Rilaly's Blog
Simple Truths

Posts Tagged ‘Elections 2012

Arbitrary ideas

May 1, 2012

How Obama could get re-elected. I had an idea how Obama could win the election the other day, and it seemed so easy that I almost didn’t want to voice it, but I knew no one would do it, and I know that no one reads my blogs anyway. The idea is based on the argument that Republicans are currently making that Obama will do anything and say anything to win this upcoming election. Republicans argue that he doesn’t have a record to run on, so we may see a whole lot of desperation on his part to get you to believe anything and everything about him. They also say that Obama will do and anything and everything he can think of to get you to think less of his presumed opponent Mitt Romney. If the former point is true, and Obama does reach a point of desperation, he may want to consider having George W. Bush christen the new Trade Center.

President Obama would, of course, be the first choice to christen this building once it’s completed. Obama could let it be known that he would be honored to christen this building, and he could talk about the glory of the new building, and the symbol of regrowth, and how he chose to see this as a symbol of what he wants to do for the country between 2012 and 2016. He could milk it for weeks, holding press conferences and on site speeches. Then, at the last second, say with one week to go before the christening, he could say, “I have decided to select an honoree to stand in my place. I have selected George W. Bush, for I believe that no man has done more to thwart terrorism in the past decade. While I may not agree with some of the tactics his administration employed in fighting terrorism, now is not a time for such bickering. It is a time to commemorate what I believe is an historic achievement worthy of honor. Let The New Trade Center be the symbol for our new era, and let George W. Bush be the man to symbolically lead us into that era.”

Now I know what you’re thinking, Obama would never do this, no politician would. Imagine if he did though. I’m sure Obama would use different words, and he wouldn’t be so effusive with his praise for the former president of another party, but if Obama and his speechwriters could somehow construct language that kept his arguments against the Bush administration in place while allowing the former president to christen the new Trade Center, I think Obama would be almost unbeatable in the 2012 election.

Imagine how difficult it would be for Republicans to pin their narratives on him from that point forward. Imagine the ads. “Everything they told you about this man is wrong. He is a generous man, a good man, a man that promised you he would not be a blue-state president, or a red-state, but he would be a president for the people.” Imagine the swing voters saying, in their exit poll interviews, “He and I (Obama) don’t see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but after that thing he did for Bush at the Trade Center, I got the idea that he was a good man, and I started to think that a lot of his detractors were lying about him.”

If Obama is going to get desperate, and his opponents think he might if his poll numbers don’t improve, think about what a home run this could be. He would be seen in the same light as Reagan on this one issue, in that Reagan invited Carter to welcome the Iranian Hostages home, even though Reagan was in office when it happened. Obama might trouble his base a little with such a move, but who is his base going to vote for if not Obama? It will never happen of course, but it could be his Sister Souljah moment if he did it right.

Message to Romney: Don’t insult the voters

April 25, 2012

Most of William Kristol’s piece in The National Review is pedantic, political fare. Most of the advice he gives Romney is the typical, talking head advice we’ve heard every pundit give every politician that hopes to unseat an incumbent. Most of it is so pedantic it causes the eyes to glaze over, but the piece separates itself from the usual political fare in the third to last paragraph.

In this paragraph, Kristol lays out a solid piece of advice for any candidate seeking to unseat an incumbent: “Don’t insult the candidate they voted for in the previous election, because that insults that voter.” One wouldn’t normally think that a voter would be insulted by an office challenger telling the voter’s that their previous vote was obviously an incorrect one based upon that candidate’s performance while in office. One would think that a voter would allow for a challenger to say, “And here’s why I’m going to do it better.” For generations, we’ve become accustomed to candidates insulting one another, digging up stats and events that dictate why the previous candidate was a boob. Kristol says that’s the wrong approach, because those voters made a judgment in that previous election, and by insulting that former occupant, you are insulting the judgment those voters made in that election.

“Part of making the case for Romney’s future presidency is winning over some citizens who voted for Obama in 2008. People don’t like being told they are, or were, stupid. If some previous Obama supporters are now disappointed—and they are—Romney should empathize with them, not condescend to them. In 2004 John Kerry unfailingly gave the impression that he thought if you had voted for Bush, or approved of anything he’d done (in office), or found him in certain ways likable or admirable, then you were an idiot. That’s no way to beat an incumbent. His former supporters need to be won over rather than bludgeoned into submission. Reagan provided a strong contrast on the issues to Jimmy Carter in 1980. But his tone wasn’t snide or contemptuous. Romney—and especially his campaign, which has had a taste for the snide and the contemptuous—might profitably study Reagan’s 1980 effort.”

Why Republicans resent Hollywood

April 19, 2012

Many of my friends say that a Hollywood star could never influence them in choosing a political candidate seeking office. The implicit idea behind such a statement is that due to the fact that a Hollywood star couldn’t influence them to change their vote, a Hollywood star cannot influence anyone’s vote.

