Obama - the fiscally responsible president

There has been a lot of coverage lately on the Internet and in the news in general about statistics provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office and Haver Analytics.  The data shows clearly that Barack Obama has been a fiscally responsible president.  The annualized growth of federal spending has been reduced to just 1.4% during the Obama Administration compared to 8.1% during Bush II's second administration. (click here) .

Needless to say, there has been a lot of push back from conservative bloggers and Republicans in general.  We all know that statistics can sometimes play with the truth.  If we want to prove something, just turn to statistics.  The funny thing here is that this information comes to us from non-partisan sources.  In reality, the slow pace of Federal spending is hurting economic recovery.  Paul Krugman has been a critic of Obama from time to time because of his fiscal restraint.  We all know that Congressional obstruction is behind the slow economy.  If you don't know that by now, you live in a bubble!

Barack Obama's plan to increase Federal revenues through a modest tax increase on the wealthiest Americans is a step towards fiscal sustainability.  Republicans are blind to the fact that government needs to pay for wars, fix infrastructure, protect our environment and improve the lives of everyone by raising revenue judiciously. Republicans and the wealthiest Americans used to be true patriots.  They are not anymore.  There seems to be no sense of responsibility to this country when it comes to paying for the freedoms we all enjoy.  I guess that includes the freedom to hide your money is Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands-Mitt Romney.

As for those that feel violated by the facts displayed in this government report, I'm sure you will read your conservative blogs and find lying vindication.  I suggest however that you turn to the Politifact analysis of the debate where you will learn that Obama has slowed the growth of Federal spending more than any president in the past 60 years.  Politifact rates the Obama spending story as mostly true.

If you want your government to be fiscally responsible, the chart demonstrates the need to elect Democrats.

tomtoak

Does Mitt Romney have any core values?

We all need to be concerned about candidates that don't take the time to get facts right. What happens when the office holder is making decisions on bad information? Need I say Iraq! Take for instance last night's news where Mitt Romney claimed the shooter in Colorado got his weapons illegally.  Where is he getting his information from?  Maybe Sarah Palin's newspapers - oh; that's right, Sarah doesn't read newspapers.

Stories like this beg the question, does Willard Romney have any core values?  We all know that dogs don't like him.  I need to ask the following question; Which candidate in America has, during their political career, both supported and opposed abortion, "Don't ask don't tell",  assault weapons bans, LGBTQ equality, anti-tax pledges, stem cell research, campaign finance reform, raising the minimum wage, belief in global warming, limiting carbon emissions, Bush tax cuts, pathways to citizenship, capital gains tax, TARP bailouts, automotive company bailouts and the list goes on and on?  There is only one candidate to fit this description and that is Mitt Romney.

It seems to me that Mitt just can't settle on a political philosophy and is willing to say just about anything at any time.  Above all, our President needs to be a leader. An individual that seems to lack a set of core values should not be seeking the highest office in the land.  I respect politicians that can take guidance and change their mind from time to time.  This trait is a good thing; however, in Romney's case it is clear that his mind changes with the political wind.  Sarah Palin may be out there, but there is no confusion about her political view. 

I don't think there is confusion over Barack Obama's political views.  While I want him to step up to the plate at times, it is clear that he believes in a prudent approach to governing.  Why fight the fight when the votes are missing in Congress? 

I measure people by the strength in their beliefs.  I like both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals.  I would not have a clue how to carry on a conversation with Mitt Romney and I'm confident that voters are shaking their heads too.

tomtoak

Republicans are killing democracy

OK: I admit, that is a pretty strong statement in the title of this post. With the recent Supreme Court decision that treats corporations as individuals, moneyed interests will buy the future and buy the votes. It is so hard for me to believe that 48% of Republicans are Republican. Walk into any trailer park and I'll bet you will find significant majorities voting Republican. Why? I understand the top 2% of the Republican party voting Republican, but don't tea party folks realize that the Republican leadership wants to strip them of social security and their medicare benefits.

