This is pretty much on point.  I would add that not only did the consultant class lose the election for the GOP (cough, Steve Schmidt, cough), Mitt Romney lost the election for the GOP by being an out-of-touch, flip-flopping, elitist who wanted to be President too badly.  A Republican John Kerry indeed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/23/Pat-Caddell-Republican-Consultant-Lobbyist-Establishment-Complex-Responsible-For-Romney-Defeat?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Feed%29

Here is a doozy.  I have sources in the political arena who have told me that Corry Bliss has made a killing (well over six figures, probably close to half a million dollars) mismanaging the campaigns of Thelma Drake for Congress ’08 (VA), Kerry Bolognese for Delegate ’09 (VA), Brian Dubie for Governor ’10 (VT), John Stirrup for State Senate ’11 (VA), and Linda McMahon for U.S. Senate ’12 (CT).  Why Corry Bliss is still in the league while promising, dedicated, caring, and intelligent young individuals toil for poverty level wages in politics is beyond me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/11/shays-unloads-on-mcmahon-campaign-149162.html

It is very ironic that the conservative movement is dominated by people who yearn for a romanticized 1950s version of America as depicted in the television show Leave It to Beaver. If conservatives strongly believe that life in America was better in the 1950s, are they willing to return to a 91% top income tax rate? (Also, union membership was at its peak in the 1950s, but I digress.)

If raising the top income tax rate to the Clinton-era 39.6% is “socialism”, “redistribution”, “class envy”, and “soaking the rich”, then the 1950s Eisenhower-era 91% top tax bracket was crushing communism that was debilitatingly deadly to business and destroyed the moral fiber and entrepreneurial spirit of America. Yet, the economy grew at a faster rate in the 1950s, patriotism ran high, the middle class was booming, and Leave It to Beaver-style nuclear families were more prevalent.

This is cafeteria conservatism on display. You can’t ignore the facts that are inconvenient to your cause and worldview. As for me, I choose to live in 2012. As a black man, wanting to go back to the 1950s is unfathomable considering that my parents faced undue hardships and oppression under Jim Crow.

Paul Ryan blasts the stimulus. Joe Biden presents letter from Paul Ryan asking for stimulus funds for his district (cough, pork, cough) saying that it will create jobs.

Called out!

Amidst conservative rage against Big Bird and government funding for PBS, here is an even keeled assessment.

Perhaps Sesame Street can survive on its own on corporate television.  However, some worthwhile, genuinely American creations would fail if left alone to the free market.  Case study number one is jazz music.

Government has a duty to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.  Simultaneously, government has a duty to preserve and promote the music and art that defines American culture for posterity.  The conversation goes both ways.  We have museums to attract people to study the great American music and art.  We have mass media to send the music and art of America directly to American households for convenience.

Corporate radio has failed America with their elevation and promotion of manufactured commodities like Justin Bieber.  Jazz music does not have a significant market share.  Yet, jazz music is a quintessentially American creation that expresses hope, sadness, euphoria, peace, contemplation, joy, melancholy, love, and the whole range of human emotions through song and dance.  Jazz music can make whimsical life observations and biting social commentary, sometimes all without saying a word.  Jazz music is not easily understood, but once understood and appreciated, one cannot fathom a life without such music, moods, and messages.  Jazz music is the bridge between classical music and popular music and it is the foundation and inspiration for many genres of music and artists.

Corporate radio has raked in tens of millions of dollars selling throwaway commodities with quick expiration dates.  That is what the public wants.  Corporate radio would go out of business if they promoted jazz music.  Enter National Public Radio.  Thanks to National Public Radio, American institutions like jazz music have been kept alive for new generations to study and enjoy.

Just because a good is not wanted by consumers does not mean it lacks value.  Support jazz music.  Support NPR.

Joseph Lorick earned his Bachelors in Business Administration from Bowie State University. As a senior, Joseph began his career in banking and has never stopped. He has worked in the Collections, Credit, Mortgage, Consumer Loans, Consumer Checking, Small Business Checking and Strategies department within his 9 years of employment. During this time, he has spoken with thousands of customers and gained extensive knowledge about the financial habits of American citizens. Joseph is also a Christian and has been for the last 18 years. He works in the church as a financial counselor and also serves as a worship coordinator. During his spare time he leads financial freedom lectures and assists his community by teaching financial literacy. He is a strong believer in social progression through education and writes to further this cause. His website is MoneyEtiquette.com and he is the author of the book Did Everything But Think: D.E.B.T.

