Obamacare, Extreme religious conservatism, misconceptions and lies; or, “The Sad State of Modern American Politics”

So something has been bugging me lately and I just couldn’t hold it in anymore. I thought about using it as fodder for a couple of Facebook statuses, before realizing that there was no way I could completely express myself in such a limited space. So I brought it here. So without further ado, on with the blog.

I’m going to start off with the health care bill commonly referred to as Obamacare and officially known as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and a handful of ridiculous misconceptions held by both democrats and republicans (to be more clear, both sides have completely differing misconceptions about the bill)
First off. I’m not a believer in the bill. But, I’m not a believer because I’ve done my research, and in my mind, the various portions of the bill can be divided into 3 categories.  First, there are portions of the bill which are pointless; their intention is to lower the cost of insurance, but in the end they’ll be offset by other portions of the bill, and insurance will either remain the same cost, or get even more expensive. Second, there are portions of the bill that I find to be over regulating a private industry, as well as the part we’re all familiar with, that I personally find to be a violation of constitutional rights (though not how most people assume) and Third, there are portions of the bill that, yes, I think are excellent ideas, that will help even the middle class get better health care.

Republicans, particularly Fox news, consistently refer to Obamacare as “socialized medicine” or some similar response. Democrats get offended, calling it justice, that those who need it will finally have coverage. Both groups are raving lunatics, and ridiculously incorrect. The public, for the most part, knows exactly squat about the bill, but rave against it, or for it, all the same. Most Fox News watching, borderline foaming at the mouth republicans, will simply say “They’re forcing everyone to have healthcare against our will, and they’re using our tax dollars to give healthcare away to the people too lazy to work for it” That’s awesome. Its an 1800+ page bill, with MANY separate  changes to health insurance, and that’s the best you can do? Two small parts, and you can’t even get those completely accurate? Then you’ve got the bleeding heart liberals. They get all teary eyed when you mention the bill, and they’ll tell you in almost poetic prose how the great Obama is saving us all by providing healthcare to those who need it most. Again, 1800 pages of bill, and that’s the only redeemable quality you can find in it? Research it, and don’t waggle your righteous finger at me again until you have done so.

Now, in a system of socialized medicine, the government uses public funds (i.e. taxes) to provide the public with health care, the quality of which varies widely from country to country, but is universally superior to third world countries, and generally (but not always) substandard in comparison to industrialized nations with non-socialized medicine.
Obamacare doesn’t make free healthcare available to everyone, only the poor, so it is not socialized medicine, so get your heads out of your asses and stop calling it that, you sound ignorant. However, it does force everyone to have medical insurance. When a government tells you that you have to do something, not for purposes of public or national safety but simply because they said so, that’s Fascism, not Socialism. Sorry liberals, but it’s true. The government has quite literally, no right, constitutionally or otherwise, to force me to purchase anything, no matter how big or small. At the very least, this is a states rights issue. Lets examine the Tenth Amendment. This amendment is last on the Bill of Rights, but it was actually a key piece in the establishment of the Constitution and the formation of our nation. Its text is very simple, and is easily one of the least open to interpretation of all Amendments. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. This is not rocket science, but I’ll super simplify it. If it’s not covered in the constitution, it’s up to the individual states. Period. Now go get me a copy of the constitution where health insurance is mentioned in some fashion. Don’t talk to me about health care (you won’t find that in there either though), because that’s not really what the bill is about, it’s really about insurance, and I’ll be damned if the federal government has any right to tell me I HAVE to buy it, or they’ll levy a punishment against me. Honestly, I don’t even believe the state has the right to go that far. Now, the bill does make allowances/exceptions for financial hardship, but I admit I’m not exactly sure what qualifies as a hardship, and what doesn’t. I do know the bill provides for subsidies to help pay for insurance for those who make up to 400% over the poverty level, and expands Medicaid coverage to all persons making less than 133% of the current poverty level (I happen to disagree with this portion of the bill, people in this bracket have little enough incentive to get off the teat and be a functional part of society, giving them free medical sure isn’t going to encourage that). The forced coverage applies to anyone who doesn’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, and who isn’t already on an employer plan of some sort. Well, these are usually people on the lower end of the middle class who make too much for Medicaid, and make too little to afford having insurance removed from their check, and it will be interesting to see whether or not those folks fall in the range that provides federal subsidies or not, and exactly how helpful those subsidies are.

