Political Ads(Lies) and Voting!

Tomorrow is Election Day.  Man I’m glad.  I’m so freaking sick of watching political ads on TV—most of which are negative and some even blatantly wrong.  I’m surprised by the audacity of politicians and how they flat-out lie about what their opposition has/hasn’t done and misconstrue facts.  I could literally write a 100 page paper on all of the lies put forth by all of these annoying ads.  And even if they aren’t lying, they are skimming over the positives of their opponents and only pointing out the negatives.  Why don’t we have more laws in place to regulate what politicians can and cannot say to the public?  It's no wonder little girls are crying every time they see these ads on TV.

And what's with the creepy voices used by the narrators?  Seriously, those creepy deep voices could make ANYTHING sound horrible.  Just picture one of those guys doing an advertisement for Chuck E Cheese.  "Where a kid can be a kid?"  He'd make Chuck E Cheese sound more sinister than a retreat with Jerry Sandusky (Too soon or inappropriate? Sorry!)  Anything those guys say sounds negative, and the problem is that too many people believe them!

Why does it seem like very few of us actually do the fact-checking ourselves?  I was having a conversation earlier about how Mitt Romney is going to create 12 million new jobs, and that Obama can't and won't do that.  According to two different studies done by Moody’s Analytics and Macroeconomic Advisers this year (Google it!), 12 million jobs will be gained in the next four years regardless of who is president.  Why?  Well, mostly because Obama initiated a recovery by saving the auto industry and reforming health care, and that recovery will be responsible—not any further action by the winner of this election.  I listen to Romney’s statement and keep picturing some ancient caveman perched atop a giant rock telling people at the end of winter that, if they follow him, he’ll make the temperatures warm again and melt all the snow and make the plants grow.  And of course this caveman isn't saying HOW he plans to do this.  He just knows, based on patterns, that it's going to happen, and he's trying to convince the others to follow him knowing he'll look like a genius if they do.

There’s another ad with a woman saying how she voted for Obama in 2008 hoping for change, but that hasn’t happened and she is worse off now than she was when he was elected.  So let’s think about this...  When Obama was elected, the auto industry was in a nosedive.  Unemployment was skyrocketing.  Banks had just received their bailout prior to Obama taking office (signed into law by GW Bush), which if you don’t recall costed $700 Billion dollars.  Lots of people pin that on Obama, but that was already a done deal by the time he took office.  And it didn’t create jobs, and it really only gave the banks who participated in risky banking practices (think subprime mortgages) a cushion so that they wouldn’t fail.  And I don’t know this as a fact, but I would assume that automakers, with their manufacturing jobs, would employ a lot more people than banks.  And when you think of manufacturing jobs vs. banking jobs, it’s fairly obvious that bankers tend to make more money—and thus would be better off had they lost their jobs.  So Bush bailed out the white-collar guys who were up to no good, and Obama bailed out the blue-collar guys who were just trying to put food on their tables.

But this ad with this woman saying she's worse off now drives me nuts, because she makes it seem like America is a pit of despair compared to when Obama was elected.  As my wife has pointed out, America is not worse off when we can spend millions of dollars on things like Halloween decorations.  Americans are not worse off when we can afford to (and rightfully should) hand out $10 or $20 each to the people in NY and NJ struggling after Superstorm Sandy.  People aren’t losing their houses at record paces any more due to foreclosures.  Unemployment is coming back down.  Did you know that when GW Bush took office, it was 4.2%.  When he left office, it was 7.8% and rising.  Obama started with 7.8%, it went up to 10%, but then as his policies began to take effect, it dropped back down to 7.9% where it is now.  So unless Romney does something drastically different than GW (and we still aren't clear on WHAT he will do), is it going to go right back up again?  AND we even went through one of the worse recessions in our nation’s history when Obama took office.  Obamacare has slowed—and in some industries REVERSED—the trend of annual premium increases in health care costs.  Don’t believe me?  Check out my post from August 3, 2012.

So lady in this stupid ad, I really have to disagree with you.  America IS better than it was 4 years ago--or at least it's heading in a much better direction.  We aren’t all the way there yet, granted, but it’s hard to accomplish anything in 3.79 years with half a Congress working against you.

After Superstorm Sandy knocked out my power, my basement filled with water because my sump pump stopped running.  Water was coming up from the ground, and when the power came back on, my sump pump started running again and started pumping it out.  I kept checking it every half hour, and it looked like nothing was happening the first few times I opened the basement door.  And boy was I anxious.  But I didn't go pull my sump pump out and buy a new one because the one I had wasn't working fast enough.  I'd just bought the thing a year ago, and I knew it worked well.  We just had too much water to deal with.  I knew it would get that water out, and after a few hours and with the help of my dehumidifier, my basement was dry again.  No change to routine.  No added costs.  Just patience.  And honestly, if I had bought a different sump pump, maybe a red one that resembled an elephant rather than my blue one that resembled a donkey, I'd probably have left that one in too if I knew that it was working properly.  But considering that I had a red, elephant sump pump in there a few years prior to my current one, and that one really crapped out and flooded my basement to the point where I needed a new water heater, dehumidifier, etc.--well, you get my point.

