Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Post Election Post

 

 

My blog post of yesterday was probably one of the most precise expressions of my state of mind that I’ve ever written down. Like a lot of people I spent election night monitoring results on my computer, streaming PBS and watching tweets roll by, the latter endlessly amusing. A lot of journalists were tweeting; one of them noted “Florida’s giving me a heart attack.” Before he or anyone could melt down over that gun of a state, however, it was all over but the shouting: Obama was called pretty early, before 9:00 here in California. Of course, the Mitt didn’t concede right away, so I didn’t hear Obama’s speech ‘til my middle-of-the-night bathroom summons.

They’d been telling us all along it was going to be sooooo close, which got me and a lot of other people nervous. For what seemed like hours that infernal map blushed as if deeply embarrassed. Since I tend to forget that only about six people live in each of those red states, I was gnawing on my fingernails, wishing I’d done some phone calling for the Dems, worrying about yet more material deprivation in my future…and then suddenly Pennsylvania goes for Obama, and then another populous state, and Hey will you look at that! He’s Still the One!

My whole body collapsed right here in my chair. I hadn’t realized how tense I was, but when my muscles let go in relief I knew I’d been terrified about this election. Sure, we’ve had presidents as bad as Mitt Romney—Reagan, GWBush (The Nitwit)—but none of them were emboldened the way the Republicans seem to be nowadays. I might be wrong, but I suspect that a right-leaning president would do a lot more damage today than in the past. More than The Nitwit? I ask myself. Yeah. He was incompetent, but as I said, he wasn’t operating within the same toxic atmosphere; it was only just developing when he was in power.

But it’s a moot point. Not only did Obama win, he won big. The Reps are gathering in groups, scratching their heads and yelling at one another. They lost big among young people, Hispanics, and women. Doh! No young woman in 2012 is going to vote for a man or a party that calls pregnancy by rape a God-given blessing. No Latino worker is going to vote for the party that expects him to “self-deport.” These guys better get their act together or else, as their own Michael Steele and conservative think tanker Norm Ornestein are saying, they’re going to become fully irrelevant and unelectable.

 

You Must Remember This

John Nichols, a writer for The Nation, said on Democracy Now this morning that people, particularly progressives, need to understand this was a big win, and pressure President Obama to use the mandate for real change. It matters a lot, says Nichols, that he didn’t just crawl into the Oval Office or squeak through by a few lousy points. Florida’s results aren’t in yet, and neither are those of Washington State and a few other places, but Obama’s ahead mostly everywhere, and by the time the counting’s done he’ll have at least 100 more electoral votes than Romney.

How this works: The bigger a President wins, the more support he has from the voting public, and the more permission he’s been tacitly granted to implement the agenda we endorsed. As Nichols pointed out, Obama’s not a big progressive; he’s not even a liberal. He’s a centrist, on top of which he has a strong tendency to compromise. The only way he’s going to be emboldened—like a Republican in similar circumstances would be—is if the people who voted for him put on the pressure. One president, I think it may have been Lyndon Johnson, told those who voted him in that now they had to make him do their bidding. We need our leaders to lead us—and they need us to push them to lead. When they enact the policies we want, they’re not being radical or despotic: they’re doing what they’re supposed to do.  That is how it’s supposed to work. Our representatives represent us. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Meanwhile…

Happy Days Are Here Again / The skies above are clear again / Let’s sing a song of cheer again!

A bit of music trivia: Happy Days Are Here Again was written by Milton Ager and Jack Yellen in 1929 and used in the film Chasing Rainbows, as well as in dozens of other movies. It was the theme song for FDR’s 1932 presidential campaign and as a jumpy jingle became the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. In 1962 Barbra Streisand came along and rearranged it as a torch song for her first commercial success. Brilliant and beautiful. Check it out.

 

Report on the California Props :

Proposition 30: YES. Endorsed by Governor Jerry Brown, this prop temporarily increases state sales tax and income tax on individuals making over $250,000 to avoid “trigger cuts” to the state’s public education system.

Proposition 31: NO.  Would have created a two-year budget cycle for state government, allowed the governor to cut the budget in fiscal emergencies, and required performance reviews in state programs. This was a blatant anti-union proposition, and big money came from out of state to support it (currently under investigation).

Proposition 33: NO. Would have required insurance companies to set rates based on previous insurance history of drivers with better rates for drivers who had insurance in the past.

Proposition 34: NO.  Would have repealed California’s death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole. Death penalty will still be used in CA.