As Gareth Ireland, of Thecheers.org website, says: “If celebrities can dictate how we look, dress, and act they can surely dictate who the younger American voter should vote for.”*

Younger people, as we all know, are insecure and unsure individuals. They are far more prone to peer pressure and bullying than older people are. This is especially the case when the young person knows nothing about a given topic. Young people do not usually have the patience to learn the intricacies of a given topic, so when a person that they deem a cool guy comes along and “informs” them about politics, they’re easily swayed. Studies have shown that young people are not as influenced by their parents thinking as they used to be.** They are more prone to think that their parents are dorks, their teachers are Nazis, and nobody listens to their grandparents anymore. Actors and rock stars are cool though. They have a way of putting things that really makes a young person “think”. Actors and rock stars use words like amazing and unfathomable, and young people rush out to voting booths to vote in the manner they dictate.

Can Romney change the way government is run?

April 17, 2012

Reading through the numerous newspaper newspapers today, one cannot help but be embarrassed at the way our federal government is currently being run. Our newspapers are providing details of an inspector general’s report that states that the General Services Administration (GSA) of the federal government took a lavish and wasteful 800,000 trip to Las Vegas. We then read about a GSA employee reward program that violated a government policy. We are reading about how our government officials are wasting our money with no regard for how it’s being spent. Where’s this mentality coming from? Does it come from the top, or is it a mentality so entrenched in some of the federal government departments that no one leader, or government official, can be blamed for the mentality?

In some speeches, President Barack Obama tells us that our massive debt cannot be maintained as it is, yet we see no off teleprompter actions in this regard. When spending cuts are then proposed, we are told that they’re in line with “social Darwinist” thinking. We are then forced to endure the “parks will close, the needy will starve,” and the handicapped people will have their chairs taken away from them if we allow these Republican spending cut proposals to see the light of day.

The answer to this problem, say Obama and Democrats, is that we need to pay more taxes. We need to pass the Buffet rule and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on 1/1/2013. We are told that the Buffet rule, in particular, is a good first step to solving the debt, yet no other steps are proposed. This would raise taxes in a manner that even some of his more level-headed supporters admit will have little to no effect on the deficit or the debt. They call it a gimmick. A gimmick, some have said to divide the classes and create more votes for Obama. Yet, we have no off teleprompter proposals to cut spending. It would appear that the manager of our federal government has no management skills, but even those most ardent supporters knew that when they voted for him.

E.J. Dionne and defensive conservatives

April 9, 2012

Washington Post writer E.J. Dionne’s latest column When Liberals Stop Being Wimps is fine, until he gets to the first line of the column: “Conservatives are not accustomed to being on the defensive.”* Just about every word that comes out of a conservatives’ mouth nowadays is laced with qualifiers, and this is due to the fact that they fear the interpretation (see spin) the media will present to their viewers/readers. Liberals, on the other hand, are used to having their statements being taken at face value. Liberals are not used to backing up their statements with explanations. They’re not used to being called out on their statements, and they’re not accustomed to being on the defensive.

Ask Trent Lott what happens to a conservative when they’re not on the defense 100% of the time. In 2002, Lott made comments that suggested that the segregationist, Senator Strom Thurmond, “would have made a great president, and the rest of the nation should have followed (Lott’s home state of) Mississippi in voting for (Thurmond) as president.” This was said as an homage to Thurmond. Inappropriateness aside for just a moment, Lott made these statements to laud a friend. Lott’s words were the typical, unthinking statements made by one making a toast to a friend to suggest that that “man of the moment” was a swell feller.

Trent Lott spent the next couple of months issuing a mea culpa to anyone and everyone who would listen. He admitted that he didn’t think of the ramifications of his words when he made them. Lott slipped up. He got caught up in a moment, and he was not speaking from a defensive enough position for one of the few moments in his life. Even after all of these apologies, Lott’s words were deemed indefensible by the Senate, and he was forced to resign. One of those who openly called for Lott to resign was Senator Christopher Dodd.

Two years later, in a remarkably similar homage to another Senator, one named Robert Byrd, Senator Dodd claimed that Byrd would’ve made a great leader at any time in our history. Senator Byrd, you should be reminded, was a Kleagle in the Klu Klux Klan. In the Senate in June 1964, Mr. Byrd made a 14-hour filibuster speech in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the Civil Rights Act. Remarkably similar right? According to then Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, it was not.

To defend Dodd, Daschle said: “I would think even he (my emphasis) would tell you there’s no parallel (to Trent Lott’s comments).”**

Bob Kerry will run for Nebraska’s Senate seat

February 29, 2012

The moment we Nebraskans have been crossing our fingers over for so long that we nearly went blind is finally here! Bob Kerry has informed Democrats to inform MSNBC to inform people to inform people from Nebraska that he has decided to run for the Senate seat that Nebraskans allowed Ben Nelson to occupy for twelve years. For those broken hearted Democrats that have longed for this day, after being rejected so many times for better opportunies, Bob is apparently ready to scrape the bottom of the barrel and give us his representation.