You can tell who I’ll be voting for tomorrow.  But even if you don’t agree with me, please get out and vote.  I find it even more alarming, aside from all of the lies and mistruths in political ads, that we live in an apathetic society where less than two-thirds of us actually vote for our leaders.  If you hate what Obama has or hasn’t done to our country, get out there and do something about it.  And if you do or don’t believe what these politicians say in these political ads, at least get out there and let your voice be heard.  It doesn’t take much time (typically only 10 minutes for me), and it’s one of if not the most important thing you can do as an American citizen.

And if you think that voting is a waste of time because you are just one tiny little vote out of so many millions, just think about this: in the event of an Electoral College tie, which can happen under nearly three dozen different scenarios, the newly elected House of Representatives chooses the President, and the Senate chooses the Vice President.  And considering how close those contests are, and considering that each state has numerous Representatives that are elected LOCALLY (meaning I live in Central PA and therefore can't vote for the Representative from Philly or Pittsburgh), it's critical to get out there and vote.  Because if there is an electoral college tie, and if the House remains a Republican majority and the Senate remains a Democrat majority, Mitt Romney will be President and Joe Biden will be VP.  But if the House switches to a Democrat majority and there is an electoral college tie, Obama remains President.  In other words, your single vote for your local House Representative really could end up deciding who is President or Vice President.

So go vote!

Women's Rights Riddle

Here’s a riddle for you.  Conservatives believe that there is just too much federal government.  They want as little as possible, and they would instead desire a transfer of many federal powers back to the states.  However, most conservatives are pro-life, and therefore they want to overturn Roe v. Wade and make it illegal for women to have abortions.  Isn’t this the ultimate invasion of personal rights—way too much government interfering on a very personal issue?  How exactly does that work?  No, no, no, there’s just too much government….but…when it comes to women, the government should be in charge of your body?  That just makes no sense.

Honestly, I have very mixed feelings on the topic of abortion.  Ending a life, even after the first spark of it in a mother’s womb, seems wrong to me.  But on the same token, I can’t see any instance where the government should have any right to decide what is best for a woman.  In other words, morally I think that many abortions are wrong, but legally they should never be.  And if you want to argue with my logic, well, there are plenty of things that are morally wrong in this country, yet people do them anyway.  I personally think it’s morally wrong to not hold the door open for someone, but stand outside any convenience store for, oh, maybe two or three minutes, and you’ll see it happen a handful of times.  It’s morally wrong to gossip.  It’s morally wrong to bully.  Yet, sadly, those things still happen.  In reality, if we had moral police, I’d guesstimate that 95% of the population would serve jail time or at least pay fines.  I’m sure I would be for one thing or five or fifty.

But for a politician to say what a woman can and cannot do with her body is wrong as well, and I don’t see any reason that it can be justified—especially from a conservative standpoint.  You can’t say that there is just too much government and then say that women should be denied the right to choose.  You can’t have elected government officials—most of which are old white men—tossing around words like “legitimate rape” and that "pregnancy from rape is a gift from God" and promising to defund Planned Parenthood.  That just makes no sense to me.  It shouldn’t make sense to a lot of people.  Especially women.

I see a lot of women out there who are pro-Romney in this election.  Can you explain to me how you can vote for a guy who would much rather have abortion be illegal and who wants to make you pay for things like birth control, mammograms, etc.?  What, do you think women's health medicines and preventive screenings being free is unfair to men?  According to 2012 statistics at cancer.org (found here: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf), 29% of all cancers in men are prostate cancer, while 29% of all female cancers are breast cancer, 6% are uterine cancer, and a 3% are ovarian cancer.  So that’s 29% of male-specific cancers, and 38% chance of female-specific cancers.  Looking at the estimated death rate, prostate cancer is responsible for 9% of all men diagnosed with cancer.  Breast cancer is responsible for 14% of women's deaths, ovarian cancer for 6%, and uterine cancer for 3%.  So of all the different types of cancers, 9% of men with cancer will die from male-specific cancer, while 23% of women will die from female-specific cancer.  Again, that’s 29% of male-specific cancers affecting men vs. 38% of female-specific cancers affecting women and 9% of men vs. 23% of women dying from it.  It seems to make sense to me that we NEED to have government programs in place to help women with these issues.  Wouldn’t you agree?

There are plenty of things that don’t make sense on either side of the American political spectrum, but this is one I struggle with more than many others.  Sure, Liberals may be, uh, liberal with our country’s money, but President Clinton sure wasn’t, erasing a deficit created by Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.   Obama HAS increased the deficit, but he had to in order to keep us from falling into a Second Great Depression--one that came about as the result of a Conservative Republican's failed policies.  But Obama also created a universal, affordable healthcare law that will ensure that women get the treatments they need.  Romney wants to repeal that, defund Planned Parenthood, and who knows, maybe he’ll even take on Roe v. Wade.