Another portion of the bill, of which I am not a fan, is the requirement on insurance companies to spend a percentage of the premiums they receive on healthcare improvements. Now, I’m not exactly a fan of insurance companies, but they are a business, and their business is gambling for profit. Who is the government to tell them how that profit should be spent? Especially when several other portions of the bill will comsume a sizable portion of that profit. In the end, the insurance company raises the cost until their bottom line remains the same, then we all end up paying more, and the only people who benefit in the end are people getting their mooch on with the federal teat, and doctors and hospitals who receive and pocket the “improvement” money from the insurance companies, and people, if you think one dime of that money is actually going to improve healthcare, your naivety is beyond even my reach. Go find a large rock under which you can dwell. 

There are however, redeeming portions of this bill as well, regardless of what any hardline republican would have you believe. Evil traitorous bastard that I am, I’m going to cover them as well, in the name of fairness. First, co-pays and deductibles are eliminated for “preventative care” visits. That means when women make the yearly visit to the lady doc, it’s free. When guys over 30 get their annual finger in the bum, it’s free. This is a good thing, because right now, a staggering number of people don’t get their yearly checkups because they don’t want to pay the co-pay, or because they have a deductible which means they’ll be paying full visit price (ouch) unless they’ve already spent a pretty penny meeting that deductible. This benefits everyone. If you already go annually, it will save you money. If you don’t go, you can now go, and not be concerned about cost. If you still say this doesn’t benefit you, and refuse to go, then you’re just being a stubborn idiot who has been stomping your feet so long about Obamacare that you refuse to admit ANY of it could possibly be a good thing, even if it kills you, literally. Second, annual and lifetime coverage caps are banned. For most folks, they’ll never notice this part. For the rest though, it can be a lifesaver. If your wife comes down with cancer and spends 6 months in the hospital, your insurance company can no longer send you a letter that basically says “sorry, we paid your annual maximum of 25 thousand dollars, the hospital will be billing you for the remaining 75 thousand, have a nice day” For anyone who ends up with a long term care situation, this could be the difference between moving your family into a van, or keeping your house. The only downfall to this, is that you can be sure insurance companies will compensate, and rates will rise. But in this case, and the next, I’m willing to cede that, especially if it could be the determining factor of whether or not some kid ends up homeless because mommy or daddy got sick. If you still see this part of the bill as bad, you’re either, again, ridiculously stubborn, or coldhearted to the point of being a sociopath.

Finally, the pre-existing condition clause. This one can be argued from both sides of the fence, because in my opinion it’s a good idea they took a little too far. It basically states that insurance companies cannot deny someone based on pre-existing conditions, and even goes so far as to say two persons of the same age, from the same area, will pay the same premiums. I think this is a good idea, because too often, once a condition exists, people are forced to remain with the same job to keep their insurance because moving to a different job would result in a loss of medical coverage. However, I don’t like how broad it is. They excluded tobacco use, but many other choice based conditions are not excluded, and I don’t think someone who makes choices which negatively impact their health should pay the same rates as someone who makes choices which positively impact their health. And for the record, I’m even in that first group. I could go on and on and on about this bill, but I think I’ve made my point, the bill has it’s bad points, for sure. But it also has it’s good points. Which outweighs which is going to vary from depending on your viewpoint, but it’s ridiculous to see people with such polarized opinions about something which they most likely know very little about. Educate thyself... “Ignorance is not such a shame, as being unwilling to learn” – Benjamin Franklin - Best. Quote. Ever.

Now, on to the juicy stuffs. In the past several years, politics has suddenly become ultra polarizing. Two groups have emerged as frontrunners in this, Extreme Liberals, and Extreme Religious Conservatives. Both groups are stark raving mad, and both groups, contrary to what they’d have you believe, want to tell you how to live, what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your own home, and in general, shit all over the Constitution by deciding what rights you should have and shouldn’t have, based on their own personal beliefs, which they are more than willing to force on you, regardless of whether or not you share those beliefs. Yay extremists. I’m not going to talk about the extreme liberals at this time, because to be honest, I think they’re like a toothless pit bull at this point. Lots of bark, still a potential for danger if backed into a corner, but harmless if ignored, because quite frankly, their time has passed. They had Gore with Clinton, but Clintons moderacy (comparatively) kept him in constant check. They had Obama, and that just didn’t work out as planned. At least for the next two years (until mid term elections, where they can make a bigger difference in spread out clusters) they’ve been neutered.