For you middle class Republicans, you have to realize that it is the Democrats that have fought for better lives for all citizens. The private sector has some great people providing jobs throughout this country (people of both parties), but in the end, every American needs to be worried about their future. Social Security and Medicare are easily fixed by raising taxes only slightly on the rich in this nation. Hell - During the Eisenhower administration, citizens making over $1 million per year were taxed at a 91% rate. World War II had to be paid for. All Obama is asking is for the wealthiest in our society to pay 39% instead of 36% of income (Clinton level taxation). Bush pushed the tax cuts for the middle class and the rich but this long ugly experiment simply has failed. Government needs to raise revenue just like any business. Our wars need to be paid for and with the wealthiest calling the shots, they need to pony up.

I would ask Republicans to join "Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength" and I would also urge everyone to read "Bush era tax cuts the largest contributor to the public debt."

I could never be more eloquent on this issue than a former Supreme Court Justice:

"We can have democracy..... or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both". Justice Louis D. Brandeis

With the current Republican intransigence, I ask you; are Republicans killing democracy?

tomtoak

Election 2012: What will it look like?

Palin, Bachmann, Huckabee, Romney - Pawlenty, Barbour, Paul or Trump - who will win Republican minds, radio radicals and tea party butts? OK; sorry for the funky posing of the question, but I feel that it is time for me to make a few predictions before the s--t hits the fan. Noticeably absent from the list of Republican hopefuls is a name we all know; Bush! I do not think that Jeb Bush is stupid enough to enter the fray in 2012, even if they wanted to draft him. Jeb bush is waiting for 2016.

I have made a few predictions in this column and they have been accurate to date. I predicted that Sarah Palin would get a job with Fox news but that would be the extent of her career. Since she quit as Governor of Alaska, I have no reason to back off of that prediction. Even many Republicans hate her - she stands no chance! She did take a job with Fox news: I'm not looking bad at this point. If you study these pages, you saw that I urged people to buy stock in Ford Motors when the price was at approximately $2.00 per share. Check the ticker; you would be rich if you had listened to me.

Now I'm going to put my "Nostradamus" hat on and make a few predictions. Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. He will have tremendous problems getting the nomination; but look at the field - my God - there is no crystal ball here. The big question is who will be his nominee for Vice-President. This is where things get real complicated, but not for the reasons you might perceive.

In the final analysis, I see the Republican Vice-Presidential choice coming down to a toss-up between Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi and Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. My prediction is Haley Barbour because of all of his connections to the oil money. Money always "trumps" ideology. Sorry Donald; you already went bankrupt once and screwed a lot of people in the process.

Why Haley Barbour as Vice-President? Romney lacks no credibility with the evangelical right in this country and his Mormon faith will drag him down. Romney will need to address this problem with his pick. As I see it; he has two choices, Huckabee or Barbour. Neither of these guys can light a fire in the Democratic states. Barbour will be detestable to the Democratic voters but they won't care. Huckabee would have a greater ability to pull in the independent voter and the evangelical right, but only in the states the Republicans are going to lose anyway. This raises Haley Barbour to the surface because Republicans need to win states like North Carolina and Florida. Barbour will be strong with the evangelical voters but more importantly, he will bring in money. Scads and scads of money from the oil companies that will continue to bleed the middle class until we are all walking the streets!

What about the Democrats? Do you really think that the ticket is going to be Obama/Biden. That worked once, but maybe, just maybe, the ticket to success will be changing the ticket. I don't think this is a long shot, but how about an Obama/Clinton ticket? That's Hillary Clinton! Obama is going to need to infuse some excitement after his middle of the road first term.

So here is my early prediction: Obama/Clinton vs Romney/Barbour. I would not throw Joe Biden out the door. Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State are positions that come to mind for Joe Biden that has served his country well.

OK; I've laid it on the line early on. Let's see what happens. By the way; if Romney and Barbour win, the Mayan's were right!

tomtoak

A Few Thoughts to Ponder!