If you are a woman, and you are planning to vote for Mitt Romney, I really want to know why.  If you are a father, or a husband, or a son, or a brother, and your daughter, wife, mother or sister has ever been the victim of a sexual crime, or even if she has just had some medical issues and has had to previously jump through hoops to get them resolved (including paying tons of money for preventative procedures), I want to know how you can justify voting for Mitt Romney.  Because I sure can’t.

A Quick Post on the Last Debate and Upcoming Election

That debate last night was rather boring.  I felt like Romney was just trying to find something to pick at with Obama’s foreign policy, but the two seemed to be more in agreement on most things than not.  Obama took jabs at Romney for some comments he made about who the biggest threat to American security was (Russia and NOT al-Qaeda), and Romney criticized Obama for not putting in crippling sanctions against Iran sooner, but other than that it was rather ho-hum.  Of course, I went to bed at 10, so maybe I missed something in the last half hour or whatever.  If I did, shame on me!

But I came away from it thinking that Obama is a better leader for our country than Romney.  Yeah, people think he hasn’t done enough in his 3.75 years in office, but I really have to disagree.  And here’s why: on 9/11/2001 the World Trade Center Twin Towers were destroyed.  I was in Manhattan a few weeks ago, and the Freedom Tower is a beautiful piece of architecture, but it is still being built—eleven years after the worst tragedy in our nation’s history.

When Obama took office our economy was on the path to becoming the worst economy in our nation’s history.  We were inches away from slipping into a depression.  We were fighting two wars, people were losing their homes in droves, unemployment was sky-rocketing, auto manufacturers were ready to close their doors and put hundreds of thousands out of work.  The economy that Bill Clinton had built had been destroyed in the eight years that George W. Bush was in office.

I think people give George W. too much flak.  Ok, maybe he wasn’t the brightest bulb in the box, but he had a lot on his plate.  Yeah, maybe we shouldn’t have gotten into a war in Iraq, but it was bound to happen sooner or later—just like some sort of conflict in Syria and Iran will happen sooner or later as well.  And with 9/11 and Katrina, George W.’s presidency was one heck of a wild ride.  It’s like the country had one gushing wound after another, and all he had to work with was band-aids and a little iodine.

I don’t think anyone realized the repercussions that all the trauma and turmoil of the 2000’s had on our country.  And we really do live in the moment.  Quick, think back—who won the World Series in 2009?  The Yankees did.  Who won Season Nine of American Idol?   Lee DeWyze.  Do you even remember watching any of those?  Could you even tell me who the runner-ups were or any highlights from those two contests?  Probably not, because we tend to forget things so easily—things that happened just two or three years ago.

Obama has had 3.75 years to rebuild our economy from the brink of destruction.  In the grand scheme of things, that's NOT a lot of time.  And the people that complain that Obama hasn’t done enough for the country are the same people who switch lanes on the freeway over and over, hoping that one lane will move faster than the other.  I watch those people and get so irritated.  Look, you impatient morons, don’t you realize that people JUST LIKE YOU are doing the same thing in front of all of us, causing us all to be backed up?  Or worse yet, the ones that drive up the shoulder or past all the merging traffic to cut in line way up at the front.  Yeah, what’d you save, like two minutes?  Patience is a virtue, people.

And that’s what I think about Obama.  I think that if he gets another four years to work with, when his presidency is in the history books, people will look back and see that he really did do a wonderful thing for a country that was slumping on so many levels.  And I'm afraid that if he doesn't get that four more years, Romney may take us backwards again.  And I'm just not comfortable with that.

Mitt Romney, the Bully

In light of my bullying post from yesterday, this is why I don’t like Mitt Romney.  The guy could be a humanitarian, philanthropist, work in homeless shelters or orphanages, walk little old ladies across the street, whatever, but when I read this story a few months ago: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/05/mitt-romney-bully.html, I was instantly turned off.  I especially don’t like his response, specifically the part where he says, “You know, I don’t remember that particular incident [laughs].”

I’m sure you are fibbing about that, Mitt, just trying to CYOA for political reasons, and I’m sure you remember it quite well.  Unless, of course, you bullied so many students that they are all a blur to you.  But even if you really don’t remember this particular incident, you know who did?  John Lauber, the person you bullied.  According to his sister, it haunted him his entire life, up until he died of cancer in 2004.  Mitt, you came from a wealthy political family, and you used your influence and power to bully—no, torture—another student.  And you laugh about the incident now, saying you don’t recall it?  Come on, man.

If you, the reader, didn’t read my post from yesterday, I suggest you do.  Perhaps then you’ll understand why I would NEVER vote for Mitt Romney.  I may or may not agree with him politically, but any person who bullies another person and laughs it off like it was nothing should NOT be a leader, ESPECIALLY the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.