US Congress

Mitt Romney: Total Opportunist, Totally Unprincipled!

Ronald Leave a comment

So now Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has what he has wanted all of his life: to be the nominee of the Republican Party for the Presidency of the United States!

Now the problem is to WIN the Presidency from a man who is one of the great orators and political “animals” of the modern Presidency, right up there with Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

Each of the above had his shortcomings and weaknesses, but each knew how to inspire and motivate people, and have people believe in them and their principles.

Mitt Romney has no such problem, no such oratorical gift, no such ability to inspire and motivate people, and no principles he will not abandon in his mad dash to be President!

Mitt Romney offers himself as a chameleon who will change his views on a moment’s notice if he believes it will help promote his desire to be President!

But by being so inconsistent, so changeable, so lacking in embarrassment that he has totally changed his views and repudiated his record as Governor of Massachusetts, he makes it difficult for anyone to feel a commitment to go out there and vote for Mitt as a principled political leader who one can know how he would conduct himself as President.

Mitt Romney is phony even when he laughs, even when he tells a joke, even when he attempts to sing. One finds himself embarrassed for him, that he cannot look at tapes of himself and wince at how he appears to the American people.

This is a man of unknown quality, an intelligent man for sure, a good family man for sure, probably a lot of fun to be around in private according to his wife’s testimony, a man of strong religious principle for sure, and a man who if he was not running for President might come across as genuine if he was not seeking your vote.

But he is asking us to vote for him without having any clue as to whether he will go back to being a moderate, or remain on the right wing of the Republican Party. We do not know if he would be willing to gut the social safety network that even George W. Bush expanded. We do not know if he would be able to get along with right wing Republicans in Congress, or would be his own man and break with the extremism that they represent.

We do not know how he would shape the Supreme Court, whether he would pick moderates or make the Court so right wing that it would set us back for two generations of time.

We do not know how he would communicate with the media, and through them, with the American people on a daily basis. He certainly would have a tough act to follow, lacking the charisma and personality of Barack Obama.

Would Mitt Romney be willing to preside over the dissolution of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as we know it? Would he be unwilling to work with our European allies, and be ready to commit troops to ever continuous war in the Middle East? Would he be someone who would resist religious influence to promote an intrusion in government beyond the wishes of the Founding Fathers? Would the Mormon Church gain a special foothold in government, and be able to promote its backward, resistance to change, mentality with a Mormon in the White House, or would Romney, like John F. Kennedy, make clear that he happens to be a Mormon, but is not the Mormon President, not dedicated to the church’s advancement in a nation that is a country of all religions and also, no religious beliefs?

What it comes down to is that Mitt Romney as President would be a total “blank slate”, an unknown, who we would have no idea of what kind of President he would turn out to be.

The question is whether the American people want to gamble on a man who is so much an unknown quantity, due primarily to his chameleon nature!

The betting is clearly that the answer will be NO!

Barack Obama On The Attack Against Republicans And Conservatives: Critical Of The Supreme Court And The Paul Ryan Budget Plan

Ronald Leave a comment

Barack Obama has gone on the offensive against conservative and Republican philosophy, both on the Supreme Court and in Congress.

Already throwing down the gauntlet to the Supreme Court yesterday, Obama pointed out that the commerce clause and Supreme Court case history and two Circuit Court Judges (Laurence Silberman and Jeffrey Sutton) are a call for backing the Obama Health Care law, and it is clear that IF the Court declares it unconstitutional, the Court itself will be an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign of 2012. And it is certain that the KEY issue of 2012, no matter what happens, is to realize that the future judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower courts matter more than ANYTHING economic or foreign policy related, because the judiciary is a lifetime appointment!

If we are upset over a 5-4 Court to the right, imagine a 7-2 Court under a Republican President when and if Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, both in their 70s, leave the Court over the next four to eight years!

But today, President Obama is also mounting a full scale assault on the Paul Ryan budget plan adopted by the House Republican majority for the second year in a row, which includes massive tax cuts to the rich beyond the Bush tax cuts, and major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and all other domestic spending programs that benefit the poor and the struggling middle class, as well as the elderly.

