kc bob: POLITICS

Showing posts with label POLITICS. Show all posts

Election Day Predictions

I predict that these things will remain true on Wednesday:

America will remain a great country built on diverse views;
People will be divided on candidates but unified on freedom;
Our constitution will still be an amazing and enduring document;
The hardest change will be the change in my attitude;
Politics will continue to dominate the news - and Facebook;
Squawk Radio pundits will still not be all that influential;
I will continue to be a bit too much of a political junkie.

How about you? Do you have anything to add to my list? ツ

Presidential Checklist

My Facebook friend Duane offered up criteria for his ideal candidate. Here is his list combined with a few of my own.

The President of the United States should:

be a person of demonstrated high moral character;
support equal rights for all citizens;
have plans to strengthen the middle class of Americans;
make the path to the middle class easier for those less fortunate;
change our leadership role in the world from one of police officer to one of peace officer;
have plans to strengthen Social Security and Medicare;
have specific plans to make government more efficient;
enforce existing immigration laws and go after people who hire illegal workers;
appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the constitution and are not politically biased;
be a leader who can bring consensus to controversial national issues.

Thanks again to Duane for the first seven on the list. Let me know what items you might add or subtract from the list.

How to Respond to Questions about Terrorists and Terrorism

Some advice from my old blogging friend Danny Sims:

I was asked, by a Christian,

"What should I do or say about terror, refugees and
all the trouble with radical Jihadism in the world today?"

That's an important question. Here are a few guiding principles:

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Doing something is often better than doing nothing, especially if it is kind and helpful.
Saying nothing is always better than saying something unkind and hateful.
If many people tell you again and again what you say is unkind and hateful, it probably is.
You can personally stand against evil, including radical Jihadism, without returning evil with evil.
The only thing that will overcome evil, in your heart, is good. And we are talking about your heart, right?

The odds are, you are not in charge of anyone's policy but your own.

Choose goodness, prayer, kindness, and helpfulness in all you say and do.

Seek justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

Remembering Presidential Elections

I have been around for a few of these things. Here are my brief recollections of them:

1956 :: A car with a bullhorn driving by my house on Staten Island shouting "Vote for Ike!".
1960 :: I watched the first televised debate. Morning after the election one of the
guys at junior high was carrying a newspaper with the results.
1964 :: In high school. A sad year for those of us who admired President Kennedy.
1968 :: Drafted that year. Spent election day in basic training at Fort Jackson, SC.
1972 :: My first year working for Ma Bell. Do not remember voting.
1976 :: I became a Christian in April of that year and became aware of a candidate
that prayed publicly. First candidate to really inspire me.
1980 :: With most of America, I joined the Reagan revolution and the pro-life voting bloc.
1984 :: Still loved Ronald Reagan and voted for him.
1988 :: Pat Robertson won the Iowa Caucus that year. I was glad to see us elect Bush and Quayle.
1992 :: Ross Perot showed up and sadly upset a Bush reelection. Great SNL debate skits though.
1996 :: I supported the other Bob from Kansas even though he did not have much of a chance.
2000 :: I loved the compassionate conservatism message and voted for W.
2004 :: Growing weary of a president that did not hold press conferences and embraced the
war president moniker. Fortunately for Republicans, Kerry was even worse than W.
2008 :: Conservatives splintered and the GOP got McCain and Palin. So disappointed.
2012 :: I liked Romney at the beginning. Over time it became obvious that he was running a bad campaign.
2016 :: I like the temperament and message of John Kasich. I'm such a sucker for underdogs.

What is your first memory of a presidential election?

Life is in the middle

I wrote this in January 2005. I have not given up on the dream but am not that hopeful.

On a political scale, my heart moans over how very few of us ever move to the middle. I’d love to see a centrist party morph from the 2 parties. I know I’m dreaming. What would it be like to have a party that endorsed:

Tangible commitments to the working poor,
Moderate trade agreements that helped US labor,
Sensible restrictions on abortions (i.e. 2nd trimester viability),
Gun control that excluded hunting rifles (i.e.shotguns),
Middle ground health care coverage for everyone,
Some limits on liability for health care professionals.