Religious conservatives though… dangerous. Don’t bother hiding your women and children, but if you’ve got a gay uncle, get him under the floorboards and make sure he’s got a copy of the constitution for safe keeping. Current candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are such conservatives, but while Ron Paul seems to be more interested in doing the right thing for the country, Santorum seems focused on making the citizens of the country do the right thing (based on his own beliefs). And frankly, that scares the crap out of me. Rick Santorum, in my mind, is the kind of person that, given the opportunity to expand the extent of his power, you could easily end up comparing to Pope Urban II or Miguel de Morillo. Go ahead, look them up if you don’t know who they are, it will be worth your while. Now some might say that’s an awfully extreme view of Santorum, to which I can only reply, have you actually ever listened to this guy talk??

I don’t have a problem with religious conservatism in and of itself. But, as a Christian, I am a FIRM believer that it is wrong to force your beliefs on someone who chooses not to accept them. There is nothing wrong with an offer to share your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with an offer to teach someone your beliefs. But there is something inherently sinful (Irony much?) and frightening about someone who sees no problem forcing their beliefs on someone else, and, sans their conversion, forcing them to live by the rules of your religion anyways. This group of republican, Christian, religious conservatives has been building momentum over the past few years, using anti-muslim sentiment since 9/11 to fuel their expansion of power, and using a few central issues to solidify their base around. If you ask them, they’ll tell you how our country was founded on Christian religious beliefs, making the US out to be some sort of Christian holy land looked upon with favoring eyes by god himself, and the more we take god out of this country, the more of His ire we will bring down upon ourselves. They’ll tell you we need to change the laws, that our laws should reflect the bible (which is funny, because several laws they’ll suggest need changing aren’t really mentioned as black and white in the bible as they’d have you believe) They’ll tell you we need to make Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter nationally recognized religious holidays (one falls on a Sunday, and the other one we already all get the day off, how much more do you fracking want?). Without saying it outright, they’ll hint that we just trash the constitution and that snag about religion and government separation.

Newsflash, you’re wrong. This country was NOT founded on religious beliefs, and if you even open your mouth to start arguing, I’d highly suggest you pull your foot out of your face and read or at least skim, the Federalist Papers. Though not a specific booklet or collection, this term refers to papers and letters written by the founders of our country which cover a wide variety of their feelings on various topics, and which eventually found their way woven into our constitution and declaration of independence. If you read those two particular documents, you might be left with questions as to the why, or the how, or regarding specific intent. If you read the Federalist papers, though they hold no legal powers, those questions will almost all be answered.

You’ll also find that, seeing as how religious persecution by a theocratic ruled monarchy was cause for people to take refuge on this continent in the first place, one of the intents of the founders was to create a haven for basic human rights, without the interference of religious power. Not only was this country not founded on the basis of Christianity, it was founded with the hopes the religion wouldn’t interfere at all in its formation, and with the rights of its citizens moving forward. The word “God” is only mentioned loosely in the Declaration of Independence, and not even in a manner as to invoke any sort of religion specific images. God isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution. It wasn’t even always on our money, and when it was originally written, the pledge of allegiance made no mention of God. For centuries, in this country like no other, the rights of the people granted by the Constitution have superseded any limitation placed on those rights by religious or other outside influences. Lately however, Christian conservatives have somehow taken to believe that this is the Christian States of America, and that their beliefs should forced upon everyone else through law, and rights of those individuals be damned. They, quite literally, do not care about the rights of individuals. They only care that everyone is living by the standards they set, by the rules that they demand, and Rick Santorum is the pinnacle, he is the penultimate warning, that this is what our future could be if we elect a religious zealot into office. Listen to him talk, really listen, and if he doesn’t scare you, just a little, then you’re probably one of them. The idea that one group of people should be allowed to force their beliefs on everyone is asinine, but anyone ridiculous enough to actually believe that it’s ok, isn’t likely to be persuaded differently by anything I write here. However, if you’re one of them, and you think your rights supersede the rights of, for example, another citizen who is of a different religion than you, or if you believe, mistakenly, that this country is a Christian country, founded  on Christian beliefs, I challenge you to speak up with sound reason and tell me why. And I’ll be more than happy to explain why you’re wrong in specific detail as it regards to whatever reason you make up for the sake of your argument. For Chists sake, literally, leave people be, do not judge, as the bible preaches, love thy neighbor unconditionally instead of persecuting him because he doesn’t believe what you believe. Christ preached love of one another over all things, not judgment and condemnation, so get your head out of the Old Testament. This isn’t supposed to be fire and brimstone, an eye for an eye. Christ changed that. It’s supposed to be turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor. But most religious conservatives gloss over that part when they’re busy trying to crucify whatever the current group de jour target for their ire might be.

