When you are planning to steal the election (remember those Bain voting machines are already in place), find a way to make the election itself seem neck-and-neck. That way when the votes are "tweaked", everyone just says, "Well, it was too close to call. Could have gone either way."

In preparation for the literal campaign, have the candidate practice his or her lying without twitching.

Do the standard purging of the registered voters lists. Tamper with the absentee balloting when and if necessary.

Reduce the number of polling places and voting hours in counties favoring your opponent. Have a line of people present to harass or perhaps even challenge voters on election day. Also have a support team of attorneys and judges cued in. Promise them if you win a seat on the Supreme Court when and if necessary.

Drive down the ability of registered voters to actually vote, particularly those in the base of your opponent. I don't think I need to elaborate here. You have already picked up on the maneuvers.

Prepare ahead of time. Get as may Secretaries of State as you can installed in key states belonging to your party. After all, they do play a truly important role at the critical hour, especially in key swing states. If your brother or another family member is available to run in any of those states, lend that person all the support he or she needs to acquire that office. Family members never write tell-all books afterward ....

Have your candidate start acting as if he is the winner. (Remember when Bush* did that in the 2000 campaign, especially towards the end?) Romney has changed his posture. He is acting in a very pompous manner, as if he already is the President. That is to get us used to the idea -- our current President is out, Romney is in. Just go ahead and start thinking of him as the President because he soon will be. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Start announcing potential cabinet members. Get your transition team ready. And do these things noisily and publicly.

Quietly assemble pollsters to put out deceptive polling numbers, and get your "technical team" quietly at work.

Have your Recount Primer on hand if needed. Can't fumble that.

Do whatever it takes to win, because achieving all that power and profit is worth the sacrifice one might have to make in his or her own sense of ethics. Winning at all costs then becomes your sense of ethics. This year, the Republican motto is simply "Do what it takes -- DWIT", which is just another way of expressing their 2000 motto, win at all costs. See how that all runs in a circle, just with different code words?

Prepare your acceptance speech. Everything is ready now except for deciding who in your small circle of the inner team will get ambassadorships and to where when you win.

Sam

October 9, 2012

When Democrats talk like Republicans -- Bob Kerrey on Lawrence O'Donnell this evening

What exactly does one do?

Kerrey is running for the Senate seat in Nebraska. I have always liked him somewhat. Tonight, however, his appearance on Lawrence O'Donnell left me thinking I could not vote for him if I lived in Nebraska. Obviously, I could not vote for the Republican running against him either. So the only comment I can legitimately make is that I am so happy I do not live in Nebraska. On election day, I would not have a viable choice for whom I could enthusiastically vote for to serve in the Senate as representing Nebraska.

What did he say that I found demoralizing? He spoke about the importance of bipartisanship. If elected he would make the tough decisions necessary to reduce the deficit. He spoke about the cooperation between Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin in working together to achieve a bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit. He spoke well of those willing to make the "tough" choices necessary to fix our economy.

Not so tough to do though if one is retiring and not up for re-election. Tom Coburn plans to retire in 2016. Dick Durbin is telling people he is thinking of retiring in 2014. I think both of these will follow through with their retirement plans, and that is exactly why they are working together on this issue. Unlike others who do plan to run again for re-election, these two would have nothing to lose. Perfect political candidates to make those difficult choices! No future voter retribution to worry about!

So what specifically did Kerry refer to that he could endorse in the Coburn/Durbin bipartisan agreement?

In order to reduce the deficit, one needs to look at the biggest drivers. Those drivers are Kerrey said Social Security and Medicare. In order to reduce the deficit, adjustments must be made in those two areas. Kerrey said he could endorse reducing four of the biggest deductions on taxes, the increased revenue from which cuts would serve to reduce the deficit. These four biggest deductions are home mortgage interest on Federal returns, as well as deductions for state and local income taxes, charitable donations and health care costs. Stripping those deductions would generate increased revenue to reduce the deficit.

Really?