Where the hell is T Boone Pickens when you need him?

Those readers outside of Rhode Island are probably not aware of the antics of the RI Commissioner of Education, Deborah Gist, even though she was named by Time Magazine as one of the top 100 influential people. She supported the firing of the staff of Central Falls High School because of poor classroom performance. She needed to make a name for herself so why not cause a national incident? Obama should be ashamed of himself for supporting the decision. It's not that change is required, its just that a Central Falls diploma is now downgraded by every college in this nation because of the negative publicity. Talk about a disservice to the students!!! Well, our little Republican Commissioner is smiling broadly at her new found fame and saw that it was necessary to pay a speech writer $10,000 to prepare her 15 minute speech to the RI legislature. Now that's Republican thinking. Please; anyone that is listening, I will write your speech for $5000!!!

The problem with the military's position on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that it really eliminates the possibility of future drafts during national emergencies. Anyone could easily avoid the draft by simply saying; "I'm Gay"!!!

They have finally done it in Rhode Island! Our Governor Donald Carcieri has been trying for 8 years to lower or eliminate taxes for the wealthiest citizens. The top taxation rate has been reduced from around 9% down to around 5%. What this means is that all of the middle class citizens in this state will be paying the bills for years to come while the millionaires reduce their taxes by thousands each year. Further, Carcieri's reductions in community support will cause the middle class to pay higher property taxes. I'm smart enough to see the stupidity. Unfortunately, all of the radio talking heads and a lot of the middle class are just too dumb to understand. When their taxes skyrocket, they will blame Obama. Of course the RI Democrats played right along so I have to lay the blame squarely in their lap. The Democrats had the numbers to say "no"!! The Democrats are just greedy little fools; those in power are very well off!

For all of you Republican libertarians out there that hate big government; did you see Orin Hatch's latest proposal? Mr Republican wants to keep government off of your back so now if you are unemployed, he wants to drug test you. Now that's what I call "freedom and liberty"!!! How about "justice for all"!!!!!!

I enjoyed the Democratic reception a few weeks ago here in RI for Governor Tim Kaine from Virginia who is the national Democratic Party Chair. He does know a little about forestry as I spoke to him about forestry in his state.

I helped Linc Chafee move his office from Pawtucket to Warwick a week ago Friday. I had a great time and I like the way he goes about getting a job done. Deborah Gist would have put out a contract and paid $50,000 for the move.

Don't forget; I'll write your speech for you - $5000 for 15 minutes if you are a Democrat - $10,000 if you are a Republican. Come on Republicans, you will really enjoy my speech

Keep smiling if you think the Republicans are on your side.

tomtoak

Political Disaster in Massachusetts

Yes; Massachusetts was a political disaster. The ground literally shook throughout the state as Ted Kennedy's seat fell to the Republicans. Was this a case of the Republicans being smart or was this a case of the Democrats being dumb. I think I chose the latter.

While the Republicans gloat and the Democrats point fingers, both parties are demonstrating how incredibly dumb they really are. First, the Democrats. I have never seen such arrogance and ignorance displayed in a campaign as was displayed in this case. Martha Coakley was not only a bad campaigner, but her lack of instinct has to be legendary. At least Sarah Palin has some political instinct. To arrogantly state that she should not have to stand out in the cold at Fenway Park, shake hands and ask folks for their votes cost her the election. That stupidity not only cost her hundreds of thousands of votes, it caused large groups of minorities to lose the will to vote. Coakley lost this election because she simply could not turn out her base. Frankly, I'm surprised that the election was as close is it was.

Now to the Republicans (Please note that this section has been changed from its original posting because of the correct comments from a frequent reader)! Republicans will have to work long and hard to start to chip away at minority voters. You can't begin to do that by defeating health care. Four years from now when there has been little or no change, Democrats will be able to lay blame on the opposing party. Western Massachusetts was totally blue in this election for Coakley. There have been many elections in the past when this rural territory looked red. Western Massachusetts supported William Weld and Paul Celluci but was not warm to Mitt Romney. Many communities in this part of the state voted over 70% for Coakley and gave little consideration to Brown.