In the end, looking at just these two issues, what we’ve got is polarization of the American populace on a political level. It wasn’t always this way. In the not too distant past, common sense was the rule, and stances on a handful of issues made the difference between candidates. But I believe the truth is that most Americans exist in a much more moderate “common sense” zone when they just stop and think about where they really stand on the issues, and which issues that really care about vs which ones they can really get worked up about. What most people desire, I believe, is to lead a comfortable life, to work, and provide for their family, and to do so with as little interference as possible from outside influences not of their own choosing, including government, religion, or just some crazy who hates video games (Jack Thompson, I’m talking to you here asshat). Live and let live. So, extremists, get over yourselves, you’re not special, you have no right to exact dominion over others for religious reasons or non; take this as a warning, push too far, and you’ll be pushed back, people don’t like being told what to do, and they have limits. There seems to be this vibe that an organized violent uprising is simply out of the question as a possibility. I happen to believe otherwise. It happens literally all the time, all over the world. It’s happened here before, and it can happen again. Oh well, went off on a tangent, hope you stuck with me and I hope you enjoyed my rambling.

As things start to unfold in the race for the Republican nomination, I’ve become keenly aware of a very frightening reality: We’re on the verge of getting stuck with four more years of Obama, and if that happens, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of the people who want him in office the least.

First, people underestimate Obamas intelligence, he’s exceedingly smart, and Boehner is playing into his hand at every turn. As a result, a lot of the middle ground voters that republican voters picked up in the mid term elections will be gone by the time November rolls around, mostly due to Boehner and what has to be the most ridiculously arrogant congress we’ve had in decades. They believe that because we stood up and said “enough” and put republicans back in the majority in the house, they can literally do whatever they want. They seem ignorant of the fact that they won seats in the senate, but not enough to gain a majority, and that the overall election results were only slightly in favor of republicans.

Then of course he’s going to get the vote of people who probably couldn’t even name two of the republican candidates, but are voting for Obama because of who he is, not because of his policies or what he stands for (If you require more explanation than this, you may as well stop reading here, your energy would be better spent improving your education or pulling your head out of your ass, whichever may be the case.

On the other side of the fence, you’ve got republican voters, divided into four groups, and this is where problems start to arise.

Group one is the tea party voters, or, as I like to call them, the mass brainwashed. Realistically, this is the kool-aid party, and they’re only missing a guy named Jim to pass out the delicious cyanide laced beverage. The tea party voters seem to like indecisive wishy washy candidates who make a lot of noise about being ultra conservative and/or religious, or, sans that option, they seem more than happy to vote for someone who’s insanity is only rivaled by their idiocy. The result is a whole bunch of candidates who not only perfectly fit that voting criteria, but at the same time, are exactly what the tea party was supposed to be against in the first place, pro-establishment politicians. Of course, the tea party isn’t really the tea party anymore, and hasn’t been since it let itself become the bought and paid for springboard to Sarah Palins foxnews career since her political career was going nowhere fast. So the potentially largest single block of unified republican voters isn’t unified at all. Their votes are scattered  amongst multiple candidates. If one of those candidates doesn’t win the nomination, theres no telling what will happen with the tea party vote in 2012. If one of these candidates forges ahead as an independent, forget it, we’re stuck with four more years of Obama, as the numbers needed to beat him will be too divided.