Not a complete list but you get the idea. I think that the problem with this approach is that few people want to let go of the ideology and rhetoric. On one end you have the Rush Limbaughs and on the other end the Kate Michelsons … both full of rhetoric and afraid to give an inch on anything. The influence that special interest groups have on our leaders tend to polarize not unite. It would be good for politicians to divorce themselves from special interest oriented organizations and find common ground through mutual respect and earnest dialogue.

What Candidates need to do to ICE IT.

Inspiration: JFK and Reagan are two of the most notable examples of presidents that were able to inspire America. This seems to me to be the first step in securing a nomination. Great candidates inspire voters more than attack their competition.

Character: Honesty and trustworthiness are cornerstones of great leaders. A candidate with integrity and vulnerability is attractive to many people - even those having such a cynical approach to government. Often though, voters are not able to truly discern character.

Experience: I have found that leadership is something that is forged and refined in life. Folks like me are good leaders when we lead a few but falter when we lead many. So it is important to examine the leadership experiences of candidates to determine their ability to lead at the highest levels.

Ideology: Sadly some voters never get past this qualification. If a person matches their own positions on the issues they sometimes do not seriously consider other qualifications. Not saying that political ideology is not important. It should be weighed in with other criteria but not be the lone determination.

Temperament: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had great interpersonal skills. Each was able to work with congressional leaders from the other parties. Great leaders are people who have the ability to transcend ideology and work across the aisle. I have found people like this to be a bit rare in politics.

Politics and Church Attendance :: Which comes first?

The religious affiliation of candidates (or lack thereof) is at least a minor point of discussion in virtually every election, and pundits regularly pour over data about the “Evangelical vote,” the “Catholic vote,” and even the “nonreligious vote.” Implicit in all of this number-crunching is the idea that when it comes to a American voter’s political opinions, religion matters. But despite all the attention given to the voting patterns of the faithful, the question remains: does where you go to church (or temple, or mosque, or service, etc.) actually dictate your political views?

That is the way that an article at Think Progress starts. I find the question to be thought provoking. I have always been attracted to churches that have certain political views. Social-political issues like abortion have always been a factor in my church attending decisions. And I think that issues like homosexuality drive church attendance for many folks.

These days I think that I am more attracted to churches that do not take black and white positions on political candidates and issues. I feel that the leadership of the church I attend these days fosters an environment that attracts people of differing politics because they present balanced views of social and political issues. They also present a balanced view of these issues in the scriptures. Great to be a part of a church that fosters cooperation instead of polarization.

So what do you think? Does a church's political positions play a role in where you go to church? Or do you feel that the church you attend takes certain positions on political issues because you (and folks like you) attend there?

Game Change | ★★★★★★★★

Ann and I watched this movie about the 2008 McCain presidential campaign last week. The movie actually surprised me. Here are a few thoughts:

  •  I came away with a greater respect for Sarah Palin. She is a strong woman.
  •  John McCain made an uncomfortable political selection for his VEEP.
  •  McCain and his staff tried to make Palin something that she was not.
  •  Sarah would not be handled and manipulated. She just wanted to be herself.
  •  Politics is a nasty business that is not suited for principled people.
  •  Sarah came off as a patriotic person that was not ready for the VEEP job.
  •  McCain was right: Sarah needed to be surrounded by people who love her.
  •  Julianne Moore rocked as Sarah. Woody Harrelson was good as Steve Schmidt.
  •  The book authors did a biased but pretty good job reporting on the campaign.

Depending on your political view, you may see this movie in a different light. Just don't get sucked into the politics of it but see it as a study in what campaigns do to people.
I liked the movie and, on a scale of ten, give it ★★★★★★★★.

Political Party Animals

Ever wondered what the story was behind these two famous party animals?

