Romney campaign outraises Obama in Big Money

This is from Talking Points Memo:

Mitt Romney and the RNC raised $76.8 million in May, easily outpacing $60 million from President Obama’s campaign and the DNC. With outside conservative groups alone already outspending the Obama campaign in swing states and Democrats begging donors for help, the money race is tilting quickly toward the GOP.

Romney and the RNC now have $107 million cash on hand, with $12 million of their monthly haul coming from donations less than $250.

 “We are encouraged by the financial support from a broad range of voters,” Romney’s National Finance Chairman Spencer Zwick said in a statement. ”To them, whether they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, a first time political donor, or a former Obama donor, this is not just a campaign; it’s an opportunity for the country. It is clear that people aren’t willing to buy into ‘hope & change’ again. Voters are making an investment because they believe that it will benefit the country.”

The Obama camp minimized the gap, with press secretary Ben LaBolt tweeting that it was expected now that Romney has entered the general election and can collect a new round of maximum donations from his top primary backers. As TPM previously reported, this is especially relevant to Romney since his new joint Victory Fund with the RNC can take donations of up to $75,800, far above the primary campaign’s $2,500 limits. It’s possible Romney’s latest haul is a one-time trick that represents these big money backers making their investment in the general election, but combined with Republicans’ success luring a handful of billionaires to single handedly match Obama’s own spending, it looks like trouble for Obama ahead either way.

Again, we're looking at the effects of Citizens United, where corporations and billionaire donors can buy their own elections.  Out of the $107 million in the Romney and RNC campaign coffers, only $12 million came from donations of $250 or less.  Small donors are not giving to the Romney campaign--corporations and the super rich are.  And with Romney out raising President Obama in the money field, you can bet that Romney will be spending a good chunk in negative advertising to smear Obama, while refusing to tell the nation's voters his vision and policy issues when he is elected.  Mitt Romney is an empty suit, just waiting to be instructed by his overlords, once he gets into the White House.  And with the kind of money Romney is raising, this could become a disaster for the country.

Then again, we have the best democracy that money can buy.  Those without the money are screwed.

Money won in the Wisconsin recall elections

This is from the Washington Post.com:

If the Wisconsin recall battle was a test of the power of political spending, the big money won big.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who survived an effort by the state’s Democrats to unseat him in a special election on Tuesday, outspent his opponent by more than 7 to 1 and easily overcame massive get-out-the-vote efforts by Democrats. The recall contest ranks as the most expensive race in Wisconsin history, with the candidates and interest groups spending more than $63 million combined.

Walker was bolstered by wealthy out-of-state donors who gave as much as $500,000 each under state rules that allow incumbents to ignore contribution limits in a recall election. He raised $30.5 million, while his Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, raised $3.9 million, according to data compiled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

The big spending was made possible in part by the landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on elections and made it easier for wealthy individuals to bankroll such efforts. Wisconsin is among a number of states that previously banned direct election spending by corporations and labor groups.

Welcome to the new world of Citizens United elections.  Big corporate money and billionaire donors have the ability to give massive amounts of money to pretty much purchase their own candidates.  This is a reflection of what will happen in the presidential elections in November.  You can bet the corporate and billionaire donors will be flooding the Romney campaign coffers with dollars to purchase their new, empty suit.  And that money will pay for a flood of negative advertising against President Barack Obama.  Will it be enough to purchase the votes?  I can't say.  

 

Mitt Romney fears Obama conspiracy to sabotage his press conference

This is just insane. From Talking Points Memo:

Mitt Romney’s campaign justified its secrecy in setting up a press conference in front of Solyndra’s California headquarters Thursday by warning of a conspiracy by White House officials to potentially sabotage their efforts.

“We knew, if word got out, that Solyndra would do everything in their power, and the Obama administration would do everything in their power, to stop us from having this news conference,”an unnamed adviser told reporters, per CNN.

Reporters raised the question of how this devious plot to derail the event would work, given that the freedom to hold a press conference in public is a fairly basic right.

“Well, he’s only the president of the United States,” the adviser replied. “I mean, they could work with town officials to deny us access.”

Romney alluded to similar concerns in his press conference.

“I think there are people who don’t want to see this event occur, don’t want to have questions asked about this particular investment,” Romney told reporters when asked about the secrecy behind the event, according to the New York Times.

DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse dismissed the claim of conspiracy as a fringe notion.

“It’s actually bizarre,” he said. “I don’t want to use the term ‘weird,’ but I don't know where he would get that idea from.”

Woodhouse noted the irony that Romney supporters actually interrupted an Obama campaign press conference in Boston with chants and a bubble machine earlier the same day.

“He’s delusional,” another Democratic aide told TPM when asked about the charge.

WTF???? Mitt Romney has to hold a super-secret press conference in front of Solyndra's headquarters because the Obama campaign may intentionally sabotage the Romney campaign's efforts to hold a press conference in front of Solyndra's headquarters? This does not make any sense. If Mitt Romney wants to hold a press conference in front of Solyndra's HQ, then he can hold as many press conferences as he wishes. Why would the Obama campaign try to stop him--because of the Solyndra loan controversy? President Barack Obama can relentlessly attack Romney on his Bain Capital record, or even his record as Massachusetts governor. Why would the Obama campaign want to stop a Romney press conference? Then again, perhaps the Romney campaign is really that paranoid. This could be another attempt by the Romney campaign to connect with conservative, conspiracy-theory crazies, while at the same time projecting the Obama campaign as engaging in such secret conspiracies. This certainly is a classic, Karl Rove trick of using your candidate's weakness against your opponent. It is also ironic that Romney campaign aids disrupted an Obama press conference today in Boston. So the question I would have to ask is really, who is the more paranoid, delusional, conspiracy-minded, and willing to crash an opposing candidate's press conference? I'll give you a hint--it ain't Barack Obama.

Update: Now Mitt Romney is accusing the Obama campaign of sending staffers to disrupt Romney campaign rallies. So Mitt Romney is supposedly justified in disrupting Obama press conferences. From YouTube:

Strangely enough, I have not seen any reports of Obama campaign staffers disrupting Romney campaign rallies or press conferences though.

Romney endorses constitutional amendment requiring presidents to have three years business experience

I saw this making the rounds on the internet, and I should make a comment on it. Apparently Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is endorsing a constitutional amendment requiring presidents to have three years of business experience. From The New York Times:

LAS VEGAS — Mitt Romney, who is trying to distance himself from Donald J. Trump’s remarks about President Obama’s citizenship, joked about a new constitutional requirement for the presidency on Tuesday evening: business experience.

In the process, Mr. Romney mentioned the requirement that all presidents be born in the United States, an unexpected reference to the simmering issue on a night when he is having a closely watched fund-raiser with Mr. Trump.

Speaking to a crowd at a furniture warehouse here, Mr. Romney recalled a suggestion from a man he had recently met on the campaign trail.