The second group of voters are the informed. They look at the issues, paying particular attention to those that matter most to them (the beauty of a democracy, choose the candidate that best represents your beliefs, right?) and make a decision based on that information. Most of these voters will compromise on one or two issues, in order to get the candidate who they believe will truly be the best leader for the country. This group’s problem is twofold. First, they are few in number compared to the other groups. Second, the candidates they vote for rarely fit the mold that the average sheep citizen is looking for in a candidate. It only takes one non-conformist idea (legalize pot is a perfect example) to prevent the uninformed masses from voting for this candidate (“what, he/she wants to legalize pot!? Oh noes, let me vote for whoever else is on the ballot, I don’t care who, even if I have no clue where they stand on the issues!!) This group will still vote for that individual, and when the dust settles and some idiot is trying his hardest to screw up this country in his short four years because the uninformed voted him in, this group of voters will hold their head high and have a clear conscience, even if they are more than just a little angry about the state of affairs of our government.

The third group are the voters who vote based on “electability” instead of who they actually think would be the best leader. These cowards refuse to stand up for what they actually believe in (or maybe not, if you’re willing to vote this way in the first place, maybe you’re just an apathetic loser anyway) and instead they willingly vote with the masses on an “I guess so” candidate they think will get the most votes.  These schmucks are the second most responsible group of people for the current state of our nation. They’ll vote for whoever wears the right suit, the right tie, runs the perfect campaign blend of good vibe vs awful smear commercials. Blithering idiot? They don’t care as long as you’re name sounds like it could be a kid from down the block and your smile is nice. Flip flopper on a grand scale? What flip flop? They are too busy admiring his awesome hair and his trustworthy smile (you know, because the average person is the perfect judge of character when it comes to nice smiles, right Ted Bundy?) In short, these people vote for politicians above all else. Hence, why our countries political system has gone to complete crap since the invention of the television. You think either of the Roosevelts would have stood a chance of being elected had people been able to see what they looked like prior to voting for them? Nope. Back then, you actually had to listen to what a candidate had to say, which meant that candidate had to be able to speak better than the average 4^th grader, and had to be consistent, because folks were listening to what you really had to say; *gasp* what a concept. Nowadays, you could almost get away with calling debates pageants, because that’s all they are, they don’t even debate anymore, because no one can actually put a sensible thought together,  and when they do, the other 5 blithering idiots are too busy interrupting him for him to get that idea out in his allotted time. And why? All because this group of voters has no idea what real leadership is, they just THINK they know what it looks like…

And last, as well as least, the bottom of the barrel of voters. The truly apathetic (or just remove the ‘a’, it would still be appropriate). Even more so than the group listed above, this group will tell you in casual conversation “I don’t care about politics”. Well then, why don’t you move your ass to somewhere they don’t have politics. Cuba would suit you well. I think there are a few African nations with military dictators where you would never have to worry yourself with silly things like, you know, who is going to actually run the country in which you reside. These people either don’t vote at all, because they just can’t be bothered (i.e. they don’t care) or they actually do vote, and then they do so based on some ridiculous criteria, like name recognition, or something about some candidate they heard from some guy they work with over in accounting who they suppose knows what he’s talking about. Personally, I’d rather they just don’t vote at all, on the condition that the first time they complain about literally ANYTHING, someone punch them in the mouth. These people will commonly defend their position with the phrase “It doesn’t matter who gets elected, nothing will change, all politicians are the same anyhow” If that’s the case, and you’ve ever used that sorry excuse, lets examine a few things:
Obamas health care bill. Not much change huh? Not much, except a sweeping all out change to the way health care will operate in this country going forward. And Bushes tax cuts, which personally saved my family about 900 bucks a year for about 6 years. Or the war on terror? I’m pretty sure that’s an awful lot of change for the families of those who lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the Patriot Act. Whats a little watering down of your constitutional rights when it comes to your personal safety, right? Just watch what you say, or who you talk to, hate to see that non-change get you stuck in Guantanamo. How about the Clinton policies that ultimately lead to banking practices that almost crashed the entire global economy into the dark ages. You know, the ones that put your mortgage underwater? Or what about Reagan and the policies and posturing that, combined with the right political climate at the right time ultimately led to the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union?