Clash of the ‘ticians 2012

February 1, 2012

Now that Romney has won Florida, it appears to be what some French would call a fait accompli. A win is a win, as they say, but with the figures we now have rolling in, we may not want to don the FA cap on Romney just yet. I’m not saying that Gingrich or Santorum have a shot at this point, but I’m talking about the celebration that would surely ensue if any other such victory by any other candidate. There is still plenty to fear with Romney.

It took Romney a ton of money to put what many consider a group of lackluster candidates away in Florida. Estimates have that figure to be roughly sixty-five to one in favor of the former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. A win is a win, and Romney did whatever it took in this case to win, but every time the Yankees have won the World Series in the past decade, the sub story has always involved how much money they spent versus their opponent and the rest of the league. The underlying story was, what happens when the Yankees run across a team that is able to spend as much as they are? When the Red Sox reached that point, they beat the Yankees as often as they lost to them. The Yankees lost their mystique. When the Yankees won the Series, however, there was never a next day, a next opponent. If Romney is the Yankees in this scenario, he just won two games, on the road, against the Royals in the Championship Series. (No offense intended to the Gingrich, Santorum and Royals fans, I’m talking money here not quality.) In this money scenario, there are no comparative Red Sox analogies, and there really are no NL analogies, for no team has spent as much as the Yankees or The Sox in the past couple decades, but let’s just say for the purpose of this scenario that the Dodgers were on a scale comparable with the Yankees economically. Let’s just say that Obama is the Dodgers. Romney has just beat the Royals twice on the road. The sub story is Romney has done nothing to connect with voters more than Gingrich or Santorum, and he has done little to nothing to combat his opponents if they were on equal footing.

Can Mitt Romney transform America?

January 19, 2012

Former Governor Mitt Romney claims he’s going to give it one, last ditch effort to try and save America. Mitt has made a claim that he’s willing to be a one-term President if it means overturning everything that’s been done the last twelve years—particularly the last four.

Personally, I’m a little tired of hearing Romney say he’s going to overturn Obamacare. It’s probably why I would not make a great politician, a musician, or an ad man. I loathe repetition. I can’t stand it, but I do know that if you want a human being to know your message, you have to repeat it over and over and over again, until it sinks home. Congressman Michele Bachman’s warning also doesn’t sit well with me when I hear Romney simply state that he will overturn this effort to transform America into a socialist country. Her warning is that this mammoth piece of legislation, we call Obamacare, cannot be overturned in the manner Romney is suggesting. She warned that by the time a Republican takes the seat, parts of Obamacare will be so entrenched that it will have to be fought line by line. Her point was that no one had the temerity, or the knowhow, to do what needed to be done to fight the leviathan. Her point was that only a legislator that knows the minutiae of legislation could successfully weed out the damage that Obamacare promises to do to this country.

Mitt Romney and electability

January 7, 2012

“The idea that you pick the most right-wing candidate without any concern over who can win is suicidal,” Ann Coulter said in an apparent flip-flop over the presidential run of former Governor Mitt Romney.

Coulter is receiving a lot of flak for this comment. The reason is Coulter has been saying, for years, that Republicans shouldn’t fear electing conservatives to the White House. In recent years, she has railed against the Dole and McCain nominations. She is now saying that remaining stubborn on a right-wing candidate is suicidal. The comment is charged, of course, but what Coulter comment isn’t. The question is is she right? All of us have our issues, be they the second Amendment, Romneycare, or the silly flak developed over the $10,000 bet Romney issued to Perry. We all have our specified reason for being against Mitt Romney. For many Romney will be another, in a long list of presidential elections, in which the voter votes for the lesser of two evils (if he wins the GOP nomination of course). Others have said that they won’t vote. Whether it be their devotion to principle, or the vain pursuit of being perceived as the smartest person in the room, some have said they won’t vote at all because Romney doesn’t adhere to their pet issue in a manner that’s conservative enough. This is what, in my opinion, Coulter was referring to as suicidal.

Senator Ben Nelson retiring from the Senate

December 29, 2011

It was that one vote from Nelson that did him in. It was political suicide in the minds of Nebraskans. It was taking one sixth of the economy and nationalizing it. Nelson could’ve survived other votes, and he has in the past. He could’ve survived voting for the Obama stimulus in 2008, but voting to change the face of this nation was unforgiveable in the minds of most Nebraskans. Others (above) can say that Obama is popular in Nebraska, but he’s not. He won one district, Omaha’s district. In 2006, Ben Nelson lost just about every county in Nebraska, in his bid for re-election, except for Omaha. The votes were so overwhelming in Omaha that Nelson won re-election.

For all of his conservative votes, Nelson still decided to vote for one of the most partisan pieces of legislation this country has ever seen. The pressure must have been intense for him. After casting the vote, Nelson started getting booed out of Omaha pizza joints, and he started ordering protestors’ cars towed away from in front of his offices. It hasn’t been pretty for him, and I’m sure he’s just had enough of it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.