“I’d like to have a provision in the Constitution,” he recalled the man saying, “that in addition to the age of the president and the citizenship of the president and the birthplace of the president being set by the Constitution, I’d like it also to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he could become president of the United States.”

Mr. Romney did not endorse the idea, but he seemed to like it.

“You see, then he or she would understand that the policies they’re putting in place have to encourage small business, make it easier for business to grow.”

As a joke, Romney's business remark falls six feet underground. U.S. News states that "good businessmen rarely make good presidents." Out of the 20 presidents since 1900, only five presidents had significant business careers before entering politics. Presidents who never had a career in business include Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. U.S. News did name three president with business experience--Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. Three of the worst presidents in modern history.

I'm thinking here is that Mitt Romney is throwing monkey poo on the wall, and using whatever poo will stick as part of his campaign. This constitutional amendment requiring presidents to have business experience is just another piece of poo. Unfortunately for Romney, he's not very good at throwing monkey poo. Perhaps he should look at these guys for experience:

Could Mitt Romney also not be an American Citizen?

With Tea Party candidates and crazies now jumping back on the birther bandwagon, both Americablog and the Daily Kos have discovered that Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's father, former Michigan governor and Republican presidential candidate George Romney, was actually born in Mexico! Does this mean that Mitt Romney is not an American citizen?

Mitt Romney's new iPhone app--A Better Amercia

Someone on the Romney campaign forgot to use their spell checker. From Gizmodo.com:

Mitt Romney's new iPhone app, With Mitt, "lets you customize photos with a variety of Mitt-inspired artistic frames." Slogans like "Believe in America," "Obama Isn't Working," and "I'm a Mom for Mitt" are just a few of the Mitt-tastic phrases that can be slapped on your iPhone photos, proudly pronouncing your support of the GOP candidate. If only he was equally as concerned with supporting our great nation. Much to the delighted displeasure of Twitter, one particular frame option betrays Romney's secret agenda working toward bettering a place known as Amercia. Yes, that's A-M-E-R-C-I-A.

A Tumblr page, Amercia is with Mitt, is ripping into this Romney campaign gaffe. Which brings me to the question of is this really how to run a presidential campaign? This is a gaffe goes beyond clumsy and enters into the realm of stupidity. I can see a programmer creating this application, and making this error. But this error should have been caught by higher level supervisors and managers, and quickly corrected before being placed on the net. This WaPo article states that the Romney campaign "submitted a corrected version of the app to Apple," telling me the campaign created the application itself. And they performed no proofreading of the final product. Stupid mistakes like this tell me that either the Romney campaign cannot find qualified people to produce these applications, or maybe the campaign just does not care and is going through the motions here.

Mitt Romney's "The Promise of America"

I saw this post through the Daily Kos, and went to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Youtube page. I watched the video with the sound off, and wanted to look at the images in this latest Romney political ad. This video is creepy: There is not one close up of an African-American, Hispanic, or any minority individual face in this video. The faces in this video are all white. Disturbing.

I found this CQ Politics story through Americablog:

Republicans are growing increasingly frustrated with Sharron Angle and her lackluster campaign to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), fearing she is jeopardizing what they had long viewed as a sure pickup and costing them a chance to reclaim the majority.

Senate Republicans quietly acknowledge that Angle’s controversial views on some issues remain a political liability. But the former Nevada Assemblywoman’s larger problems are a progression of unforced errors stemming from a lack of campaign experience and an amateurish staff incapable of offering her the necessary guidance. However, Angle has proved to be adept at fundraising, corralling $2.6 million in the second quarter.

What is especially interesting is that an unnamed Nevada Republican has called Sharron Angle's campaign "dysfunctional," saying "She can still win, but the operation seems odd at best." Also, the Republican National Committee dispatched an operative to Nevada to help the Angle campaign. However, Angle's deputy campaign manager Jordan Gehrke responded to Republican worries, saying that Angle campaign is 'putting together a professional team of experienced political operatives.'

I'm sorry, but most of this story is complete bull. As Americablog stated, Sharron Angle is a bit nutty. What else is there to say? When you make so many crazed, right-wingnut statements, reporters are going to want you to clarify your positions regarding these crazed statements. And running away from reporters asking hard questions to you will not improve your political image as a qualified candidate for the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, that is what Sharron Angle has been doing. And now, the Republican Party is worried that Democrat Harry Reid will stomp Angle in November.

Of course, I could also say this is what you get when the GOP decides to shift itself further into right-wing crazyland. You elect crazy candidates making crazy statements that could scare the Hell out of moderates and independents. Do you really expect the moderates and independents to vote for these wacked-out, crazed Republican candidates? Or has the GOP decided to forgo any voter, except their own, crazed, right-wing constituents? I don't know yet, but I do fear for this country if the voters are either that stupid, or ignorant, to elect the likes of Sharron Angle into office.

So which Angle is it on Social Security?

I found this interesting blog post on the Washington Monthly, and I just had to laugh. Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle addressed a conservative convention in Las Vegas, where she backtracked, saying she did not want eliminate Social Security, but save Social Security by paying back the $2.5 trillion the government spent in the fun. Here is the original story on Angle's speech at Talking Points Memo:

Las Vegas -- Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) revved up a conservative crowd today, even as she denied her pre-primary win statements on phasing out Social Security.

Addressing the conservative convention RightOnline at the Venetian casino this afternoon, Angle was hailed for pledging to "permanently repeal the death tax" and for saying she stands with Arizona's new immigration law. She has become a conservative darling in her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Angle repeated her desire to shut down the Department of Education, saying that it and other federal functions should be left to the states. She also said if elected her vision is, "One nation under God, not one nation under the government."

Angle's remarks on Social Security were the most likely to be new political fodder in an increasingly competitive race. The TPM Poll Average is Reid 44.0% to Angle 43.1%.

During Angle's less-than-10-minute speech, she outlined her philosophy to cut the deficit and talked of her "simple" campaign plan she calls "Pay back, cut back and take back." To start with she said the government should pay back the $2.5 trillion that's been "raided and pillaged out of the Social Security fund."

"I've never said I want to eliminate, I always said I want to save Social Security by paying back. But to do that we have to cut back," Angle told the crowd of more than 1,100 attendees to mild applause.

Of course, it takes just a few seconds to find video of Angle's now-famed quote on Nevada's "Face to Face" television show that, "We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized."

And here is the video of Sharron Angle saying that famous quote "to phase Medicare and Social Security" to privatization. From YouTube:



So which Angle is it on Social Security? Is Sharron Angle for completely privatizing Social Security, giving Wall Street trillions of government money to play in the stock market casino? Or is Sharron Angle again lying to Nevada voters, now saying that she wants the government to pay back the money it pulled out of the trust fund for spending? Which is it Sharron? Of course, if the Nevada press ever get a chance to ask Sharron Angle this question of her flip-flopping, I'm sure that Angle will respond in a truthful manner:

GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle responds to reporters' questions by not answering questions

This is just too funny. From Politico.com:

The day after walking out of her own campaign event when reporters were offered an opportunity to ask questions, Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle on Thursday responded to a question from a reporter — to tell them she wasn’t answering the question.