Proposition 35 : YES. Increases prison terms for human traffickers. Does a lot more than simply punish traffickers. This prop is a perfect example of the problems inherent in the initiative process. This looked good—after all, who’s not against human trafficking? But these are complex issues and the prop was written in such a way that most people did not see its flaws. While legal experts pointed them out, none  organized or gave money towards stopping its passage—because again, who’s going to come out looking like they’re pro-trafficking? So a bad law was passed by a wide margin (80%).

Proposition 36 : YES. Changed the “Three Strikes” law so that life-in-prison sentences only apply if the third conviction [strike] is “serious or violent.”

Proposition 37: NO. Would have required labeling of genetically-modified food and prohibited it from being labeled “natural.” The food industry, especially the Monsanto corporation, spent over $20 million to fight this measure. They won, we lost. Watch what you eat–if you can tell what it is!

Proposition 38: NO.  Would have hiked up state income tax for 12 years, allegedly for education.

Proposition 39: YES.  Requires multi-state businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of sales in California.

Proposition 40: YES.  Keeps the California State Senate lines as they were drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2010.  Rep. Barbara Lee supported it.

Democratic Convention Part II: The Party With Heart

Part II: In Praise Of Democrats

Before I say one more word about the Democratic convention, anyone who missed Bill Clinton’s speech last night should run right over to You Tube and watch it now. It is well worth the 49 minutes—this guy can talk, remember?—and he reminds you that there’s still hope in the realm of electoral politics. More on Bill later.

 

Show Don’t Tell is the first—possibly the only—rule of creative writing. You don’t introduce your main character with, “Jane was prone to daydreaming out in nature.” Rather, you say something like, “Jane ambled down the lilac-lined driveway on her way to pick up the mail as she’d been asked to do, when a cluster of just-bloomed orange tiger lilies beckoned her. She stood admiring them so long that she forgot to do the errand and went back empty-handed.”

This writing metaphor came to me because, at their convention, Messrs. Romney, Ryan, and other Republicans told us, in a mountain of phony verbiage, what caring concerned people they are, while the  Democrats showed their care and concern via a long line of speakers whose lives have been improved by President Obama’s policies. Who knew?

Lily Ledbetter told of the injustice that was never made right for her, but won’t be inflicted on our daughters and granddaughters because President Obama signed her namesake, The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, as his first piece of legislation. Ledbetter was one in the parade of strong, righteous women who addressed the convention. There was Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League-Pro-Choice America (NARAL); Sandra Fluke, whom Rush Limbaugh called a slut for demanding insurance-covered contraception; and Stacey Lihn, whose baby daughter needed three heart surgeries within the first few years of her life, the cost of which would have maxed out her insured care, until Obama’s health bill made such caps illegal. Said Lihn:

“Like so many moms with sick children, I shed tears and I could breathe easier knowing we have that net below us to catch us if we fall… Zoe’s third open-heart surgery will happen either next year or the year after. If Mitt Romneybecomes president and Obamacare is repealed, there’s a good chance she’ll hit her lifetime cap.”

Stacey Lihn, husband Caleb, and Zoe
Google

There was also a visitation from Sister Simone, a Catholic nun who called Republicanism “Politics masquerading as values.”  This I take exception to: organized religion doesn’t have the exclusive franchise on values. Politics are about who has power and who does not; who has money and who does not; who will eat and who will not. If that’s not defining values, I don’t know what is.

The issues of contraception and birth control were front and center, more than they’ve ever been before, a hard-hitting response to the crap Republicans have been throwing around since the primaries. I give the Dems a lot of credit; in fact, I’m ecstatic  that they seem to have grown a pair. (You know what I’m saying…didn’t you just love Clinton’s similar allusion to “brass?” )

One thing that bothers me, though, about the contraception/abortion debate is the absence of any comparison to policy on Viagra and similar drugs. They’re covered by insurance to “treat” “erectile dysfunction” (gimme a break!) without a single iota of controversial discussion.  You don’t hear men being grilled about their “ED”, they’re simply believed when they say they have it. Men aren’t treated like children who can’t make their own decisions. Nobody even dares to point out that fewer erections are a normal part of aging. Nobody accuses men of wanting others to pay for their pleasure. I’ve heard absolutely zero controversy about these drugs that’ve been flagrantly misused for recreational sex since Day One of their appearance in pharmacies. I even knew a guy who stocked up on them just to sell them at a profit, and I’m sure he wasn’t the only one. I’m not saying I’m against Viagra use; but it does make me furious how different men’s and women’s sexuality gets treated. It’s the double standard for geezers!  I know…this should probably be a separate blog. I just had to say something…okay, moving right along:

The Party With Heart

The ultimate tear jerk material, or so I thought, came on Tuesday night with a video tribute to Senator Ted Kennedy. Naturally, there was not a dry eye in the house—or, I’ll bet, in the homes of people like me who watched those gut-wrenching memories and remembered a time when we had a more functional government.