The now-famous Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson's 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents called him a jackass (a donkey), and Jackson decided to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. Later, cartoonist Thomas Nast used the Democratic donkey in newspaper cartoons and made the symbol famous.

Nast invented another famous symbol—the Republican elephant. In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.” That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party.

Democrats today say the donkey is smart and brave, while Republicans say the elephant is strong and dignified.

Tip of the hat to Fact Monster.

Crazy Never Wins

Joe Scarborough's recent Politico post titled Crazy never wins GOP sweepstakes makes the point that one need not be an extremist to win the GOP nomination. In the article he speaks of the candidates that attracted his late father saying:

Guys like my dad do not gamble on candidates like Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich.

Guys like my dad tune out politicians who compare opponents to Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler.

And guys like my dad don’t cozy up to Texas governors who brag about seceding from the Union or call Social Security unconstitutional.

That’s why crazy never wins. It never even comes close.

So regardless of what is written about the Republican Party every four years by Northeast elites or right-wing nuts, guys like my father still hold the GOP’s fate in their conservative hands.

I resonate with Joe's dad today even though I would not have in my younger years.

Perhaps that is the not so subtle message? Maybe it is all about the sanity of maturity?

GOP: psychological protest or conservative alternative?

I enjoy reading opinion pieces by conservative journalist David Brooks. Recently he wrote, in a piece titled The Mother of All No-Brainers, about how the GOP is getting tremendous concessions from Democrats in the debt limit talks but feels that factions in the GOP will not allow any kind of deal to go through. He describes it this way:

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

He goes on to describe this faction saying that "The members of this movement:"

do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.

do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

have no economic theory worthy of the name.

have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation.

He ends by observing that "Democrats have stopped making concessions" and are "coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too."
I believe in compromise but feel that idea has sadly lost steam in congress as both parties seem to be controlled by fanatics that are not interested in addressing serious problems.

Running to be Heard

Yesterday Ron Paul announced his third presidential run. It reminded me of his interview with George Stephanopoulos a few years ago when George told him he didn't have a chance of getting the GOP nomination. Now I like Ron Paul and many of his views but, lets face it, George is right. And I do not think that the third time will be a charm for Paul or others like him.

It makes me wonder. Ron Paul is certainly a very smart person and not unaware of his chances. So why does he run? I think that he and other candidates run, or tease us about whether they will run or not, simply to have a platform for their message or for their celebrity.

Some like Ron Paul definitely have a strong message and want to influence the way that the GOP platform is crafted. Others, I think, simply want exposure and the celebrity that comes with it - many books are sold by folks like these. Now I do think that folks like this definitely have a place in the primary races. They sometimes help shape the issues, highlight problems and ask questions that need to be asked. Yet I wonder if having these folks in the race simply muddies the water and somewhat makes a mockery of our election cycle?

What do you think? Do these candidates do more good than harm to the electoral process?

Political Teasers

Just read that Ron Paul (R-TX), the GOP congressman with libertarian leanings, is expected to announce today in Des Moines that he's forming a presidential exploratory committee. Also read yesterday that Haley Barbour, Mississippi's Republican governor, announced that he was not running. And of course, to no one's surprise, Mitt Romney, one time governor of Massachusetts, formed a presidential exploratory committee a few weeks ago. I am so tired of all of this teasing.

Of course the real problem is that no one is really excited about any of these "announcements". Most of us see through all of the drama and understand that it is all a part of this weird preoccupation that the media, and political junkies like me, have about the candidates. Yet I would like to see something emerge on the national scene that resembles our recent mayoral election here in Kansas City where the candidates were deliberate, respectful and admirable. The campaign focused on issues instead of personalities.

I long to see a primary process that focuses on the many issues facing our country and not the farcical drama foisted upon us by the likes of teaser-candidates like Trump, Palin and Bachmann. I want to see serious candidates with serious answers come forth. I have grown tired of the extremist ideologies of the far left and the far right. I think that America is a right-leaning centrist nation in need of leaders who can work across the aisle and deal with the many weighty issues of our time. We do not need political teasers. Here endeth the rant.