For the second day in a row, Angle’s campaign alerted the press that they were holding a campaign event where the Republican would offer critical remarks on the estate tax.

After giving a three-minute speech on the tax Wednesday, Angle bolted for the door when asked to make herself available to answer questions from the press.

Angle took a beating in local and national news reports of the event. So on Thursday, Angle’s campaign hoped to make the ground rules for the event crystal clear.

At the beginning of the press conference, Angle spokeswoman Ciara Matthews announced to reporters: “We’re really focused on the death tax today. So that’s what we’ll be taking questions on.”

Following Angle’s remarks on the tax, a reporter told Angle, “we have a bunch of questions on other issues.”

“Is there any reason you won’t talk about any other issues?” the reporter asked, as was shown in a story from Las Vegas NBC affiliate My News 3.

Angle responded by telling the reporter that “today we’re concentrating on one thing. What will get America and especially Nevada back on its economic wheels, if you will.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40154.html#ixzz0uY3f4Yb0

So if I'm reading this right, GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle will hold a press conference where reporters can only ask questions on issues that the Angle campaign wants to focus on--and nothing else? I take it that Sharron Angle will not comment on why she ran away from reporters at her own press conference, yesterday. Nope--Sharron Angle will only answer reporters' questions on what she wants to answer! Is Sharron Angle that crazy, that stupid, or both?

Looking at this story, I'm thinking that Sharron Angle has an extreme, crazed, right-wing view on issues, and doesn't really want to reveal those views to the media. Perhaps her GOP-handlers are trying to hide Angle's extremist views from moderates and independents, who would realize just how much of a nut-job Angle is and vote in Democrat Harry Reid. Of course, the more that Sharron Angle alienates the media, the more the media will think that she has something to hide. The media will go after Sharron Angle.

Getting interesting here.

Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle ducks her own press conference

This is from Talking Points Memo:

Former Nevada state Rep. Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Senate against Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, is still getting the hang of holding a "press conference" with the media. At an event Wednesday, Angle spoke for three minutes on cutting taxes -- and then quickly left when the assembled reporters tried to ask her questions.

The funniest thing, as shown in tracking video from the Nevada Democratic Party, is that Angle's host seemingly invited the reporters to ask questions -- then Angle suddenly walked away without saying anything.

As CNN points out, the event was in fact billed as a press conference in Angle's own campaign events schedule. It should also be noted that Angle has previously said she avoids interviews with mainstream media outlets that would ask her tough questions, opting for conservative media where she can raise money from viewers.

You can view the YouTube video here:



Angle won the Nevada GOP Senate primary as a Tea Party candidate to take on Democrat Harry Reid. However, Angle has some very wacked out political views, as Rachel Maddow points out here, here, and here.

Now in one sense, I can understand that Sharron Angle is a friggin' wacked-out, insanely crazed GOP senatorial candidate that Nevada Republicans chose, probably because they were drugged by the Fluoride-laced tap water, dumped by Nevada state government black helicopters! What I do find especially interesting is how the Angle campaign called a press conference to discuss cutting taxes (A Republican campaign mantra), only to have the Not Ready for Prime Time candidate duck out of the conference without answering a single question from reporters--I thought press conferences were events where politicians answered questions from the press reporters?

Then again, Sharron Angle is taking a page from another GOP candidate who also has a knack for avoiding the press:

[GOP candidate Meg] Whitman invited the press to cover a meeting she was to have with a railroad executive, but upon its completion she refused to take any questions. After a long pause and some nervous laughter, she had security block the cameras, and finally had them escorted out by her press aid.

I think it is rather disturbing that we have two Republican candidates consistently refusing to answer tough reporter questions on the issues, or their political views. And yet, both candidates are groomed by the GOP-spin machine as mainstream, with their supposed "messages" sanitized and pre-packaged for voters that the Republican Party probably thinks are either dumb, or ill-informed. Then again, perhaps the GOP wants dumb American voters who will simply accept whatever crap the GOP shoves down their throats. And we will never really see who Sharron Angle, or Meg Whitman really are, as they are both marketed as stale turkey sandwiches on canned bread.

Will Meg spend $30 million to buy the California legislature?

I found this San Francisco Chronicle story last week, and it is just fascinating. Republican candidate Meg Whitman has already spent over $100 million in her bid to purchase the California governors mansion. Why not spend another $30 million to purchase the California legislature as well? From the San Francisco Chronicle:

California Republicans are buzzing about the possibility that billionaire gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman - who has spent nearly $100 million of her own money on her campaign - could be preparing another unprecedented personal investment in her political future: a $30 million-plus infusion into the state party.

The Chronicle has obtained a draft of a detailed 44-page state GOP "2010 Victory Plan" that outlines the party's $85.5 million financial blueprint for a campaign effort that includes $30 million directed to the gubernatorial race.

The former eBay CEO is "putting a significant amount of money in ... it could be $30 to $40 million," said a GOP insider familiar with the plan. The source said Whitman is also expected to tap her fundraising sources and contacts for the party's benefit.

Whitman's potential $30 million in contributions was confirmed by prominent state Republicans, who spoke on condition that they would not be named for publication.

But Whitman spokesman Tucker Bounds strongly denied the notion.

"No secret document or anonymous source you have is credible in this because Meg is not writing the $30 million check," he said. "It's simple. Meg is planning to help solicit outside contributions to the party and working tirelessly to defeat the status quo in Sacramento. That's the plan and it isn't a secret."

Moreover, Whitman campaign officials insisted the candidate is planning no sizeable contributions to the state GOP.

First thought is that I don't think "Governor" Whitman would have a clue as to how to work with the state legislature, which is controlled by the Democrats. Instead of finding common ground with the legislature that can provide compromises, I'd say that Whitman would rather shove whatever her agenda is down the legislature's throats. Of course, I've seen this behavior before with Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger. The result has been a constant bickering between the Governator and the legislature (And I'm sure the state legislature is just as responsible as the Governator regarding the nasty fights that have taken place in Sacramento). Ironically, both Schwarzenegger and the legislature's poll numbers are in the garbage can. According to this Field Poll, Governor Schwarzenegger's approval ratings are at an all-time low of 22 percent--plunging from an all-time high of 65 percent in 2004. What is more, Schwarzenegger's poll numbers are now at the same level of his predecessor, Gray Davis, when the Governator jumped in the recall election ring to replace Davis. The state legislature's approval poll numbers are even lower than the Governator's, at around 16 percent.