Obama is calling it today’s “Social Darwinism”, the prevalent philosophy of the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, a period being matched and surpassed with the growing concentration of wealth in the top one percent of the population in the past ten years, and now threatening to be even more concentrated under the budget plan of the House Budget Committee Chairman.

And with the growing possibility that Ryan might be the Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, the future of the nation is at stake on the Supreme Court and lower courts, and also on the Presidential and Vice Presidential level, along with the Congressional actions in future years.

This is a battle for survival of the middle class, and the continuation of understanding the plight of the poor, as class division and the potential for class warfare grows!

Republicans, Women And Hispanics: Antagonism Self Induced And Irretrievable!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party has been suicidal in this Presidential campaign, and likely nominee Mitt Romney, as well as Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, have all effectively killed off the chances of the party wooing large percentages of two key voting groups–women and Hispanics.

Joe Scarborough, former Florida Congressman and host of Morning Joe on MSNBC has warned the party of the self induced damage they are doing, but the party leadership and candidates have been tone deaf to it.

And now a new series of polls show Mitt Romney way down in percentage with both women and Hispanics, and with seven months to go, no one, realistically, can see how the former Massachusetts Governor is going to turn the tide in his favor.

Trying to appeal to the right wing has harmed Romney in the nation, while not convincing the right wing to like him.

In the South and Midwest, in more rural and evangelical Christian areas, Romney has been unable to win, or promote loyalty for his candidacy. It is still doubtful that large numbers of these voters will come out for Romney in the Fall campaign.

So the story goes that he must pick a very conservative running mate for the Vice Presidency to appeal to these right wingers, but if so, it will only guarantee that Romney will lose the middle, the center of the population–including women, Hispanics, and also the all important Independents.

Without women, Hispanics, and Independents, how is Romney going to win the all important “swing states” in the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain States, as well as New Hampshire?

The answer is that the election is effectively over, as Romney cannot appeal to the “swing states” adequately, and cannot count on strong right wing support either.

What it comes down to is that Romney, by being a person who one cannot trust as to his views and beliefs, has effectively alienated the middle, while not being trusted even now by the right wing of his party.

And if, by some miracle, Romney won, he would see his dark hair turn grey quickly, as he would have no natural constituency to support him!

The Democrats would fight to weaken him, and the Republicans would feel no loyalty, and would work to move him to the extreme right, making it impossible to get anything done!

If one thinks Barack Obama has had troubles getting things done, imagine a President Romney trying to get things done, whether with Democratic or Republican control of the Congress!

The Supreme Court On Trial IF It Destroys Health Care Reform: Creation Of A Constitutional Crisis

Ronald Leave a comment

The US Supreme Court is in the midst of a crisis of massive proportions, if it destroys the Obama Health Care reform in June.

It will create a crisis in health care for about 50 million Americans, and affect young adults, senior citizens, and people with pre-existing conditions in a massively negative way.

It will undermine the major effort of the Obama Administration to bring health care into the 21st century, and on the same level as every other democratic nation in the world, many of whom have had national health care for all for decades.

It will also put the Supreme Court as an institution on trial, as it is already perceived as overly partisan, with many of the decisions decided on party line vote, based on which party’s President chose the members of the Court.

It will also make it even more obvious that the election will have the effect of deciding the future direction of the Court, based on which party gains the Presidency and has control of the US Senate. This has always been true, and has been mentioned by this author numerous times on this blog.

This Court could undermine public faith and respect for the institution itself, doing even more damage than the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, and the Citizens United case of 2010.

The Court has been a hot political issue in the past in election years, including:

1800-Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams, with the power of the Court a key issue, and Adams’ last minute appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall leading, despite opposition of Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson, to a very powerful Supreme Court shaped by Marshall.

1860–The election of Abraham Lincoln, who attacked the Dred Scott decision that stated that a slave owner could take his slave anywhere in the United States, and helping to lead to the secession of the South, and the coming of the Civil War.

1876–An election where the popular vote loser, Rutherford B. Hayes, was chosen by a committee which included five Supreme Court Justices, when no one was able to win the contested electoral votes of three Southern states–Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida.