Then theres the other excuse “it’s only one vote, I won’t make a difference” No, if you were the only person that changed your mind, got off your butt and voted, or, if you already vote indiscriminately, voted with your conscience based on information, you’re right, it wouldn’t make a difference. But if all of you got off the couch at the same time and voted, I can assure you, it would be a difference maker. But I’d hate to disturb the perfect little bubble in which you exist. Whats that? Your life isn’t perfect? Then vote for someone whom you believe might change that, or stfu, because if you don’t vote, and some president comes along and does something you don’t like, the constitution only provides you first amendment free speech rights as protection from the government, not from the punch in the mouth I hope someone gives you the first time you open it to complain.

Now, lets examine the other half of this upcoming travesty, the current candidates.

Newt Gingrich. This man is the penultimate politician. That is to say, this guy could be stroking you with one hand, and slipping the wallet out of your pocket with the other, and you’d think it was all ok, meanwhile he’s telling your wife everything she wants to hear while his forked tongue is slipping her diamond earrings off without her ever noticing. I trust this guy about as far as I would someone who tried to sell me a bottle that was actually labeled snake oil. You know that image you get when you picture the stereotypical used car salesman? Turquoise jewelry, cowboy boots, hideous blazer, and a neverending smile? Newt is the political equivalent to that same image. He could come out and say he shares my view on every single political issue, and I still wouldn’t vote for him. His biggest draw will be with people in group four above. Everyone knows his name, so they’ll vote for him. “Yeah, I know that name! What do you mean what does he stand for, you’ve heard of him before, haven’t you? Isn’t that enough?” /vomit

Rick Santorum. Pretty boy #1. Holy shit, what a flake. He stands about as firm on issues as overcooked pasta.  This guy is “supposedly” a religious conservative, but he can’t even make a firm decision and statement about abortion? If theres one constant amongst all religious conservative voters, it’s that every one of them will beat you bloody with the abortion debate. A candidate could literally descend from the sky, walk on water, say all the right things, and if he said one thing that indicated he was pro choice, they’d burn him at the stake. If he can’t even get the story right for what is supposed to be his core group, he has no chance against Obama, who maintains the vote of the ridiculously uninformed. Mr Santorum will garner votes from groups 1 and 3 above.

Rick Perry, aka, the other pretty boy. When he first came out, and his campaign put out his stance on issues, I thought, hey, this guy might be alright. Then I saw him talk. *sigh*. If it’s medically possible, him and Rick Santorum might actually share a brain. That’s about how smart they each are. But at least when he’s being wishy washy, Santorum can maintain a head of steam in a speech. Perry can’t even remember where he stands on the issues, how the fuck is that even possible? If you ACTUALLY have a stance on an issue, then you don’t just forget what it is. If I’m pro-death penalty (which I am) I’m not going to get on a stage, and suddenly become unsure of my convictions. I might forget the words to a speech if I’m a little struck with stage fright, but forget what I believe in? Really? Really sad, that’s what I say. What Mr Perry is very good at though, is attacking other candidates for not being as conservative as he is… but he’s not conservative, he’s not anything at all, he’s a puppet. Did you know that Texas is one of the states that put the federal stimulus money to it’s best uses? Actually creating jobs, and using the money for what it was intended? Meanwhile, Perry makes a point of being anti-Obama by constantly mentioning how useless the stimulus was… Can you say loser?

Sarah Palin, oops, I mean, Michele Bachmann. This woman is either an evil super genius, or she is just as stupid as she seems. There simply can be no in between. If she’s an evil super genius, then she’s doing an ok job of capitalizing on Palins popularity with tea party voters , by acting as stupid as Palin, and as crazy as Palin backed Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell. Neither bid is working out for her politically, but I don’t think that’s her plan. She seems to spend as much time doing news and talk show interviews as she does actually campaigning, and I’m starting to think she’s actually only in this for the name/face recognition she’ll get which can be put to good use getting a half hour slot after Palin on Fox News once her term in congress comes to an end. Or, the alternate is she’s just really a half crazed, low IQ politician who actually thinks people will vote for her to lead this country. She’ll pull a handful of votes from the tea party because she’ll remind them fondly of Palin and her lost chances /eyeroll, and she’ll pull a handful of votes from group four above, because they’re just stupid enough to vote for someone based on knowing not a thing about her (anyone who’s paid attention to her, and has a clean bill of mental health, would not vote for this woman, even those from aforementioned group 4)