So what does this mean for Meg Whitman? I'm thinking that the Whitman campaign has studied the Schwarzenegger administration, and has decided that since they can't work with a Democratic legislature, they might as well buy a Republican legislature into office. As the CEO of eBay, I can see Whitman using the forcefulness of her personality to get things done her way--eBay was her company. I just can't see Whitman succeeding in forcing the Democratic legislature bending towards her agenda. Instead, we would see four more years of bickering and gridlock. When I look at Meg Whitman's campaign, I see a completely controlled, fully scripted, almost corporate marketing campaign that has spent $100 million to promote its product of Meg Whitman. That is it. Whitman has consistently refused to answer tough press questions on her policy agenda. Meg Whitman has become the Invisible Candidate. Will she also become the Invisible Governor, pushing whatever agenda she has that the California voters have no clue about, since the Corporate Whitman Marketing Campaign has pushed their view of who Governor Whitman is? I can't say.

Hence, we've got this speculation that Meg Whitman will be buying the California legislature to the GOP for a price of $30 million. If the Invisible Candidate becomes the Invisible Governor, and the California legislature switches to the Republicans as a result of Whitman's $130 million-plus investment, then I guess we'll have the best political system that money can buy in California. And the Invisible Governor would have the perfect platform to shove whatever her agenda is, down California's throat. That is scary.

The second thought I have about this story is the Whitman campaign's denial that the Invisible Candidate will actually spend $30 million to the state GOP coffers. Perhaps it is true, and Whitman will not be spending her own money to help state Republican candidates win office. But somehow, I don't believe it. There are a couple of reasons here. First, Whitman has spent over $100 million of her own money in this campaign--and we've got four months to go before the election. Can you say Whitman will spend another $100 million in the general election on negative advertising to defeat Jerry Brown? Because that is all I see on the television now, and I'm expecting it will get even worst as November rolls around. Meg Whitman is spending so much money to influence California politics towards her advantage--what is another $30 million to influence the legislature, if she gets elected? Second, Whitman campaign spokespeople are denying these claims. I want the Invisible Candidate to come out and speak on this issue to reporters. Of course, Meg Whitman will never speak to reporters on any issues. And third, I think there may be a backlash brewing on how much of her money Meg Whitman has spend on her campaign. The more of her money the Invisible Candidate spends of her political campaign, the greater the negative speculation is of Whitman attempting to purchase the governor's office. Perhaps the Whitman campaign doesn't care how much money Meg spends on herself. But if the story of Whitman spending $30 million to help Republican candidates win seats in the legislature has any truth to it, then is Whitman trying to purchase the California government for the Republican Party? I know that Democratic voters would cringe at that thought, but how would independent and non-partisan voters feel about Meg buying a state government for the GOP?

Talk about another scary thought. More to come.

Thoughts on California propositions during the primary

In addition to the primary races for various California political offices, there were a number of propositions on the ballot that were somewhat controversial. And I think I found some interesting trends for those propositions.

First, let me give you a rundown on the propositions:

Proposition 14, Open Primary: Proposition 14 changes the way Californians elect local candidates for state and federal offices. Under Prop. 14, only the top two vote-getters in the primary election will advance to the general election. This is irregardless of political party. So in a particular district, you could see two Republicans advance to the general election of a political office because they received the most votes in a primary election, and there will be no Democrat on the ballot--or visa versa. And since third party candidates rarely beat out Democratic or Republican candidates for offices, you are never going to see such third party candidates running for offices on general election ballots. This open primary does not affect the presidential election. Currently, the primary election advances the top vote-getter from each political party to the general election. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promoted Prop. 14, and have given $1.7 million to support the campaign. Prop. 14 passed with 54 percent of the vote over 45 percent. This is huge. It has turned California politics on its head. Before Prop. 14, elections were between candidates of the two main political parties--the Democrats and Republicans. If you didn't like either of the main party candidates, you could always toss a protest vote towards one of the third party candidates--Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, or the Green Party candidate. But now with Prop. 14, you could have a situation where the top two candidates for a congressional district would go to Democratic candidates in a district which was redrawn to increase the number of Democratic voters in that particular district. Republican voters in that particular district would have no Republican candidate to vote for in the general election for that congressional district. You can reverse the situation for Republican-leaning districts showing two Republican candidates running in the general election, and no Democratic candidates for Democratic voters in the Republican-leaning district. You have severely limited your choices. And third party candidates are completely screwed with this proposition.

I'm not sure how the political parties are going to respond to this proposition. Are the main political parties going back to backroom horse-trading for selecting their candidates for offices, just to make sure they one or both top vote-getters for a district, or office? How are the third parties going to respond to this proposition, since they are on the fringes of votes tallied in elections? Finally, there is this situation where eBay CEO Meg Whitman spent $80 million to win the GOP primary for the governor's office. What if you had two ubber-CEO's, each spending $80 million of their fortunes on negative campaigning, splitting a close vote in a party primary? Who would advance to the general election? Or maybe both ubber-CEOs would gain enough votes so that both would advance to the general election, locking out the candidate from the opposing party? This election has shown just how pervasive money can be in winning primaries with Meg Whitman spending gobs of cash for capturing the GOP nomination. How does Whitman's spending gobs of cash reflect in a primary process that has eviscerated the political parties? I'm not sure I fully understand the consequences in the passage of this proposition.

Proposition 16, Public Electricity Initiative: Proposition 16 was an initiative which required two-thirds voter approval before a local government agency could enter into a retail electricity business. Pacific Gas and Electric spent over $46 million promoting the passage of Prop. 16, calling it "the taxpayers right to vote act." Opponents to Prop. 16 spent around $91,000 against the proposition. Proposition 16 was defeated, 52 percent to 48 percent. Looking at this proposition, I had to ask myself, "Why does PG&E want to spend $46 million protect my right to vote?" Especially in voting for a proposition to protect my right to vote? This was obviously a means for PG&E to protect their monopoly position in the power business by forcing local governments from getting into the power business with an insurmountable two-thirds majority vote. Perhaps California voters realized this, and shot Prop. 14 down.

But there is also more to this ballot initiative. For the past six months, PG&E have been embroiled in a controversy of replacing customers current meters with Smart Meters. Apparently these PG&E Smart Meters have been overcharging customers, generating 1,000 customer complaints to regulators. The smart meter controversy has been a public relations nightmare for PG&E, where the utility company has been facing a consumer revolt against the smart meters, even to the point of lawsuits filed against the PG&E for overcharging customers. What is important to realize here is that PG&E is embroiled in a controversy of overcharging customers with their installation of a shoddy product--the smart meter. Now PG&E is bankrolling a proposition to maintain their monopoly on gas and electricity services with money that we pay into PG&E to purchase their gas and electricity. All to make sure that we will not be given the opportunity to select our local governments to provide gas and electrical service to us, rather than PG&E--I'm not proposing that local governments providing retail power services are better or worst than what PG&E can provide. I'm just showing the ridiculousness of PG&E's position on this initiative.

Still, the ballot initiative was very close to passing--being defeated by four percentage points. PG&E sunk a huge amount of money into Prop. 16, and nearly got away with passing the initiative. Had PG&E not been embroiled into the smart meter controversy, I seriously wonder if the company would have been able to pass the initiative? It is an interesting question to ponder.