Do our politicians ever connect the dots? I think stripping an individual's ability to deduct the home mortgage interest on their Federal return would have a devastating impact on the housing market. It has just now started to recover. In the past a number of people in my generation were sold on the decision to buy a home because one could deduct the interest on his her taxes. That made the purchase of a home an investment. Remove that incentive and one is going to lose a lot of potential buyers. That is my thinking and I feel confident in saying this. Personally, I would have never bought four homes in my lifetime without that incentive. I would have just rented, preserving the ability to escape fixing needed repairs and the ability to relocate with giving my landlord 30 days notice. Removing this deduction would adversely impact, I believe, the banking industry as well as private individuals because fewer people would apply for loans.

Remove state and local income taxes as a deduction? If the Federal government taxes my say $50,000 income without reducing that income by the amount already taxed by my state of Maryland, I would consider that a double dipping. How would I respond? I wouldn't cooperate. I would sell my retirement home which I paid for over 20 years, and take the proceeds and pay off the mortgage for the house in which I currently reside. No deduction on my tax return, I am not playing. I am paying the loan off. Sorry, mortgage holder, you lose.

Remove the charitable deduction? That is just going to reduce charitable giving. Charitable giving is an important component to many Americans during these days of recession. I do not support that.

Remove the deduction for health care costs? Why not go after the real white collar crime in America -- the health insurance and prescription drugs costs charged by entities which overcharge participants and drive up the cost of Medicare and health care in general. Don't punish the participants; go after the true criminals -- those who egregiously overcharge those participants. Sorry, I do not support that either.

My position is that these changes are not truly, as politicians are fond of saying these days, sharing the sacrifice. It would hurt the middle and poor classes the most.

Why not, in the spirit of bipartisanship and just general fairness and a sense of decency, go after what the Congressional Budget Office describes as the true drivers of the debt?



at http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=121

Just asking ... why not go after the drivers listed on this chart as opposed to benefits that assist the middle class and impoverished?

So what does a Democrat do when his or her fellow Democratic candidate sounds like a Republican instead of a protector of classic Democratic values? I truly have no answer to that question. What is your response?

Sam

October 5, 2012

Ask any Olympic champ -- timing is everything

After listening to a lot of commentary today on President's Obama's response last night to the chronically lying Mitt Romney, I suddenly started thinking about the timing issue constraints within a debate format. I do think President Obama was stunned at the magnitude of prevarication Romney espoused, and in one moment's time he had to make a strategy decision: respond or ignore.

I believe he decided to ignore the lies because he sensed it was a debate trap. If he had used his allotted two minutes to indulge in a campaign of accusing his opponent of lying, he would lose the opportunity to explain his position on the issue under discussion. It was more important to President Obama to preserve that opportunity to make important points he had chosen to share with the listening viewership rather than sacrifice that opportunity to succumb to a Romney debate trap. Had President Obama gone with the first option, the option of responding to the lies, Mitt Romney would have simply countered with accusations that President Obama himself was distorting the truth to engage in character assassination of his opponent. It would have been fruitless for President Obama to so engage in a tit-for-tat upon that debate stage, one he could not win, and the choice of indulging would have resulted in President Obama's failure to submit points for consideration on the topic at hand he considered important.

Obama also knew the fact-checkers would emerge that evening and in subsequent days, and Mitt's posturing as a populist candidate, a man determined to protect the interests of the middle class and the poor, would wilt with the light of the new day.

So in this regard, I believe President Obama in refusing to be baited by Romney and reserving his time for answers to the debate topics instead made the strategically correct decision.

Timing is everything in matters such as this, and President Obama chose to use his time wisely rather than to be baited by Romney's trap. Obama's strategic choice made Romney a Chump and Obama a Champ. Why do I say this? Because in listening to today's commentary, a great number of people are calling Romney a liar and still cheering for President Obama.

So what is next for Romney?

Hang a gold Olympic medal around that man's neck. Fastest liar in a two minute sprint on political record. Inscribe the gold medal "Liar in Chief" which is far more appropriate for him than the title Commander-in-Chief. Reserve that title for the smartest participant in the debate competition last night.