1912 and 1924–Third party (Progressive Party) candidates Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette, Sr., respectively, proposed limitations on the powers of the Supreme Court .

1936–Franklin D. Roosevelt made the Court an issue because of its constant declaration of New Deal laws as unconstitutional, and tried to “pack” the Court by a proposal to add six new Justices for each one on the Court over the age of 70, an idea soundly defeated in 1937.

1968–Richard Nixon campaigned against the “liberal” Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who then had to swear him as President in January 1969, but retired shortly after.

2000–The Supreme Court on a partisan vote stopped the vote count in the state of Florida, thereby awarding George W. Bush the Presidency over Al Gore, with a margin of victory in Florida of 537 votes statewide.

2012 could be another such case of a President confronting a defiant Supreme Court to the will of the majority in Congress and the American people!

Republicans And Women: Going Backwards From 1920 To Now

Ronald Leave a comment

With the massive assault on women’s rights being waged by Republicans in the Congress and in the Republican state governorships and legislatures and on conservative talk radio, one would think that the Republican Party has always been this way.

But actually, just the opposite is true!

It was a Republican and a woman, Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin of Montana, who sponsored the woman suffrage amendment, which became the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920.

It was a vast majority of Republicans in Congress who promoted the proposed Equal Rights Amendment , along with the vast majority of Democrats, when it passed in 1972 and went to the states.

It was President Richard Nixon who gave his strong endorsement to the ERA after its passage in 1972.

It was President Gerald Ford who campaigned for the ERA when he became President in 1974.

It was First Lady Betty Ford who not only campaigned for the ERA, but also supported other feminist causes and the reproductive rights of women, despite conservative criticism.

When one particularly looks at the contributions of Gerald and Betty Ford to the advancement of women’s rights, there has to be nostalgia for the “Good Old Days”!

But ironically, supposedly, as time passes, things get better, right?

But in the case of women’s rights and the Republican Party, the situation is the reverse: the past is far more advanced than the present.

But Republicans will pay the price this fall, when millions of self respecting women will march to the polls, ignore even their “religious” and “good Christian” husbands who want to keep them subservient, and will vote out the Republicans who are taking away the rights of women, and vote in more women and more men who believe in true equality of the genders!

Mitt Romney Does Not Work Well With Others: Forecast Of An Isolated Presidency If He Wins

Ronald Leave a comment

Mitt Romney, the front runner in the Republican Presidential nomination race, has already revealed himself to be very stiff, formal, and aloof from the problems of ordinary Americans.

Now we are learning that he is much the same in dealing with other politicians.

Romney acts as if he is the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation, who isolates himself in his plush offices, makes policy with just a few aides, and then expects that everyone will follow his lead and avoid challenges at group meetings, where he expects to announce his decisions on policy, and everyone joins in unison in support of the initiatives he has promoted. He does not like criticism or alternative ideas, as he has great confidence in his own ability and intellect.

This was Mitt Romney as a corporate leader, and it is the prescription for disaster if he is President of the United States.

One might ask how one can conclude that this is so. The answer is that we have learned that this was his approach in his one term as Massachusetts Governor from 2003-2007!

Having to deal with a Democratic state legislature which was 85 percent against him, one would think he would realize that he had to deal with the opposition by getting to know members of the legislature, and conducting lots of meetings trying to bridge the gap in a bipartisan way, but that was not Romney’s style at all.

Interviews with Massachusetts politicians who served under Governor Romney reveal a man who avoided contact with them; never learned the faces or views of most of them; avoided socializing with legislators; came across as emotionally remote; overused the veto pen to no effect, but set a record of 844 vetoes, the most in Massachusetts history; worked as an outsider from the beginning to the end of his governorship; openly criticized legislative leaders that he needed to work with and in the process turned them away from any cooperation efforts with him; acted as a control freak in wanting every action of the legislature to go through the governor’s office; and failed to give recognition to those legislators present at public events (a policy that Barack Obama is a master of).