Proposition 17, Auto Insurance Initiative: Finally, I want to talk about Proposition 17, the Auto Insurance Initiative. This initiative would allow insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they changed their insurance companies. The initiative would also allow insurance companies to increase premiums to drivers who do not have continuous insurance coverage. Proposition 17 was funded by Mercury Insurance, which contributed $14.6 million to the "Yes on 17" campaign. Proposition 17 failed to pass, with 52 percent of voters saying no, and 48 percent saying yes. What is interesting about this proposition is really the number of consumer complaints in California against Mercury insurance. In June, 2008, Mercury Insurance paid a $250,000 settlement for claims violations against California drivers. The California Department of Insurance conducted a review of consumer complaints filed against Mercury Insurance. A total of 258 violations were discovered from 121 files reviewed over a period from January 2004 through December 2005, ranging from unreasonable delays in affirming or denying insurance coverage, and issuing claim payments to California drivers. In addition, a 275-page report, released in February, 2010, by the Department of Insurance, and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, revealed that Mercury Insurance may have violated numerous California state laws from the mid-1990s to 2004, which included:

-- Flagging some consumers for higher rates if they had been in an accident, even if it was not their fault.

-- Not immediately granting coverage to applicants including military personnel on active duty, "artists," those employed "in the entertainment industry as actors, dancers, etc.," and emergency vehicle drivers.

-- Raising insurance premiums after its sales agents quoted prices for discounts for which the consumer was not eligible. The department said this was the single largest category of complaints it received about the firm.

-- Collecting higher premiums than allowed by law by requiring its brokers to return part of their fees to the company.

-- Requesting information about customers' "national origin," a practice that the department said "could raise questions about the legality of Mercury's personal automobile policy cancellation and non-renewal decisions" under state law. Mercury agreed to block such data after the state investigators raised concerns.

With all the trouble Mercury Insurance has been in with the California Department of Insurance, it is no wonder that Mercury wanted this ballot initiative to pass. It is almost like Prop. 17 would have legalized Mercury's deceptive practices against California drivers, leaving them with no recourse. But this brings up a problem for Mercury Insurance--they spent over $14 million to pass Proposition 17. Mercury Insurance was tied to Proposition 17. And all the talk that the Yes on 17 campaign tried to present the proposition as a benefit to California consumers, the campaign was bankrolled by a private insurance company. When has a private insurance company ever presented a law or ballot issue that would actually benefit consumers over that insurance company's self-interest?

This brings up an interesting contradiction on the influence of money in political campaigns. For individual candidates, we've seen how plowing huge amounts of their own money into their political campaigns could allow them to win the primaries--see Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. Even Steve Poizner plowed over $24 million into his campaign for the GOP nomination for California governor, only to be outspent by Meg Whitman's $71 million--and Meg Whitman won. Had Whitman not entered the race, Poizner may have gotten the GOP nomination with his $24 million bankroll. It is like, if individual candidates are willing to spend enough money, they could possibly win nominations to California public offices. Now look at the corporations funding ballot initiatives--specifically PG&E's $46 million funding for Prop. 16, and Mercury Insurance's $14 million for Prop. 17 initiative. Both propositions failed by four percentage points. Are California voters smart enough, or suspicious enough, to suspect ulterior motives that corporations may have in funding propositions, but ignore such ulterior motives that private individuals may have in spending huge amounts of their own personal fortunes for political offices, or their own political gain? It is a strange contradiction.

Post California primary election thoughts

It is midterm election year, and yesterday was the Election Day for the California primary race. While I have been rather busy taking Digital Media classes at West Valley Community College, I've been keeping my eyes on the races taking place here. And I've been thinking about the races as well.

For the past five months, the attention has been focused on two big California races here--both Republican races. The first race has been for the Republican nomination to the California governor's office, pitting former eBay CEO Meg Whitman against California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. Whitman announced her candidacy for the governor's office back in September, 2009, and has spent $81 million on the primary election--much of it on slick campaign ads attacking Poizner as being a liberal politician. What is even more interesting is that Whitman has completely avoided talking to reporters, even to the point of calling a press conference, before ejecting reporters out of the conference. Instead, what we get is Meg "The Invisible Candidate" Whitman, who is only interested in promising the sun, sky, and moon on campaign commercials, or appearing on "town hall" infomercials that are nothing more than extended campaign commercials for The Invisible Candidate. Oh, and let us not forget that The Invisible Candidate never voted in elections for decades, even as she was eBay's CEO. Most of this is old political news, but it is interesting that Whitman was able to survive these scandals, and still beat Poizner 65 percent to 26 percent. I should also say that while Whitman spent almost $71 million of her own money on her campaign, Poizner spent $24 million of his own money on his campaign. In other words, we had an over $100 million primary campaign by ubber-rich candidates. And the candidate who spent the most of their own money--Whitman--won the primary. In fact, this was not a GOP primary election--it was a GOP party auction as to who would be selected to purchase the California governor's mansion in November. And The Invisible Candidate Meg Whitman is on her way towards purchasing the California governorship.

She just has to beat Democratic candidate Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The second big Republican primary race was with the U.S. Senate, where Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina defeated former congressman Tom Campbell for a shot at taking on Senator Barbara Boxer in November. This race kind of stayed in the shadows, considering the deluge of Whitman campaign negative ads against Poizner for the past six months. Fiorina has spent around $6.7 million of her own cash on the campaign. Interestingly, according to this ABC News story, Fiorina outspent both Campbell's $1.7 million, and Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's $2.1 million to come out ahead with more than 55 percent of the vote.

What does this all mean? We've heard that money can buy political access, but I've never seen the extent of money influencing elections as I have with this race. Meg Whitman spent $71 million of her own money to defeat Steve Poizner, who spent $24 million of his own money, for the GOP governor's primary. This is an extreme example of ubber-elites spending gobs of money to...buy the governor's mansion? Why is Meg Whitman spending $71 million for an office that pays only $212,000 a year? Somehow Meg's responses of "serving the people," or "cleaning up the corruption" in Sacramento seems like bull crap. Of course it is even more ironic that Whitman, who touts her business credentials as a positive for cleaning up Sacramento politics, is running for an office that is currently held by another GOP businessman who also touted his business credentials for cleaning up Sacramento politics--and look where his poll numbers are. Why is Meg spending so much of her own money to buy the California governorship?

While Carly Fiorina may not have spent the obscene amounts of money that both Whitman and Poizner spent for their races, she still outspent both Campbell and DeVore by 3x for the U.S. Senate primary race. And Fiorina was fired from Hewlett Packard with a $21 million severance package. Why is Carly spending so much of her own money to buy a U.S. Senate seat?

So very troubling.