Sam

October 4, 2012

The glaring political elephant in last night's debate

The most stunning component of last night's debate was the glaring political elephant on stage advancing his populist campaign. Compared to the rhetoric of Mitt Romney's previous political positions, observers saw not the severely conservative candidate he had previously described himself as but rather the great champion of the middle class. Advocating the creation of jobs to increase Federal revenues and saying he knows as a businessman how to create those jobs defies his record as Governor of Massachusetts where his state sank to 47th in job creation. This debate performance was the debut of the etch-a-sketch candidate one of Romney's own campaign advisors warned us would appear. And so he did, championing the middle class in his populist thrust, in defiance of the earlier Romney who castigated 47 percent of the population for being "takers" who pay no taxes but cling to the government for support. Romney's entire presentation was simply breathtaking in its entirely new populist makeover.

(Text of email I just fired off to The Washington Journal)

Sam

October 4, 2012

The art of political etch a sketch we were warned we would see appeared tonight

I was not going to watch the debates but changed my mind at the last moment. What I saw stunned me. Mitt Romney talking fast and furiously, over his limit, over the moderator, and even chronically interrupting President Obama's two minutes. His goal was to totally usurp as much time as possible in order to control the debate. In that regard, he did suck up more than his fair share of time allotted during this Presidential debate. By doing so, he blocked many of the controversial subjects that have been discussed during the campaign from airing tonight. In other words, that was simply Romney being Romney -- taking more than that to which he was entitled through slight of hand and other hocus pocus.

Fast and furiously, Romney spewed word bullets into the political air which apparently impressed many political pundits. But when one pushes all of Romney's words into a pile and starts inspecting the heap, what is there is absolutely nothing compared to his known positions on certain issues. In other words, what we have is an unmitigated pile of political bullshit.

When the glare of the cameras and the noise of the crowd fade from this night, and objectivity returns through analysis of the words as opposed to the speed of the delivery, the realization will set in that once again, Romney was Romney. He lied his way through the night, enumerating changed positions each time he spoke. It was the epic dawning of the etch-a-sketch moment we were warned would come into play when the challenger entered the literal Presidential contest.

Though none tonight called it that in the commentary I heard, I do believe when the new day dawns and the fact-checkers return, the true long-lasting impression will be crystal clear. In this first round of debates the challenger on stage was merely the political chameleon we were warned would appear.

September 30, 2012

Nate Silver has Florida at a 69.4 chance of an Obama Win

Other strategic swing states:

Virginia 76.5 percent chance of Obama win
Ohio 83.9 percent chance of Obama win
Pennsylvania 97.1 percent chance of Obama win

The icing on the cake, at least for me:

Michigan 96.8 percent chance of Obama win
Wisconsin 89.7 percent chance of Obama win (thank you, Paul Ryan; hopefully your local constituents will be rejecting you as well to represent them in Congress)

319.3 Electoral College Votes Projected for Obama
218.7 Electoral College Votes Projected for Romney

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

And my prediction: looks like it is only going to be further downhill from here for Romney/Ryan. Could not have happened to two better deserving politicians....

Sam

September 19, 2012

Romney is staggering, soon to hit the canvas -- start the ten-count

Romney has lived a life of privilege and is accustomed to being in control. He has always found ways to appear to take the high road while sending his henchmen out to do the dirty work. In that way when accusations were made, he could always point in another direction.

Think about the primary contest. One almost never saw a public sleazy maneuver by Romney, a foul intended to disable an opponent. He usually smiled into the camera when those running against him publicly angrily called him out for some disingenuous ad or underhanded attack he had launched against them. Romney always declined to accept the responsibility and would point the finger at this PAC or that PAC and say Federal law prevented him from communicating with them, so obviously he could not have “ordered the hit.” We most frequently saw this play against the candidate who had advanced to be the front-running challenger du jour. One by one, Romney eliminated them, using his surrogates to knock each out of contention.

He expected to achieve the same results in the contest against Barrack Obama. What he did not factor into the equation was that he was competing against The Greatest. Ducking and dodging past one issue into another, Romney has met repeated failure to throw a knock out punch in this contest.

The bully from Bain is leading with his glass jaw against a Political Champ. He has repeatedly been put on the ropes and now is simply swinging blindly into the air.

From the sidelines, Muhammad Ali is smiling, wondering when this chump will be eliminated by a lightning fast jab, one he never sees coming.

Mitt Romney -- always a contender but never truly a Champ.