Mitt Romney. Oh. My. Lord. I could right a blog entry about this guy all on his own. Former cut throat business owner. Former governor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All around swell guy. This guys has a salesmans smile and a handshake that I’ll bet makes you feel as a good as a Korean massage parlor. Mitts claim to fame in this campaign is that as an operator of big business, he knows how to create jobs, and he can bring that experience to the white house and help our economy. If you’re buying into this load, read the next part carefully… It’s all a pack of lies. Romney got rich by downsizing to maximize profits. He literally made a living laying people off, it was his specialty. He would take a company toeing the line, put in more “efficient” policies, lay a ton of people off, and watch the money roll right into his wallet. If Mitt was running on a promise to reduce the size of government, make it more efficient, less bloated and less expensive to run, I would literally have no problem believing he could do just that. But he’s not. He keeps telling people he can create jobs. Wrong story bro. As for his political career, this guy was elected by quite possibly the worst block of voters in the US to run their state. I have a LOT of friends and family in Massachusetts. But let’s be honest, this state kept Ted Kennedy in office for 8 elections, over a span of almost 47 years. Are you kidding me? Let me re-iterate. The same people that elected Mitt Romney, elected an alcoholic killer to the senate 8 times. To make matters even more clear, they’ve also maintained Barney Frank as a member of Congress for the past 30 years and running, SIXTEEN terms. Let’s be clear, I could care less that the guy is gay, it doesn’t even bother me that he tried to legalize a red light district in Boston (a good idea if you ask me, but I won’t get into why right at this time) Nope. What bothers me most is the most recent election. It was already out that Barney Frank, as a chief member of the Financial Services Committee, had completely failed in his job, and was at least partially responsible for doing absolutely nothing when he had the chance, to prevent the housing bust which crushed our economy. In 2003, he shot down a bill which might have changed the way things ended up, and said this in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac : “These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing” and in 2008, he said (just before the sky fell on his head): "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." Well said dumbass, how very forward looking of you. Way to see the writing on the wall. Then the people of Massachusetts re-elected him. Are. You. Kidding. Me. When you invite someone over your house, you might have no clue that they were going to shit on your carpet while your kids are watching. But once they do, do you actually invite them to come back tomorrow? /facepalm.  If you think the people of Massachusetts have done a good job historically of picking out their elected officials, then by all means, vote for Romney, but even with his awful track record in business aside, the fact that Massachusetts found him electable ruins it for me.  Unfortunately, most people aren’t aware of his business record. Even fewer people have any idea how awful Massachusetts voters are at choosing leadership (Mayor Menino for FIVE terms, R E A L L Y!?!?) And on the rest of the issues, Mitt is fairly middle of the road, mostly because he’s more business than politics, and doesn’t really know enough about non-economic issues to take much of a stance. He has a general vibe of that “electability” trait I mentioned earlier. He’s not particularly extreme, so he won’t offend to many folks. He’s clean cut. He’s a family man. This is going to get him a lot of votes from group 3, with a good smattering of votes from groups 1 and 4. Against Obama, with none of the other candidates involved in the race as an independent, Romney could win I believe, mostly by getting more or less all of the republican vote and enough of the independents that are fed up with Obama to give us a win, if you call four more years of suckage, a win. Amazing. Sad, but amazing.