USA Today poll--Americans have 9-point favorable view of health care reform

It has been a while since I've talked about public opinion polls, but I do find this poll very interesting. This may be the first poll I've seen taken after the health care reform bill passed Congress, and was signed by President Obama today. It is certainly not going to be the last poll on this issue. From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

Remember that the Republicans have consistently reiterated that the American people are against the health care reform bill. Now that the bill has passed, this first poll is showing that Americans are starting to warm up to health care reform. All that GOP fear-mongering over health care, and their incessant rhetoric that the American people are against health care has become baseless. Now with President Obama going into campaign mode to sell this health care law, I have to wonder what direction the next polls will be taking as Americans digest the specifics of this law?

The USA Today poll shows that President Obama job standing is at 46 percent excellent or good, while 31 percent call it poor. Congressional Democrats job standing are split at 32 percent good and 33 percent poor. The job standing for congressional Republicans on health care is 26 percent excellent or good, while 34 percent say it has been poor. More Americans apparently disapprove of the Republican job standing than approve. My guess is that Americans did not like the negative rhetoric, fear-mongering, obstructionism and hatred that has been spewed by the Republicans and the hard-lined conservative activists during this health care debate. Now it is starting to show.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly makes a brilliant analysis here:

This is the Republican nightmare coming to fruition -- the country gets a better system, Democrats get a victory, the president looks like a hero, and the country is pleased with the results.

It's not too late for Republicans to reconsider that "repeal" strategy, if only the party's unhinged base would let them.

The Republicans have certainly boxed themselves into a corner here. Moderating their strategy of working with the Democrats will anger their crazed, "unhinged base," that they've courted. Whatever moderates that are left in the GOP would also earn the wrath of Fox News and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. So the Republicans continue to pander to the extremist votes. This will certainly alienate the moderates, non-partisans and independents, but will they continue supporting the Democrats this November? Especially now that health care reform has passed? I'm tempted to say yes, but it may be a close vote with the GOP pulling every dirty campaign trick and negative ads to use against the Democrats.

Sarah Palin in the news again--This time she supports creation of a third party

Seems like Sarah Palin is getting some more media attention again. This is from Think Progress:

For months, Republicans have been trying to co-opt the tea party movement, supporting its activities and pandering to activists while discouraging them from forming a third party. RNC Chairman Michael Steele met with tea party leaders in January to encourage them to join the GOP, while Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) warned the movement not to “fractionalize the Republican Party.” Even tea party favorites like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) have come out against an official tea party, saying that he wants to “avoid a third party by giving Republicans and independents good choices in Republican primaries.”

But appearing on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show last night, contributor Sarah Palin had surprising take, seemingly endorsing the idea of third party to keep Republicans honest:

HANNITY: If it’s a strong conservative that gets the Republican nomination and then a tea party member runs as a third party candidate, do you have any worry about that?

PALIN: I do have a little bit of worry about that but at the same time that can be part of a healthy process, though. A third party candidate can really shore-up a Republican candidate in terms of that Republican candidate having to be very strong and sharp and debate aggressively, regarding the positions that they have taken.

A third party candidate, I think, Sean, can actually help in this process. And if nothing else a third party candidate is going to help keep the Republican Party being held accountable, too.

Here is the video of the Hannity/Palin exchange. From YouTube:



The Think Progress article continues:

Palin’s comments are particularly surprising considering that, in February, she told activists that “the Tea Party movement is not a party” and that they are “going to have to pick a party.” And on Hannity last month, she urged tea party activists to “take over” the GOP in lieu of starting their own party.

Moreover, Palin’s comments seem to contradict the will of the tea party movement. Tea party activists in Florida and Nevada have registered official political parties, but both have met fierce resistance from the grass roots. Twenty tea party groups came out “united in denouncing” the Nevada Tea Party, saying, it “is not now, has never been, and will never be affiliated with grassroots efforts in Nevada.” A Tax Day, Tea Party poll found that 94 percent of respondents believed the third party candidate should withdraw from the race.

I will not go into Sarah Palin's hypocrisy, where she first stated the Tea Party activists that they are not a political party, or when she told them to take over the GOP, whereas now Palin is urging the Tea Party to select their own third-party candidate. The hypocrisy is obvious here. The only thing I have to say here is what the frack is Sarah Palin talking about? A third party Tea Party candidate running against both a Republican and Democratic candidate? I look at the Tea Party movement as an activist conservative movement. It may have first been an activist movement against both parties, but the Tea Party movement gained support through favorable reports by Fox News, and was courted by GOP congressmen. The Tea Party is a conservative movement, whether the Republicans like it or not. Third "Tea Party" candidates will divide the Republican base in elections. Even Mitt Romney warned the Tea Party to not run third party candidates, saying such candidates would divide the GOP, and "That would hand over the country to [President] Barack Obama and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, and that would be very sad indeed.” Romney is correct--third party Tea Party candidates would divide the GOP, giving the Democrats better chances of winning seats--whether it is in this election or the 2012 presidential election. With the Republican Party being the Party of No, and obstructionism, I wonder how many moderates and independents are willing to vote for GOP candidates after listening to some of the threats, rancor, and fear-mongering that came from the right--especially after what went on during the debate on health care reform? This midterm election will probably be even more dirty, filthy, and rancorous from the hard-lined right.

There is another point that Sarah Palin made on how a third party candidate "can really shore-up a Republican candidate," and keeping the Republican Party to being held "accountable." Excuse me, Mrs. Palin, how is it that the Republican Party is not being held accountable to its own extremist positions? Look at the House vote on health care reform from two days ago--not a single Republican voted for the health care bill. The Republicans have been marching lockstep in opposition to just about every Democratic legislative agenda. There are almost no Republican moderates in Congress. Republicans being held accountable by third party candidates? It is nonsense.

Then again, maybe Sarah Palin is positioning herself to be the Tea Party presidential candidate for 2012. Maybe the political savvy of Sarah Palin has realized that the Republican Party will completely implode on itself, disappearing from history forever. The new conservative party movement that will replace the Grand Old Party will be the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin wants to be its new leader--fighting her way to replace Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

Of course, that will only happen when pigs fly....

House passes health care reform, Obama to sign.

I've been busy with a number of things, but I've been watching the events taking place on the health care debate. After the Senate passed the health care reform bill in December, the bill went into a torturous reconciliation process, where a number of House Democrats did not like the Senate version of the bill. There was a lot of back-and-forth going on between the two chambers, topped with Republican congress-critters tossing threats and temper tantrums at the Democrats for trying to reconcile the two bills. Even President Barack Obama canceled his East Asian trip to perform some last-minute arm twisting on House Democrats to vote for the health reform package.

So today was the big day for the House to debate and approve the Senate version of the health care reform bill.

The House approved the Senate's health care reform bill 219-212. From ABC News:

The House of Representatives passed the sweeping health care bill with a narrow margin, securing a significant victory for President Obama, who lobbied hard this week for the controversial legislation.

The vote was certain after the House Democratic leadership finalized a deal this afternoon with anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the health care bill in exchange for an executive order from Obama affirming no federal funding for abortion.