This election told me that voters are mad and apathetic. The Democrats were largely apathetic while the Republicans are just plain mad. The anger is aimed at both parties and the election was not a positive step forward for anyone.

If Scott Brown wants to make a real impact in politics into the future, he should negotiate with Democrats and not join the party of "No". Scott Brown should start the party of "Know". People want significant change to health care in this country and if Brown provides the roadblock, he will pay for it.

tomtoak

The Health Care Public Option is Needed!

Ask yourself why the insurance companies are all fighting so hard to eliminate any chance of a public option? Why? Why? Dah! The insurance companies don't want the competition because the public option would blow them out of the water. Yes, Government can do it cheaper simply because there are no government employees expecting $25 million bonuses this year. It is a common misconception that government is always inefficient or more expensive.

I'll go back to my Postal Service example. When my son was living in Eastern Europe, I tried to mail a $50 package to him. He suggested using FedEx. The local FedEx office wanted $375 to send the package. I told them the package did not need a personal escort and left. The U.S. postal service took the package and I paid $42. The package arrived safe and sound. I immediately thought of all our citizens trying to mail care packages to Iran and Afghanistan. The U.S. Postal service is efficient and gets the job done for the lower cost.

When my son moved to Massachusetts from Rhode Island he moved from a semi-rural town to Cambridge, Mass. His auto insurance went down hundreds of dollars. Why? How could this be? Simple; the state of Massachusetts regulates the insurance companies (the few that agree to write insurance there) and the companies are held accountable. In Rhode Island, it's free market all of the way, and boy do we pay for it. Another side note: in Massachusetts the insurance companies are required to pay for any broken windshield. Not in Rhode Island, I've had to replace 3 because of our shitty roads.

Massachusetts, affectionately called Taxachusetts by the people that hate government is now projected to be leading the way out of the current recession. Many indicators are showing that Massachusetts never fell as far behind as most states and the recovery here is ahead of most states. Maybe the heavy hand of government is gently helping the people?

I do have a recommendation for a health care public option though. This is not my idea in its entirety as I heard one legislator outline something similar, but I can't remember who it was. I can't even remember whether the legislator was a Republican of Democrat, but I do remember thinking - that's a great idea! Simply put; the public insurance should kick in for catastrophic circumstances. If you define catastrophic illness as reaching a $100,000 threshold within a given period of time, the government would then assume the insurance and relieve the insurance company.

This would be a windfall for insurance companies, but the government should then insist on a commensurate reduction in premiums for their insured. This reduction would save all buyers of insurance as well as all business. This plan would provide a real shot in the arm for everyone struggling with today's costs. The government could hold the insurance companies feet to the fire by threatening to increase the catastrophic threshold if they don't respond by significantly reducing health care premiums. Business would not back away from health insurance commitments to employees because they could see their own bottom lines improving.

How do you pay for it? Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans as Obama has suggested. Additionally, tie taxation rates on the drug companies to an index that follows their cost of medications in the United States as compared to the identical medications in foreign nations. One of two things will happen; either the cost of medications will drop dramatically in this country or the government will enjoy a huge windfall to pay for citizens with catastrophic illness.

Do it Democrats! Do it now! Forget the Republicans; don't you know that the first word that a baby likes to use is "No"! Sounds familiar; No. Where have I heard that lately? I guess from some baby somewhere!

tomtoak

Brilliance vs Absolute Ignorance!

Before I speak to the topic at hand, I want to inform readers that it has been a busy time for me and will remain so for a week or two. Visiting relatives that I love dearly have been spending time here in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Consequently, I have been preoccupied taking care of family matters.