It is clear that Mitt Romney may be a corporate leader of great talents and skills, but that is NOT going to get things done with the US Congress, whether his own party controls, or particularly if the opposition party has control, which is probably quite likely, or a split Congress, which would create a nightmare scenario far worse than the one Barack Obama faces now with the 112th Congress.

Face the facts, Mitt Romney can only relate to wealthy people of corporate mentality, to his family, and to the Mormon Church. With the kind of obscene wealth he has, he can go on enjoying his life, but we need a more hands on President of the United States to deal with the rest of us folks, and we already have one named Barack Obama!

In other words, Mitt Romney is no Franklin D. Roosevelt, no Lyndon B. Johnson, and no Ronald Reagan! He is more like Herbert Hoover or Calvin Coolidge, and we know where that ended up!

Time For TRUE Conservative Republican Nominee So That Conservatism Can Be Exposed For What It Is: A Plea For Rick Santorum’s Nomination For The Presidency!

Ronald Leave a comment

Conservatism has been said to be a dominant factor in the Republican Party for a long time, and conservatives in Congress and on talk radio and Fox News Channel have been spewing forth their poison, whether it is to go to war as a first resort, rather last last resort; putting women, African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, gays and lesbians, labor, poor people, environmentalists, public service workers, consumer advocates, and anyone who promotes progressivism, in their place; and promoting corporations, the wealthy, and religion and the military as dominant parts of American power to make our nation a militaristic, religiously based plutocracy, only advocating the interests of the few, rather than the many!

But the frustration of these conservatives is that, somehow, it never seems to work out quite like they expect. Witness: Dwight D. Eisenhower defeats Robert Taft in 1952 and does “unconservative” policies in office; Richard Nixon also disappoints in many areas; Gerald Ford and his wife Betty actually promote social progressivism; even Ronald Reagan shows that he can be moved away from hard line conservative ideas; George H. W. Bush is clearly too moderate and centrist; George W. Bush follows certain aspects of conservatism, particularly following the “neocons” in foreign affairs, but too involved in “compassionate conservatism” in domestic affairs and government spending; and even Bob Dole and John McCain, losing GOP Presidential nominees, are insufficiently conservative, and actually come across as “moderates”, a hated term.

And now Mitt Romney cannot be trusted to be hard line conservative, despite his own efforts at protestations. And even Barry Goldwater, thought to be in 1964, the “ideal” conservative, later revealed his social progressivism and condemned the role of religion in the Republican Party! What is a frustrated conservative to do?

The answer is back and nominate former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who wants to bomb Iran on Day One in office; wants a very hard line social conservatism, putting women “back in their place”; wants no regulation of business or corporations that interferes with “free enterprise”; wishes to wipe out by any means the rights of gays and lesbians; wishes to take away all of the federal entitlement programs of the New Deal and Great Society; return America back to the 1950s in some ways, the 1920s in other ways, and the Gilded Age of the late 19th century in other ways!

Conservatives want to bring back the “good old days” of white male domination over society, and corporate influence, joined with the military and religious control over our foreign and domestic policies.

Let’s hope, even pray, that Rick Santorum is nominated, and watch as he is obliterated in November, and his support by conservatives sets them back for at least a generation, and give mainline Republicans the opportunity to rebuild the party as what it once was, a centrist party, a good competition for the Democratic Party. And if the GOP refuses to reform itself, then it should be replaced by a new moderate centrist party in the mainstream of 21st century America!

Of course, notice that the author said a “generation” would pass of conservative decline, as sadly, to believe conservatism will leave our shores forever, is not going to happen, as it is like a recurring cancer on the body politic–it WILL return eventually, and the battle for control of government and politics is, therefore, a never ending battle of American history!

Congress Approval At All Time Low: What It Means

Ronald 4 Comments

A new poll shows that only TEN percent of those polled have a positive view of Congress in 2012.

The Gallup Poll showed the unbelievable reality that Congress has a lower rating than BP during the Oil Spill, or Richard Nixon during Watergate, or banks during the banking crisis of 2008.

This could mean, in theory, that we could witness a wholesale removal of members of both parties in Congress in November, but that is really highly unlikely.