Ron Paul. To look at him, Ron Paul fits the mold of the “old school” politician. You know, Helms, Thurman, etc. But to hear him talk and if you actually listen to what he has to say, what he believes in ad where he stands on the issues, things change completely. I don’t agree with Mr Paul on all of the issues, but I agree with him wholeheartedly on the most serious issues. His views are somewhat offbeat, or, as some of his doubters say, “extreme”. But his ideas are really only all that extreme if you are really all that closeminded. Yes, he proposes some drastic changes to our government structure, as well as some major changes to our foreign policy. If you think we’re doing fine in both areas, and our government is not a bureaucratic disaster, then by all means vote for someone else. If you somehow believe our foreign policy as the worlds policeman and international money sponge is working out just great when we have children right here in this country that are homeless, starving, or both, then by all means stick with the status quo. Mr Paul believes very strongly in the constitution and his stance on issues is proof of that. He is somewhat religious conservative, and is against gay marriage and is anti-abortion. BUT. He believes that these issues are for states to decide, not the federal government. And he’s right. The constitution specifically states that any domain not mentioned within it, is for the states to govern, not the federal government. Mr Paul also has the downside of being older than the other candidates by a good margin. A factor that many believe makes him a one term president at best. And? I’d rather have four years of good change than four more years of BS. He doesn’t flex on his beliefs, he doesn’t take 5 minutes of explanation for a yes/no question, he knows what his plans are, not just what his goals are. Romney tells you he will create jobs, but can’t tell you how he plans to do it. Bachmann tells you she’ll get the economy back on track, but can’t explain for one second how she intends to do it. Ask Ron Paul what he plans to do about the budget, and he’ll tell you exactly how he’ll shrink government, right down to the departments he would downsize or eliminate. He’ll tell you that he plans to cut foreign spending, and pull our troops back to within our own borders to reduce military costs. Every politician tells you what they want to accomplish, almost NONE of them can tell you exactly what plans they have to get it done though. Then we elect them, and none of it ever comes to fruition, because they never had a plan in the first place, and you’re not going to get much done if you don’t know how you want to do it. Some people doubt Mr Pauls ability to accomplish his goals. But, he’s wisely chosen his moves as ones a president can pull off with little or no interference from Congress. Foreign Aid. Sure, congress makes the budget, but this is an area that the president has a lot of influence over. Military? He might not have the power to completely close a base without approval from the Military Oversight Committee, but he can certainly pull enough troops from it to make it senseless to keep open. Government cutbacks of entire departments? He can pull that off with a simple signature. Closing an entire department might be more tricky, but not impossible. Sure, there are other things he’d like to do that are likely unattainable without a very cooperative Congress, but the things already mentioned would create more useful change than the last 3 presidents combined over the past 20 years. Mr Paul does have some problems though. He lacks the electability factor, and in a primary race against Santorum and Romney, he’s going to have a hard time beating either. He’s not a puppet, which means even if he makes an excellent showing and is able to hang in there, it’s unlikely he’ll get the party nomination. They’d rather have someone they can puppet, so the government can continue the raping of the middle class until we literally just don’t have a country anymore. Santorum would make the ultimate puppet, but I think Romney would get the nomination based on that electability factor (i.e. how many idiots can we get to vote for this guy without knowing anything about who he really is?) But, in truth, If he could get the nomination, I believe Ron Paul might be the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama. He’s most likely to pull the independent vote, because he’s actually not as extreme as most people think. He’s very center when it comes to politics, very common sense vs party politics. He’ll also pull a lot of the young vote because I think young voters are in favor of his foreign policies as well as his desire to limit government interference in personal lives. Oh, and he wants to repeal the Patriot Act and abolish the TSA, both good moves in the eyes of young voters. This basically steals away the same group that helped Obama get elected in ’08. But, he would have to get the nomination first, and while I’ll certainly vote for him, I highly doubt he’ll get the call.  Mr Paul will get 90% of the vote from group 2. He'll get a handful of the smarter folks from group 1. He'll even get a little of the group 4 vote based on name recognition. He'll get almost none of group 3 unless he actually gets the Republican nomination.

What we're left with is most likely Romney vs Obama. Romney is going to get the Republican vote, but he's not exactly going to inspire people to vote, so he'll only get the dedicated voters into the booths. He'll get a smattering of moderates and independents. Obama will get the liberal democratic base. He'll get that other vote I mentioned earlier. In the end, probably very close race, but which way the nickel would land is hard to say, an in my eyes, irrelevant. Some people are rallying to the ridiculous cry of "anyone but Obama". I'm not an Obama fan, but given the choice between shitty and shittier, I'd probably vote for neither and vote Libertarian if they have someone on the NC ballot, or write in.