We are not Labels

From the No Labels website:

We are not labels – we are people.

We care deeply about our country.

We are frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics.

We are passionate about addressing America’s challenges.

We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Most importantly, we are Americans.

We believe hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.

We may disagree on issues, but we do so with civility and mutual respect.

We believe in the vital civil center — a place where ideas are judged on their merits.

We believe that together we can make the future better and brighter — and give us what we all deserve — a government and a political system that works — one driven by shared purpose and common sense.

We believe our politics can change, so that government will work again and produce better results.

The consequences of inaction have never been greater, because the issues we face have never been more serious, more complicated, or more dangerous.

And yet, we have a crisis of governance – A crisis that compels us to work together to move America forward.

We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first.

A promising future awaits us.

Somebody has to Win

Sadly this cartoon represents my feelings as I prepare to cast my ballot later today. Gone are my hopes that the people I vote for will really make a difference in America. New people may be elected but I predict that old ways will prevail. My vote will mostly be against an issue, a person or a party.
I do not expect anything to change in our government. Color me cynical.

Election Edition: 2010 Email Hall of Shame

Tomorrow is election day here in the United States and there is all sorts of misinformation floating around out there in newspapers, blogs, television and emails. With regard to the latter, here is a list of shameful viral emails from Politifact:

Under the new health care law, "all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax."
Democrats and President Barack Obama "will sneak in a 1 percent tax on all banking transactions."
Starting in 2011, "you will be required to pay taxes" on "the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company."
The Democrats' health care bills would provide "free health care for illegal immigrants."
"The Senate voted this week to allow illegal aliens access to Social Security benefits."
Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower collectively ordered the deportation of at least 15 million illegal immigrants.
Once the U.S. government signs a U.N. treaty on conventional arms, "all U.S. citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments."
You must list all your guns on your 2010 tax return.
The Obama White House is renaming Christmas trees "holiday trees."
"The ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed."
Obama said troops "whine about bearing the costs" of going to war.
"The Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
Obama used $20 million in federal money "to emmigrate (sic) Hamas Refugees to the USA."
President Obama is not a citizen: He admitted it, his college transcript proves it, and Justice Antonin Scalia agreed to hear the case.

I encourage you to read the details about these messages at Politifact. There is a lot of misinformation circulating out there and we should always be alert to the hidden agendas contained in the information. Most of these types of viral emails that I get are easily debunked. Sad that many do not have a zeal for the truth about these chain emails - if they did they would send out corrections when their messages are proven false. I think that we should hate these emails in the same way that we hate the mudslinging TV ads.

What do you think? What do you do when you get these sorts of email messages?

Ranked Choice Voting

Julie, my blogging and Facebook friend, posted this article about a different way of voting and electing. Here is a clip from it:

A simple election reform, the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting, could open up the process and allow for real choices in states across the country. Under Ranked Choice, voters don't just tick the name of one candidate and walk away. They rank the various candidates—first choice, second, third, fourth and so on. If their first choice finishes out of the running, their vote is reassigned to their second choice.

I find this voting methodology to be compelling. Applying it in hindsight might have altered the outcome of close elections. The 1992 presidential election might have gone a different way if Ross Perot's votes could have been counted by Bush. And you have to wonder how Ralph Nader's votes would have affected the outcome of the 2000 Bush v Gore contest.

Looking back, I can remember several times when there was a compelling third party candidate but voters cast ballots for a Democrat or a Republican because they did not want to "throw away their vote". I think that this system of "Ranked Choice" voting could address these situations and possibly better express the "will of the people".

What do you think? Could this kind of system work? Would you endorse it?

Voting against the Person but for the Principle?

This election season seems a bit different to me. The idealism that seemed to permeate this season just two years ago seems to be gone. Messages of hope and can do politics are no where to be found. All we seem to hear is mud-slinging and ad-attacks. Many of these ads insult my intelligence. About this season of votes and elections, WC Fields once commented:

"I never vote for anyone; I always vote against."