The fact that many Americans are unhappy with Congress as an institution does not mean that they do not like THEIR member of Congress, and most members routinely get re-elected, particularly in the House of Representatives, with a higher chance of defeat in the Senate races.

Also, reapportionment of seats, which occurs once in a decade, will probably promote less turnover since boundary lines change. And since a substantial number of members of Congress are retiring, some of them are leaving because they see the handwriting on the wall, as the saying goes!

More than incumbents losing who do not retire, is the question of whether the Republicans can retain control of the House of Representatives, and whether the Democrats can continue to control the Senate.

What seems most likely at this juncture is that we may see a switch in party control in both chambers, as the Democrats only need a 25 seat gain to take control, and there is great discontent with the Tea Party Movement membership in the GOP, which has made life miserable for Speaker of the House John Boehner and his party.

And the likelihood is that the US Senate will see a Republican takeover, needing only four seats to accomplish that.

This will present a new scenario for President Barack Obama if he is re-elected, but it is a more normal situation to have a Democratic House and a Republican Senate historically, having occurred from 1911-1913, 1931-1933. and from 1981-1987. The present opposite party control in the two chambers–a Republican House and a Democratic Senate–has NEVER happened, and seems to have proved to be less able to accomplish ANY cooperation as a result!

Republicans, Women, And Domestic Violence: Beyond Belief!

Ronald 1 Comment

In 1994, the Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women Act, a measure designed to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking of women. It was a totally bipartisan effort, widely hailed as an important step in protection of women.

In 2000 and in 2005, the law was renewed with bipartisan support again. It was not a political issue based on party.

But now in 2012, not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize the legislation, an absolutely unbelievable development.

Those Republicans on the Judiciary Committee include: Chick Grassley of Iowa, the ranking member; Orrin Hatch of Utah; Jon Kyl of Arizona; Jeff Sessions of Alabama; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; John Cornyn of Texas; Mike Lee of Utah; and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

How in the world can any of these senators justify this refusal to support a renewal? What is wrong with these people that they do not think women need continued protection from abusive fathers, brothers, boyfriends, and husbands, as well as stalkers? Why is it that whenever women are the issue, Republicans, both men and women as well, do not think women should be protected by federal law?

Apparently, the Republicans disagree on the provisions to protect gay and transgender people, and also to protect undocumented immigrant women who are victims of violence. It is part of their anti gay and anti immigrant agenda, but really, this is simply an issue of human rights, and in the 21st century, to have such a narrow minded and intolerant view of women’s rights, because some might be from certain groups rejected by some, is unconscionable!

Apparently, there are no limits to the refusal of Republicans to promote any bipartisanship on anything! How any self respecting woman can support the Republican Party after this insult, as well as others recently on birth control, contraception, and other issues of women’s health, is beyond understanding.

Newt Gingrich: The Demagogue, The Bully, The Narcissist, Revealed Again!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has been shown to be a full scale demagogue, and Mitt Romney showed Gingrich’s hypocrisy again and again in last night’s debate, leading to the belief that Romney has recovered from his defeat in very conservative South Carolina, and now is more likely than ever to be the GOP nominee.

Gingrich is a demagogue on the level of Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon; he is a bully; he is a narcissist par excellence; he is a man without any morals, ethics or scruples, except his own aggrandizement!

Newt Gingrich is willing to victimize the poor; he is willing to behave as a racist; he is willing to lie without any shame; he is willing to stir up anti Islamic hatred; he is willing to stir up trouble in the Middle East by claiming that Palestinians do not exist; he is willing to sacrifice wives as disposables for his own ambitions; and he is willing to use incendiary language against the President of the United States, and in so doing, encourage lack of respect for the person holding the office, in a way that no other President has EVER been treated!

The people he has worked with in the Republican Party and in Congress have turned against him, and the conservative ideologists have mostly abandoned him, with the major exception of Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan’s adopted son, and conservative talk show host.

It cannot be soon enough for Newt Gingrich to be removed from the attention of the national news media. Maybe Florida will be the place of his “Waterloo”, and if so, NOT soon enough, as he makes the word “politician” a dirty word, which it should not be!