It’s official. As of July 2012, both presidential candidates have combined to raise over one billion dollars for their campaigns and are on pace to reach close to 4 billion dollars. Keep in mind, this does include estimated super PACs funding. Never before have we seen this amount of money raised so quickly for a presidential campaign. Considering the slow growth of our economy and an adjusted unemployment rate above 8%, many people wouldn’t expect to see money raised at this rate. But, should we really be surprised? Many Americans love presidential politics as much as they love professional football, baseball, and basketball teams. It’s a national competition with only two relevant contestants to choose from. In one corner you have the democrats and the republicans in the other. There are promotional events to build up interest like the democratic and republican national conventions. You have a few prefight trash talking sessions, better known as debates. Now that I’m thinking about it, this may be better described as a championship boxing match. Staging the conclusion of this contest during the year of the Olympic Games doesn’t hurt its cause either. It just adds to an already heightened competitive environment. But, is it truly all about competition? Most people will tell you presidential elections are about improving the country and exercising the right to vote. While I do agree with this premise, I feel the competitive nature of this race may be more important for campaign donors than the idea of improving this country. Here are a few points that have led me to this conclusion.

Presidential policies have little impact on economic booms.

Presidents have never been able to improve the national economy without a lot of help. President Coolidge is remembered for overseeing one of the best economic periods in American history, but his smaller government policies were not the primary reason for this success. He had a lot of help from technological advances, post war international commerce, and great consumer confidence. New inventions and advancements within consumer products were being produced at a rapid pace. The public loved the idea of life being less manual and purchased newly affordable automated products like refrigerators, cars, radios, electrically powered homes and other similar luxuries. People like Henry Ford, were working on ways to make their products more affordable for more than a decade and the 1920’s brought fruition to those ambitions.  Factories were booming because of the post war entrances into European markets and helped to increase consumer confidence. President Coolidge also benefited from a republican led congress, which eased the ability to pass bills that would further his vision for the economy. Some people argue the policies passed during the Coolidge presidency is what led to the Great Depression, but that has little to do with my argument. President Clinton benefited from the dot.com boom and the typical post war (Gulf War) boost. President Kennedy and Johnson both benefited from the Vietnam War. Regan benefited from the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp, which led to a major credit card boom during his term. He also benefited from a Republican led congress to help usher in his economic policies. Presidents residing during economic booms have always been a small part of the force behind economic booms. So, why do we invest so much in making sure they get elected if their impact is so minimal?

Our government is limited to the perspective of two political parties; Republicans
and Democrats.

Each year we hear the same political philosophies argued within our government, socialism versus conservatism. Neither is completely good or bad, but we pretend one is so much better than the other. Why; because we enjoy a good debate. We want to see a winner and a loser. This two party system doesn’t create a political environment that breeds new ideas, it discourages them. Once the political candidate’s ventures too far away from democratic or republican strong points, their chances of being elected are greatly diminished. They lose significant monetary and vocal support needed to influence voters when this path is chosen. Instead of being revered for their leadership, they are described as radical, delirious, rouge and idiotic. These circumstances make it pretty difficult to really create governmental change. So, what are donors supporting by backing these two political parties? The answer is fairly simple; tradition, exclusivity, and competition. They want to preserve their ways of thinking and beat the opposition. The balance of powers will simply continue to pass from one side to the other, which will limit any long term changes either side attempts to create. The two sides have essentially dominated our government and limited opportunities for change. Improving the country has little to do with this process.

Directly investing in local communities strengthens our country more than throwing billions of dollars behind a presidential candidate.

Most donors claim to support presidential candidates to improve the economy and lower unemployment. They say their candidate of choice gives us the best chance of strengthening our country, but that’s not true. The people that can help our economy the most don’t hold political positions. They aren’t the people on television running for president or other prominent government positions. They don’t hold large rallies and fundraisers to further a cause. These individuals are the very people throwing money behind presidential candidates; better known as political donors.