The House today voted on two separate pieces of legislation. One, the Senate health care bill and second, the amendments to that bill made by House members and Obama.

The bill now goes to the president's desk to sign, after which it will become law. The White House has not yet decided where or when Obama will sign the Senate health care bill, which he needs to do before the "fixes" to that bill begin to be debated in the Senate, though White House officials say it will not be this evening.

As the last speaker before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that by passing the bill, Congress would be taking a historic step.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," Pelosi said.

The bill still has to go back to the Senate for approval of reconciliation "fixes" that House Democrats have proposed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the House, Saturday, that he has the 51 majority vote needed to pass the fixes, with the Senate expected to pick up the bill on Tuesday. Health care reform will be law.

Watching this debate unfold, what really interested me here is a couple of factors. The big factor has been the Republican response to the entire health care debate. The GOP never wanted any such health care reform passed--be it a Democratic health care reform or a Republican health care reform. In fact, I don't think the Republicans had a health care reform package they could sell to the American public. They never bothered taking up the mantle of health care reform, at least since President Richard Nixon looked at reforming a national health insurance plan for Americans. The GOP and the health insurance industry completely shot down President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1994. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress under George W. Bush, they never bothered looking at health care, with the exception of passing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. But the prescription drug act is not passing a comprehensive health care bill for all Americans, but rather overhauling Medicare to provide prescription drugs to its recipients. But when you get Blue Cross raising health insurance premiums to its customers by 39 percent this month, and around 45 million Americans are uninsured, the Republicans have turned a blind eye to this growing problem. For the past two years, the GOP refused to join the Democrats in a bipartisan attempt to reform health care, using obstructionism, threats, lies, and deceit as a means to kill health care reform--Death panels anyone? The Republicans thought that by playing the obstructionist game, then Americans would suffer so much under a crushing health care system, job losses, a recessionary economy, and all sorts of other problems, that they would vote the Democrats out of Congress, and bring the Republicans back into the majority. Then the Republicans could play even more obstructionism against President Obama until 2012, when Sarah Palin will be elected into the Oval Office? So the Republicans were united in opposing health care reform. The vote even shows such opposition, since not one Republican House member voted for the health reform bill tonight.

That has all changed. Republican obstructionism failed. It brings me to a second factor in that the passage of this health care bill was a victory that President Obama really needed to re-energize his presidential agenda. Health care reform was a major Obama campaign promise during the 2008 presidential election. When President Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he tried to fulfill his promise of health care reform, but made some serious mistakes. The first mistake Obama made was that he never took the bully pulpit and tell Congress, "This is what I want from health care reform. Here are my proposals, now let us work together in creating real reform." I got the impression that Obama administration took a hands off approach to health care reform, instead saying, "Okay Congress, pass some health care legislation so I can sign it." Talk about a near recipe for disaster. Both congressional houses passed their own versions of health care reform bill which neither house liked the other chamber's bill. I am actually amazed at how close the bill passed tonight. The second mistake the Obama administration made in health care was really allowing the Republicans to control the message on health care for the past couple of years. Think about it--what do you remember of the message on health care reform? I remember death panels, Obamacare killing grandma, Obamacare reducing your Medicare benefits, Obamacare raising taxes, and Obamacare. I remember Tea Party protests, town hall disruptions organized by conservative groups, and even health insurance industry urging their employees to attend protest groups against health care reform. Looking back at the debate in 2009, it seemed like the message pounded into the American public was that health care reform was a terrible bill--look at all these Americans who are afraid of the evils of health care reform. Health care reform should be stopped. That was the message, brought to you by the Republican Party. I never heard much from the Obama administration to counter the Republican spin on health care. And yet, I look at the polls on the health care debate, Americans are split on whether they approve or disapprove of health care reform--it actually depends on how the question is phrased to shift Americans' opinions for either approval or disapproval on the issue. So President Obama lost the message on health care reform to the Republicans. That should have been enough to kill the issue, but it didn't.

Health care reform passed. I think in the last three months, President Obama and the Democrats woke up to the possibility that this reform bill will not pass. The turning point may have been when Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown won a huge victory over Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat in late January. Republicans thought that this was the American voters' repudiation of President Obama, and the congressional Democrats, agenda. I think it is a voter's anger over incumbents--both Democrat and Republican. Either way, this was a wake-up call for both President Obama and the Democrats. They needed to pass health care soon, and show a major legislative achievement for the Democrats, and a political victory for President Obama. President Obama needed to show the American people that he could deliver a campaign promise--especially during a troubled economic time, where Americans are worried about their jobs, their financial situation, the housing crisis, and the health care crisis.

Not only that, but 2010 is a midterm election year, where the president's party usually loses seats. If the health care reform debate was dragged out into the late summer/early fall, the Republicans would use health care in attack ads against Democrats in conservative-leaning states and districts. Those Democratic lawmakers would be more worried about their jobs, rather than about passing legislation. Health care would never have passed. And if the Republicans did take control of at least one house, we'll say the Senate, then the GOP majority leadership would simply throw the health care reform bill in the trash. Of course, the Republicans will obviously use this passage of health care reform in attack ads against the Democrats, but President Obama can also tell American voters that he fulfilled his campaign promise to deliver health care reform. This is huge. If President Obama failed at passing health care reform, I think it would have emboldened the Republicans, and conservative constituents, into greater attacks against the Democrats, and the president, for control of Congress. Such emboldened conservative constituents may have gone out of their way to vote Republican candidates in. The Democrats failure at passing health care reform would have also angered their liberal constituents. Would liberal Democrats have gone out of their way to vote for Democratic candidates that failed to deliver on health care reform? I'm sure there are plenty of liberal activists that are speculating on whether to replace those Democratic House members that have voted against the health care reform bill.

Finally, there is President Obama. This could have been a huge failure for the President, who was elected into office on a campaign promise of hope and change. Americans wanted change. If President Obama failed to pressure the Democrats into passing health care reform, he would have been seen by Americans as a president who could not deliver on his campaign promise of hope and change. President Obama would certainly have been a lame duck in the final two years of his first term in office--especially if an emboldened GOP gained control of the Senate. But now, the midterm elections have been changed. President Obama can sell his health care campaign promise to the American voters. The Democrats can attack the Republicans as being against providing affordable health care to Americans. The Republicans can still still play obstructionism and use fear attacks against the president and the Democrats on health care, however, I think the fear factor will be greatly diminished against the moderates and independents (the hard-lined conservatives will still believe in Obamacare's death panels).

This midterm election will still be about the issue of health care. But now the focus will shift to what will this new health care law do for the American voter? Instead of fear-mongering, the issue will be on legal specifics of this law. I think that will be more difficult for Republicans to raise with their fear-mongering, which they will still engage in. Finally, this huge hurdle is over for the Democrats and President Obama--they can now concentrate on other issues, such as financial reform, or jobs. President Obama and the congressional Democrats can work on passing more legislation, against Republican obstructionism, that they can also sell to the American voters. With the health care reform bill passed, American voters can now decide if this is the direction that they want to see their country heading towards, and vote accordingly. This is a whole new midterm election.