Brilliance vs absolute ignorance can serve as a characterization between Democrat and Republican. What the hell do I mean by that? Brilliance is really a characterization of the performance of Senator Al Frankin from Minnesota during today's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee, Sonya Sotomayor. If you did not see his performance, watch today's news. Absolute ignorance is a perfect characterization of Senators Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Mary Landrew and 20 co-sponsors of legislation to prohibit the mixing of species (part human-part animal).

Can all intelligent people grasp what I have just said? It is true; we have U.S. senators wasting their time and our time on writing legislation for something that is biologically impossible. Did these idiots ever hear of chromosomes? I would vote for my dog before I would vote for any of these idiots!

Al Frankin; in contrast, was absolutely brilliant. One of his expressed concerns was the power of corporations to limit free speech on the Internet (or"Internets" as George W. Bush would put it). It seems like limited access to service providers that have a certain political view is causing problems in this country. I think he knows his stuff as he is referring to Republican media control here. I'm sure this includes Republican radio.

How about those ignorant Republicans that need a little more than "reading, writing and arithmetic"? Mary Landrew; the sole Democrat - go back to school!

As for Sam Brownback and his colleagues; you people are the definition of stupid!

tomtoak

Why I'm a Progressive/Democrat

I know that some of my Republican friends will take exception to this, but I lean towards the progressive Democrats because I believe in freedom and liberty. Republicans simply don't believe in freedom and liberty. They have convinced many that only their message supports these cornerstones of this great country. I suppose any Republican reading this statement is jumping up and down now and trying to install a virus on my computer. Let me explain why I believe Republicans lack an understanding of freedom and liberty.

Let me just ask a series of questions and you decide what the best answer is. 1). Which party is more likely to not support the right of a women to choose an abortion? 2). Which party is more likely to oppose gay marriage or rights of gays to co-habitate? 3). Which party has pushed for more and more drug testing of citizens throughout the nation for multiple reasons? 4). Which party is more likely to force the teaching of junk science in the classroom; better known as intelligent design? 5). Which party is in favor of forcing prayer in the public schools? 6). Which party is more likely to claim that we are a "Christian Nation"? 7). Which party sides with big business and is more likely to oppose union organizing? 8). Which party is always fighting the raising of the minimum wage? 9). Which party has opposed quality health care as a right? 10). Which party believes that pension programs (including social security) need to be privatized and managed by Wall St. titans?

Did you all respond; the Republican party to all of the above questions? I think that anyone that is honest with themselves would have answered the above questions with one word; Republican.

Let's take a closer look. 1). Republicans are more likely to take the right of women to choose an abortion out of their hands. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 2). Republicans are more likely to outlaw gay marriage as well as support laws that dictated behavior behind closed doors. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 3). Reagan began the move to drug test everyone, overlooking the U.S. Constitution's ban on inappropriate search and seizure. Republicans are far more likely to require school children to submit to drug testing without probable cause. Republicans are far more likely to oppose legalizing certain drugs. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 4). Republicans are far more likely to pass laws requiring the teaching of crap (intelligent design) which is detrimental to the human race. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 5). Republicans continue to fight for requiring prayer in public schools even though public schools are not institutions of worship. In other words, Republicans are trying to force all citizens to accept Christian religion. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 6). Republicans continue to claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, when the founders established from day one, freedom of religion. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 7). Republicans (except Teddy Roosevelt) have historically bashed unions as enemies of capitalism. Republicans have fought union organizing in an effort to support the elite. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 8). Republicans have always fought the raising of the minimum wage which helps to liberate those that are economically downtrodden. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 9). Republicans have always opposed government intervention in health care. Lack of health care for all citizens eliminates the possibility of the pursuit of happiness. Is this representative of freedom and liberty? 10). Republicans want the financial future of our citizens left to the wisdom of Wall Street. Republicans want citizens to be forced to invest in money grabbing Wall Street schemes that fluctuate as often as the wind. Is this representative of freedom and liberty?