Sam

September 12, 2012

Recipe for theft of an election

Here is just my impromptu recipe for preparing a theft of the 2012 Presidential election. You might know a better one. If so, please post it here.

Florida is now at a 19.5 percent chance of being the tipping point state (67.0 percent chance of an Obama win now but open to voter suppression and other election "irregularities" of a mysterious nature at the last moment....). Ohio is now at a 32.0 chance of being the tipping point state (77.1 percent chance of an Obama win but also vulnerable in the same way as Florida for election tampering).

Right now, President Obama has a 90.4 Electoral College vote lead. Siphon off a sum greater than half, 45.2, and the election "tips" to Romney.

My fear: illegal manipulation of these two states:

Ohio has 18 Electoral College votes
Florida has 29 Electoral College votes

tips 47 Electoral College votes.

Looks to me like a 270.8 versus 267.2 results, advantage to Romney. But, but, but they always said it would be a close election, right? But double check my math -- it is too late to be doing this without my calculator.

Also in the works for the Republicans: current campaign adds trying to appeal to businessmen in Wisconsin implying a vote for the Republican candidate could translate into more business for those enterprises. Wisconsin has 10 Electoral College votes.

I also assume there is something undercover going on in one of the other swing states in case a tip is needed there at the last minute -- say Pennsylvania at 20 Electoral College votes but currently at a 93.5 chance of an Obama win. What is in place there? A Republican secretary of state. Anyone know anything about her? Here is something of interest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/carol-aichele-pennsylvania-voter-id_n_1725988.html

I do not know what the final recipe will be, but I do know anything is possible when the opposing party has a do-whatever-it-takes motto (DWIT) which is just another way of saying "win at all cost." We do remember where we first heard that refrain, don't we?

The most important point to me is that we all keep our eyes wide open all night election night and to be prepared to challenge any improprieties before a winner is declared. We have to do more more than whatever it takes to ensure a clean election.

Sam

September 10, 2012

Another thing Ryan conveniently forgot to mention is that the Bush* taxcuts are #2 driver

of the deficit. So if one adds to those tax cuts, it is beyond comprehension how doing so improves the deficit. It would deepen it. Even the PEW Foundation has said the Bush* tax cuts are the number one driver (although other economic analysis such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities list it as #2):

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Fact_Sheets/Economic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf

1. The 2001/2003 tax cuts;6
2. The overseas operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan;
3. Medicare Part D;7
4. The Troubled Asset Relief Program
(TARP);
5. The 2009 stimulus;8 and
6. The December 2010 tax legislation.9

http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=121



Yes, the mortgage interest tax deduction (recommended by Bowles-Simpson, also called Simpson-Bowles plan) is something Romney is considering doing. That is why he won't reveal details of his "plan" before the election, not because he wants to have an open negotiating session with members of the people's representatives, but because no one would vote for him if he did so. That is in addition to privatizing Social Security, voucherizing Medicare and slashing Medicaid, privatizing the Post Office, instituting a national Right to Work law, repealing Roe v. Wade, and the list goes on and on ....

Sam

September 10, 2012

That was a trap rigged by the Republican party

Every new President that comes to the Oval Office should expect some political enemy is going to set him up for an embarrassment. And that was DOMA for Clinton. I think he figured it out shortly thereafter, but it was too late.

Sam

PS The execution of the mentally retarded person was one thing Clinton did that was totally unforgivable. I worked for the law firm charged with handling the appeal of the convicted man. You might remember that line in the press that when his appeal was lost and he was facing execution, his lawyer had the responsibility for telling him what exactly was going to happen to him. When he explained his last meal and the fact he would get a dessert, he said he would save that for afterwards. Yes, the man raped and killed a nun in a cemetery, a truly horrendous crime, but he should never have been released back into the public domain when he was because he was just that dysfunctional. Once the execution date was set (in Arkansas), Clinton was running for President, and he decided to attend the execution to demonstrate that as a Democrat he was not weak on punishing criminals. I do understand it was a political decision, but It was a terribly immoral act the Government should never have condoned -- the execution of a retarded person for a crime he could not even understand.

The lawyer that handled the the appeal and lost I think was forever changed afterwards. And a black cloud hung over our Firm for some time, everyone was just so sad over this tragedy.