Can you spot the Republican hypocrisy here?

I found this interesting story through the Washington Monthly, which was tracked back to Max Blumenthal. It is basically a political campaign commercial that Sue Lowden is airing for her bid as the leading Republican candidate for the Senate seat in Nevada. Can you spot the Republican hypocrisy? Here is the video:



And here is the script:

As a mom I know one-size-fits-all clothes don't fit, aren't comfortable and are seldom a bargain. So why does Harry Reid want to force one-size-fits-all government health care on us? Harry Reid thinks Washington knows best, but I think we the people know best. Harry Reid's big government health care plan will raise taxes, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, weaken Medicare, kill jobs, push us further into debt. I'm Sue Lowden and I approve this message because government run health care is wrong.

Give up? Here is a hint from the U.S. Social Security website:

Medicare is our country’s health insurance program for people age 65 or older. Certain people younger than age 65 can qualify for Medicare, too, including those who have disabilities and those who have permanent kidney failure or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease). The program helps with the cost of health care, but it does not cover all medical expenses or the cost of most long-term care.

Medicare is financed by a portion of the payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers. It also is financed in part by monthly premiums deducted from Social Security checks.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is the agency in charge of the Medicare program. But you apply for Medicare at Social Security, and we can give you general information about the Medicare program.

Medicare has four parts

* Hospital insurance (Part A) that helps pay for inpatient care in a hospital or skilled nursing facility (following a hospital stay), some home health care and hospice care.

*Medical insurance (Part B) that helps pay for doctors’ services and many other medical services and supplies that are not covered by hospital insurance.

*Medicare Advantage (Part C) plans are available in many areas. People with Medicare Parts A and B can choose to receive all of their health care services through one of these provider organizations under Part C.

* Prescription drug coverage (Part D) that helps pay for medications doctors prescribe for treatment.

You can get more detailed information about what Medicare covers from Medicare & You (Publication No. CMS-10050). To get a copy, call the Medicare toll-free number, 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227), or go to www.medicare.gov. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you may call TTY 1-877-486-2048.

Seems to me like Medicare is a big, government-run health care organization--something that Sue Lowden obviously believes is wrong. Does that mean that Lowden should also dismantle Medicare, since she obviously believes that big, government health care plans will raise taxes, place bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors, kill jobs, place us further into debt and weaken Medicare? Does any of what Sue Lowden is talking about here makes sense?

Apparently not.

Oregon voters approve measures to tax the rich

I wrote this post on Oregon voters were considering a couple of measures to tax the rich a couple of days ago. Well, the votes are in. This is from the Oregon Live.com, via Americablog:

Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.

The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits.

The results triggered waves of relief from educators and legislative leaders, who were facing an estimated $727 million shortfall in the current two-year budget if the measures failed.

"We're absolutely ecstatic," said Hanna Vandering, a physical education teacher from Beaverton and vice president of the statewide teachers union. "What Oregonians said today is they believe in public education and vital services."

The double-barreled victory is the first voter-approved statewide income tax increase since the 1930s. Other states, facing similar budget woes, are watching the outcome closely because Oregon, after all, is a state that capped property taxes and locked a surplus tax rebate program into the constitution.

I'm still thinking that the Oregon measures are the result of some serious populist anger against the established interests. I think these voters are getting angry over the unfairness, corruption, cronyism that is taking place between corporate interests, politicians, government, Wall Street, the ubber-rich--list your points here. It is a general, growing, anger at the direction this country is heading, and at how the voters feel like they're getting screwed on Main Street. And this anger is on both sides of the political spectrum--look at the Tea Party movement that could be threatening to push the Republican Party even further rightward. It is fascinating to watch.

Going back to the Americablog posting, there is an interesting political context link from MyDD's Jonathan Singer:

After the Beltway elite read the results of the special Senate election in Massachusetts last week as an indication of conservatism on the rise, Oregon voters clarified the message: It's not conservatism, but rather populism that is on the rise.

[....]

The message out of Oregon, like the message out of Massachusetts, is resonating: Voters are in a populist mood right now -- not an anti-government one, necessarily, but a populist one nevertheless. The progressive brand of populism that resonated with Oregonians this month is slightly different than the one that rang true in Massachusetts. Yet the message is just as clear.

The real question now is whether DC will listen, or if instead it will continue to cling to its common wisdom.

Singer calls it populism, which is probably a better term than my voter anger. Still, the message is clear--voters do not like what is going on in government. And they're willing to knock out Democrats or Republicans that are unwilling to listen to their demands.

Oregon voters consider taxing the rich

I'm not sure what to say about this Los Angeles Times story:

In mail-in voting that ends today, Oregon is considering measures to raise taxes on households earning $250,000 or more and on individuals earning at least $125,000, as well as hike corporate taxes. About 39,000 of the state's 1.5 million taxpayers would be subject to the higher tax, and some big companies could see their annual bills go from $10 to $100,000.

The success or failure of Measures 66 and 67 will be a concrete test -- one of the few in the country this year -- of how willing voters are to accept tax increases targeted at those theoretically best equipped to pay them.

The LA Times article reports that polls are showing both measures are ahead, although the gap is tightening. A New York Times article reveals that the referendums could raise around $727 million in tax and fee increases. What is more, the Oregon legislature "has essentially already spent the $727 million in projected revenue by incorporating the anticipated tax increases into the current budget. If the measures fail, lawmakers will have to make new cuts or find another way to raise revenue." The Oregon legislature is betting that the tax measures will pass, and are staking it with more IOUs.

Then again, are we seeing an upsurge in populist anger against big corporations, the ubber-rich, or even the political establishment? For the past couple years of this recession, we've seen the government spend billions bailing out the big banks with taxpayer money. At the same time, the same bank CEOs were collecting huge multi-million bonuses as their banks were going down the toilet and were collecting TARP taxpayer money to keep the banks afloat since they were "too big to fail." While the bank CEOs were collecting their multi-million bonuses, ordinary Americans were losing jobs as the unemployment rate spiked to over 10 percent. It is not hard to imagine how this populist anger can explode during this election year--look at the special election in Massachusetts. The more I've read on that election, the more I'm thinking Republican Scott Brown's upset win over Democrat Martha Coakley is really another sign of voter anger against...whatever? List what you're angry about--be it the Obama administration, health care, the economy, jobs, bank bailouts, bank CEO bonuses, Republican obstructionism. The list can go on. What is important for this 2010 election is that any politician that can tap into this voter anger, can possibly ride it to victory. I think that the voters are angry at the direction that this country is heading to. But this is simply not an anger directed against President Obama or the Democrats, but possibly also against the Republicans and corporate interests. It is a fluid anger that can be tough to pin down. If the situation in this country doesn't change in the next several months, that anger will flare up. The 2010 election is certainly off to an interesting start.