If political donors were to use most of their donations to stimulate local communities, the economy would experience a much needed boom. Imagine the effect 4 billion dollars could have on small business (500 or less employees) growth if it were used properly. According to some estimates, there are roughly 30 million small businesses in this country. Three billion dollars distributed evenly amongst these small businesses would result in each business receiving 133 dollars in sales, which would have little to no effect on the economy. But, that would be in a perfect world where all these businesses provide good services and products. What would this figure be if only profitable small businesses that provide the best products and services received these funds? What if donors required these businesses to hire at least 1 unemployed citizen in exchange for these guaranteed sales? For the sake of this argument, we will assume only 1 out of 108 small businesses met this criteria. If these donors supported these select small businesses on an annual basis; the result would be roughly 279,000 small businesses receiving an annual 14 thousand dollar increase in sales.

This increase would force these businesses to hire at least one full-time employee and create more business partnerships. Business owners that could not afford to hire someone with these additional funds wouldn’t agree to these terms, so there is no need to assume they wouldn’t hire an unemployed citizen.  We are dealing with businesses that may have only needed 3 – 5 thousand dollars in additional sales revenue to be able to hire a new full-time employee. Another positive result of this act would be an increase in consumer spending, which creates more jobs. All these new workers would have to spend their money somewhere.

Two hundred and seventy-nine thousand new workers earning at least 25 thousand dollars annually would generate 6.9 billion dollars in taxable income. The private and public sectors would benenfit greatly from this increase in consumer spending. The trickle-down effect of this practice would easily drop the unemployment rate by a minimum 1 percent on an annual basis. Combine this drop with the natural fluctuations of our economy and we have an unemployment rate under 8 percent for the first time in 4 years.

Talk about a stimulus plan. But this will never happen. We love competition and old traditions too much. Let’s allow this charade to continue flourishing and put our money into the hands of politicians. It’s the political season. The time of the year we’ve been waiting for. I’ll take my guy, you take yours, and may the best candidate win.

Let’s face it. Mitt Romney has no credibility to attack President Barack Obama on the health care law.  As President Bill Clinton said, “it takes brass to attack someone for something you did!”

Remember that the individual mandate was a product of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.  Republicans are just mad because it was a Democratic President who is working and implementing good ideas regardless of the source.  Republicans had their chance to fix the health care system for eight years under Bush and they did nothing.  Now, they are just playing politics and being obstructionist at the expense of the country.

Obama is working.  Republicans are not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/why-obamacare-is-a-conservatives-dream.html?smid=fb-share

IF Mitt Romney’s pivots on President’s Obama’s health care reform act have accelerated to a blur — from repealing on Day 1, to preserving this or that piece, to punting the decision to the states — it is for an odd reason buried beneath two and a half years of Republican political condemnations: the architecture of the Affordable Care Act is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces.

This fundamental ideological paradox, drowned out by partisan shouting since before the plan’s passage in 2010, explains why Obamacare has only lukewarm support from many liberals, who wanted a real, not imagined, “government takeover of health care.” It explains why Republicans have been unable since its passage to come up with anything better. And it explains why the law is nearly identical in design to the legislation Mr. Romney passed in Massachusetts while governor.

The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system — principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton planin the early 1990s. The president’s program extends the current health care system — mostly employer-based coverage, administered by commercial health insurers, with care delivered by fee-for-service doctors and hospitals — by removing the biggest obstacles to that system’s functioning like a competitive marketplace.

Chief among these obstacles are market limitations imposed by the problematic nature of health insurance, which requires that younger, healthier people subsidize older, sicker ones. Because such participation is often expensive and always voluntary, millions have simply opted out, a risky bet emboldened by the 24/7 presence of the heavily subsidized emergency room down the street. The health care law forcibly repatriates these gamblers, along with those who cannot afford to participate in a market that ultimately cross-subsidizes their medical misfortunes anyway, when they get sick and show up in that E.R. And it outlaws discrimination against those who want to participate but cannot because of their medical histories. Put aside the considerable legislative detritus of the act, and its aim is clear: to rationalize a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace.

This explains why the health insurance industry has been quietly supporting the plan all along. It levels the playing field and expands the potential market by tens of millions of new customers.

The rationalization and extension of the current market is financed by the other linchpin of the law: the mandate that we all carry health insurance, an idea forged not by liberal social engineers at the Brookings Institution but by conservative economists at the Heritage Foundation. The individual mandate recognizes that millions of Americans who could buy health insurance choose not to, because it requires trading away today’s wants for tomorrow’s needs. The mandate is about personal responsibility — a hallmark of conservative thought.