I'm a Democrat because I believe in freedom and liberty. If you were honest with yourselves when answering the questions, you must see that Republican philosophy of today does not fully support freedom and liberty. I support freedom and liberty and I'm proud of it. By the way; I support gun rights but I'm opposed to the sale of assault weapons. I suppose that Republicans could turn my argument around on this issue. At any rate; I think everyone should walk the talk when it comes to freedom and liberty.

tomtoak

Dogs and Cats: Democrats and Republicans

Ever watch your dog and cat looking out on the world? You think they are both looking at the same thing; but chances are, the dog is watching the mailman and the cat is watching the robin in the tree. It's sort of like Democrats and Republicans. It seems like we are both looking at the same thing, but too often we're looking in opposite directions.

I think my cat tends to be a Republican. I think all cats have this tendency. She is very independent and smart, but she always wants things her way. Most of the time she could take you or leave you. She's not tied into your personal feelings. I think Republicans tend this way also.

My dog tends to be a Democrat. Heck; I think all dogs tend this way; I'm not sure about Pit Bulls though. Dogs live close to that philosophy; "it takes a village". They always want to see you and they're always looking for a handout; yet, they love you enough to save you from a fire. They are smart enough to protect you from danger and they truly care about you like the Democrats do.

Now I know Democrats that are cat lovers and I know Republicans that are dog lovers. Sometimes opposites attract. I tend to love them both. Seems like all the Presidents had dogs, although George Bush's dog liked to bite people. Lyndon Johnson's Beagles should have bitten him (for you that are too young to know, Johnson used to pick up his dogs by their ears). Bill Clinton had the most famous cat (Socks, just passed away). As the saying goes in our Nation's Capitol; "if you want a friend in Washington, get yourself a dog".

Maybe dogs and cats are closer than you think. Ever watch the dog and cat on a cold winter night when you turn the thermostat down? A frequent scene is the cat curled up against the dog, both working together sharing their body warmth. This is sort of like bipartisanship. When things get a little difficult, they work together.

Why can't Democrats and Republicans do the same thing?

tomtoak

Corporate Taxation - The Door to Bipartisanship?

It has been reported that two out of every three United States corporations paid no Federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html?em). This has to be the most unbelievable financial statistic that is affecting our Country according to Democrats. Do you ever wonder where President Obama can find revenue to work toward deficit reduction? This will certainly help to resolve some economic woes. This is a true Democratic solution; every corporation pays its fair share.

Solve the problem of corporations that pay no taxes and the end is in site! Not so fast. Republicans say that the United States has the highest corporate taxation rate in the world, at 35%. Corporations that are patriotic and keep Americans working here have unfair competition in a world economy. You know what? Republicans are right. We have a dilemma; Democrats are right and Republicans are right?

What a chance for a bipartisan solution. Why not make sure that all corporations in America, foreign and domestic, are paying a fair share of taxes. Lower the taxation rate for the corporations that stand by this Country and reward them for their patriotism. Lower their taxes so they can hire more workers. Come down hard on any corporation doing business in this Country that is not paying taxes. Lower the rate of taxation to a competitive rate, but make no doubt about it, all corporations in the United States will pay taxes.

This will reward the true Americans that care about our Nation and ensure that anyone doing business here will contribute. This to me is bipartisanship. Both sides of the political spectrum can make their point. They are both right! We may actually be able to solve some fiscal problems as we address corporate taxation policy.

Blog On

Bipartisanship Can Be Real

A letter to the Editor in today's Providence Journal postulates that efforts towards bipartisanship are futile. David W Swindells, concludes with the following: "Bipartisanship is a chimera - a futile and juvenile hope."

His comments saddened me and sent me back in history to a time of true bipartisanship; although, I have seen it at work in the present day (Thank you Charlie Crist and others). An era of true bipartisanship was at work during the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt (FDR).