At one point the Kennedy footage evoked simultaneous tears and laughter, in a segment of the debate between Teddy and Mitt Romney in their opposing campaigns for Senate. Kennedy: “I’m pro-choice, he’s multiple choice.” He ended a recitation of Romney’s ever-spinning opinion changes with “If we give him two more weeks he may vote for me!”

Google Image

Did I say “ultimate” tear jerk material? Sorry, Teddy, I mean no disrespect to your memory, but Bill Clinton topped you this time, on Wednesday. I can hardly begin to convey the genuine emotions, sharp intelligence and wit, exquisite logic, and the pure inspiration coming from Bill Clinton. Going through the Republican charges against Obama, Clinton spelled out a rebuttal to each, piece by piece. He laid out what they’d said, then insisted we all “Look at what’s really happening,” and he told the truth concerning the budget, the deficit, education, health care, just about every issue that matters. He predicted what a Romney administration would mean to different groups of people, including children with disabilities like autism and Downs Syndrome, and he ended with a firm, utterly believable insistence that “We can’t let it happen!” He brought the audience to their feet, tugging on their hearts until he managed to rekindle the spirit of hope. Bill Clinton has been called The Comeback Kid. He’s the kid who’s got the brass to say “America always comes back,” in a way that makes you believe it’s possible.

At the end of Clinton’s speech Barack Obama came onto the stage and they embraced, a visual linkage of one administration to the other. Clinton’s old rallying song, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow” played, then switched to Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down,” the  perfect song for Obama and his struggle against the obstructionist Republicans. Obama’s a great speaker, but I’m not sure he’ll top Clinton with his acceptance speech tonight. I’ll tell you what, though: Democrats and Independents, and maybe even a few Republicans, will be rooting for him.

Clinton, Obama embrace
Google

A few media blurbs on Clinton’s speech:

Bill Clinton came in and beat up the other side.”–Christopher Hayes

“Extraordinary.”–Andrea Mitchell. 

“As a Democrat it doesn’t get any better than this.”—Ed Schultz

Part III: Media Coverage (Coming Soon)

Mitt Romney, The Emoter

e·mote1. to show or pretend emotion.

I have a name for men like Mitt Romney, men who’ve cultivated the precise facial expressions to go with each emotion and call upon them as needed; men who’ve never had an authentic feeling in their lives, but have trained themselves in the fine art of emoting.

I call these men “Mickeys”  after a man I worked with who was the personification of The Emoter. That the name is also the same as that for the date rape drug is a coincidence–and a kind of bonus, in that they share the characteristic of being manipulative. This Mickey person hung with other yuppies–remember them?–in the upper reaches of Manhattan Island, and many of them, men and women alike, seemed to have “ICK” names: Nicky, Ricky; even last names like Blickstein. I couldn’t help but lump them all into one group under the rubric “ICK.”

I ran into Mickey once when I was with a friend in the supermarket, and when I introduced them to each other, he turned up the voltage, pumping her hand vigorously, his face wreathed in smiles. When he walked away she turned to me, stunned, and asked, “Is that guy running for office?”

A few minutes into Mitt Romney’s speech at the RNC last night—almost an hour of my life I’ll never get back—I identified him as a Mickey. It

You can’t hide your lyin’ eyes

was, above all, the look in those soulful puppy-dog eyes of his whenever he alluded to a tragic life circumstance that ultimately gave him away. As with most emoting, it was transparent. Yes, I know, these days that’s considered a positive adjective, but to me it retains its former, less positive meaning: easily seen through, recognized, or detected, as in transparent excuses.

There’s more–much more!–to be said about Romney’s performance at the convention, but hundreds of journalists much smarter than I am are at this very moment busily putting together their analyses and critiques, which I look forward to reading. But after years of paying attention to Mickey-like behavior, I’ve become an expert on this area of the psyche, so believe me when I tell you

NEVER TRUST A MICKEY!

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started