IN the partisan war sparked by the 2008 election, Republicans conveniently forgot that this was something many of them had supported for years. The only thing wrong with the mandate? Mr. Obama also thought it was a good idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/why-obamacare-is-a-conservatives-dream.html?smid=fb-share

I’m completely through with the Romneys. Count on me voting for George Allen and my GOP Congressional candidate, but I might just vote for Obama to send Team Romney a message.

This is type of conservative, aristocratic hypocrisy is sickening.

Mitt Romney has said during this whole campaign that he is against abortion. While this may be his current stance, September 24,TMZ reported that his son is pro abortion which is quite apparent in the surrogacy contract he and his wife filed with the surrogate mother and her husband of his twins. Specifically, the contract states;

“In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents’ decision.”

Mitt is against abortion but paid his son’s surrogate mother for the termination rights of the fetus if it wasn’t up to Romney standards.

“Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents.”

In other words, if the Romney family doesn’t like something about the twins the surrogate was carrying, they reserved the right to terminate the fetuses. This is not a right that Romney’s son would have if under his presidency as he plans to attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade if elected.

Mitt Romney claims that this is standard fair in any surrogate contract, however, that it was still there was an over-sight by the family attorney. Tagg claims that yes, he does feel this way about the contract and would want those options if there was something not up to par with the unborn fetuses. The contract also included options for the Romneys to abort if testing finds a defect, be it chromosomal, genetic or physiological (think Down Syndrome, dwarfism or a partially formed brain), with the fetus or fetuses. The Romneys also asked the surrogate to agree to abortions to reduce the number of fetuses if (what they felt) too many were viable.

The Romneys believe that a special needs child is undeserving of the Romney family name.

This should be offensive to a reasonable person regardless of the person’s stance on abortion. I happen to be pro-life and I admire the strength and resolve of people like Governor Sarah Palin who chose against all odds and public criticism to give birth to a special needs child and give the kid the gift of life.

At the same time, I am aware of the complications and complexities of such a difficult situation and won’t pass judgment on someone who chose otherwise. However, judgment is deserved for the Romneys, especially Mitt and Tagg, because of the sheer, unbending, mind-boggling hypocrisy and aristocratic pretensions on display.

Forced abortions are uncivilized and traumatic to the mother. Abortion rights is about giving women the right to choose and make their own decisions about their pregnancy so they would not be at the mercy of a domineering, patriarchal man. If I was pro-choice, I would be deeply offended that the surrogate mother’s right to choose has been usurped by an aristocratic, elitist Romney family who would rather require the mother to abort the child in her womb instead of raise a Romney child that would be a special needs child.

Who wants to be a Romney anyway?  Ugh.  Money can buy you a lot of things and certainly Mitt is trying to buy the Presidency, but it can’t buy you class.

A colleague of mine described Mitt Romney and Team Romney as “elitist, entitled, and exclusive.”  That just about sums it up.  Mitt will prohibit abortion for all the little people, but when it comes to his son, it is allowed in order to protect the Romney name if the surrogate mother does not bear the perfect genetic specimen.

Count me in as a Republican for Obama.

Preach. (Excerpted for emphasis. Full article is linked.)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/down-with-politics/article/2508882#.UGGiKrTSxjw

I have a confession to make: Even though it’s my job to write about politics, I didn’t watch a single second of the Republican or Democratic conventions — not even a YouTube clip of Clint Eastwood talking to the chair.

I’ve long found electoral politics seedy and dispiriting, but that sensibility has lately become a debilitating affliction:

…

Politics makes us dumb, they argue, crippling our ability to “[think] critically about the choices before us.” And politics makes us mean: “[A]ll too often, [it] makes us hate each other.” Partisan passions turn “modest differences of opinion” on policy into “an apocalyptic battle between virtue and vice.”

…

Politics makes us worse because “politics is the mindkiller,” as intelligence theorist Eliezer Yudkowsky puts it. “Evolutionary psychology produces strange echoes in time,” he writes, “as adaptations continue to execute long after they cease to maximize fitness.” We gorge ourselves sick on sugar and fat, and we indulge our tribal hard-wiring by picking a political “team” and denouncing the “enemy.”

But our atavistic Red/Blue tribalism plays to the interests of “individual politicians in getting you to identify with them instead of judging them,” Yudkowsky writes.

…

Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of “The Cult of the Presidency.”

More bounce to the ounce for President Barack Obama. He is now up 6 points.