Being a forester by profession, I hasten back to the words of the "Father of Forestry" in the United States, Gifford Pinchot, in his signature work, "Breaking New Ground". Pinchot, the Republican, wholeheartedly endorsed FDR, the Democrat, and supported him throughout his administrations. Pinchot not only served under the Republican administration of Teddy Roosevelt, he also served as Republican Governor in Pennsylvania. Let me just repeat some of Pinchot's words:

"Concentrated wealth can only maintain its strangle hold over the general welfare if it can get the people to accept its exactions, and especially the methods by which it gets its power, as normal and natural........The monopolists must accustom people to their tyranny by a constant stream of praise for great corporations and of free enterprise according to their own interpretation, as well as discrediting of liberal movements and leaders - all of which is facilitated by their ever increasing control of press, the radio, and other news outlets."

"But in the hearts of the American people democracy has not been denied. The four freedoms of Franklin Roosevelt - Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear - have, I'm confident, been accepted by those whom Abraham Lincoln called the plain people, accepted as their right, and no more than their right. If that is true, we have come to a turning point."

"I believe in free enterprise - freedom for the common man to think and work and rise to the limit of his ability, with due regard to the rights of others. But in what Concentrated Wealth means by free enterprise - freedom to use and abuse the common man - I do not believe. I object to the law of the jungle. The earth, I repeat, belongs of right to all its people, and not to a minority , insignificant in numbers but tremendous in wealth and power. The public good must come first."

These are the words of a true Republican. I only wish that today's Republicans would study their past, understand that bipartisanship can be a positive force and that our very Country may depend on the willingness of leaders to reason and think beyond ideology.

Blog On

Why Are We Liberal or Conservative?

In an article published in the Boston Globe just before the election, November 2, 2008, authored by Eve LaPlante, it is reported that scientists are discovering our political leanings may be powerfully influenced by genetics. It was reported that: "...unconscious reaction to threat - how much we startle at frightening images and noise - determine our political views...". Kevin Smith, a University of Nebraska political scientist who co-authored the study which appeared in the "Journal of Science", states: "Political reactions are gut responses rather than rational weighing of pros and cons".

If this is true, it certainly explains a lot. You can never seem to debate somebody long enough to get them to change their mind. I guess my blog won't change any one's mind. That's OK though, progressive thinking people need ways to connect with their own ideas. They certainly can't go to radio talk shows in this state, all they'll find is aggravation. At least liberals now have an outlet on MSNBC at night.

How do I stack up in all of this? My Dad must have had conservative genes (he was from the South), - my Mom must have had liberal genes (she was from Boston). I'm not gun shy. I never startled when a gun is discharged even if I didn't expect it. I've been a hunter all of my life and I believe in gun rights. I guess I should be leaning conservative.

I can point to a moment in my life when my political leanings were cast forever. May 4, 1970 and the shootings at Kent State University. I supported John Kennedy as a kid, but heck, I was only 10. When the Vietnam war started to rage I was supportive of efforts to reign in the Communists. Then one day, something happened. I learned that our Country had been bombing Cambodia without Congressional knowledge - Richard Nixon had been hiding the truth.
I was embarrassed and I had many students telling me, "we told you so". You see, I was one of those students that stood up at campus workshops on Vietnam and spoke in favor of the Nixon Administration. At one point, I held up a copy of the "Communist's Daily Worker" newspaper (yes, you could find these on college campuses in 1970) and called pure propaganda its headline, "Nixon Bombs Cambodia". I told students that this is simply not true as the story would be in the Boston Globe; after all, we have a free press. Many months later, the country learned of Nixon's secret bombing campaign in a neutral country without Congressional knowledge.

I felt a seismic shift in my political thinking on May 4, 1970 and my political destiny was cast in stone. I quit ROTC at the end of the semester and still got my A. I had been lied to by my President and was made a fool for supporting him. That was it; I worked for George McGovern in 1972 and never looked back. I guess it took powerful images at a troubling time to make me a liberal. I don't think that genes played a role.

The bright side in of all of this is that if genes are involved, maybe somebody can develop a pill to cure the problem. My god, I hope liberals come up with the pill first!

Blog On