Sadly, I find myself in this strange place of not feeling great about either senatorial candidate in Missouri. They both are seasoned (read that career) politicians who have been spraying slop on each other in their TV ads for months. Most of the folks I talk to here in KC are pretty sick of it. So I wonder if I will vote for the proverbial lesser of two evils in this race.. hmmm.. even though WC might approve, I have never liked voting that way. Times like these remind me of what President John Quincy Adams once said:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

So I am wondering if I can vote against a person and still vote for principle. I think that I can. I think that voting against a senator that is at odds with my principles is probably a good thing.. even when I am not thrilled about the person that I would be voting for. Maybe voting for principle doesn't always mean voting for a candidate you like? Maybe this is the way that many people vote these days. I guess we will have to wait a few weeks to see how it goes?

Economic Nationalism

One of the new TV shows this fall is Outsourced, a sitcom that focuses on a call center that was moved from Kansas City to a place in India. It somewhat gets your mind off the sad topic of those Kansas Citians who lost their jobs and redirects our attention to the funny things happening in the new call center. It causes me to pause and reflect on the ways that I, and my friends, here in middle America have personally been affected by such corporate antics.

I saw a video clip of corporate mogul Donald Trump this morning about dealing with China. Trump is no dummy and understands the nature of the global economy. Here are a few things that Trump has opined on this over the past year:

I love this country, we have a great country ... but it's not really great like it used to be. Let's face it, we are no longer respected the way we used to be respected, and if we keep going like this, within 10 years China is going to overtake us easily.
...
I know many of the people in China. I know many of the big business people. And they’re laughing at us. They think we’re stupid and our representatives are so stupid, that they can’t even believe what they’re getting away with.

They take our money. They suck it out of us. We charge them virtually no tax and no tax, and they loan it back to us. And then they have our treasury bills. And they say, oh, gee, we have to be afraid of China because they have our treasury bills.
...
we have all the power, because if we ever say we’re going to tax you 50 percent for all of the things that you sell to this country, you could pay off your treasury bills in a short period of time.

And, by the way, guess what would happen? People would start making things in North Carolina and Alabama and Illinois and lots of other places where they’re all unemployed. So, we have the power

Trump espouses something that might be considered Economic Nationalism.. the idea that a nation should protect it's financial interests through the use of taxes and tariffs on imported goods. I think that a lot of folks might rally around these ideas.

Thinking back I can remember the days when things made in Japan and China were somewhat of a joke. The words "made in Japan" were an anecdote for poor quality. The advent of brands like Sony, Panasonic, Lexus and Honda seems to have changed that perception. Many American consumers prefer these Japanese brands because of the quality associated with them.. and they are price competitive as well.

So I guess the challenge might be two-fold. Firstly American products must find a way to identify as quality items and at least match foreign products in this area. Secondly I think that there has to be a way to create a level playing field in the global marketplace. Sadly late night comics sometimes refer to the overseas child labor used to manufacture the stuff we all buy. I do not think that we can ever compete in that kind of environment.

It is kind of crazy how a company can manufacture goods on the other side of the world, and transport the stuff here, cheaper than simply making the stuff here in the USA. It speaks to me of the inequities of the global marketplace. Also speaks to me about the influence that these corporations have on the US government.

I think that many resonate with Trump's message and think that American governmental leaders should be helping American workers by leveling the playing field in the global marketplace. I would love to see the USA turn things around in this next decade. If not we will see more jobs outsourced and and less products made in the USA.

Do you know of anyone who has lost their job to workers in other countries?

Political Runaways

The political TV ads are getting more grating by the day. Aside from all of the mudslinging, I find it odd that so many politicians are running away from their voting records.. from the stimulus and healthcare bills in particular. Gotta wonder - Why can't they just stand by their records and let the chips fall where they may?

Pages