Maybe – for once – California does have a better idea

Okay, we all make fun of some of the nutty ideas that come out of California. 

But its recent changes in how primaries are decided may have some merit. 

In short, California primaries are now open – which means everybody, regardless of party – votes on all the candidates.  The top two vote-getters face off in the general election. 

Coupled with non-partisan redistricting, it's changing the whole political landscape in California, especially on selection of House members.    

There are no gerrymandered “safe” seats anymore.  And it’s now quite possible to have two candidates from the same party get the most number of votes and have to run against each other.  In fact, that’s happening now in at least 9 California Congressional districts. The old codgers and dinosaurs face extinction.  

You can thank Prop 14, approved by California voters in 2010.  It prohibited political parties from nominating candidates in a primary for Congressional or state elective office, although they could endorse or oppose a candidate.  And it doesn't apply to Presidential races. 

Instead, voters choose who gets nominated -- the top two -- without regard to party. 

To say I love this would be an understatement. 

Think about it for a minute … 

Both the Republican and Democrat parties are broken.  They've each been co-opted by their most radical elements.  Anybody who doesn't accept 100% of their dogma – anyone who has a more moderate view on one issue or another – is a traitor to those bases. 

So if you’re a Democrat who is generally liberal but a bit more conservative on some social and fiscal issues, there’s no place for you.  If you’re a Republican who doesn't toe the hardest party line on abortion, gay marriage and immigration, there’s no place for you either.    

Neither party actually represents us because we’re usually somewhere in the middle on most issues.  We’re not ideologues; just regular folks going about the business of our lives.   We don’t draw such harsh lines.  But the Republican and Democrat parties do, to their detriment. 

That’s why we have so little respect for the current parties, and the candidates they endorse.  And why so many people are now registered as independents.  When the general elections roll around most of us really do try to choose the person we think will do the best job. 

Or, if we’re forced to, the person likely to do the least amount of harm. 

Unfortunately, even those choices are severely limited by who makes it through the primaries.  Which is why the open primary idea has so much merit.   

We all know that most primaries are now decided by the fanatical extremists of each party.  That’s how a wannabe witch like Christy O’Donnell and a nut job like Todd “legitimate rape” Akin get their party’s nod over more experienced, and less compromised, candidates; candidates who would probably win in the general election by getting support from a broader base. 

It’s also how 80-year-old Pete Stark of California – described as “left of Lenin” – has managed to get re-elected to the House 19 times in a previously gerrymandered district, usually without any credible opposition.   

Well now Pete has an opponent – actually another Democrat who is only 31 years old – to worry about.  And his district now includes many more moderates than ever before – not just hard core lefties.  He could very well lose this time around. 

We can all thank Prop 14 for it. 

It would be great to see this idea gain ground across the nation.  If we could get redistricting out of the hands of politicians at the same time – and maybe simply decide districts on neutral grounds, like geography and population – so much the better.

Well of course there’s voter fraud

Stuffing the ballot box is as old as the republic.  It’s a time-honored tradition, especially in big cities across this country.

It’s ludicrous when someone says there’s no proof.   There’s plenty of proof.  But that’s the argument raised by opponents of tightening voting rules through such things as the recent spate of voter ID laws.  They say that unless you can prove widespread voting fraud, you have no right to put procedures in place to prevent it. 

That’s tantamount to claiming it’s not a crime if you don’t get caught.   Sadly, too many people in this country hold to that belief. 

It’s part of the great divide in America:  those who believe there are rules everyone should follow; and those who think the rules only apply to you if you are unlucky enough to get caught. 

When someone or some group is caught, it’s often dismissed as insignificant; a one-off that doesn’t prove anything.  When ACORN was caught padding voter registrations, and providing a bounty to part-timers to sign up as many names – not real people – as possible, it was a mere anomaly, not a pattern.  When bulk registration forms were sent to Pennsylvania prisons in the last election that, too, was an oversight.  When a woman running for Congress was found to have illegally voted in two states in the past two national elections, so what? 

And when a county in Wisconsin recorded more votes than people registered, well that doesn’t prove anything, either. 

Really? 

Let’s face facts:  voter fraud is rampant.  Voter ID laws requiring photo IDs are a start, but the wholesale fraud in multiple registrations and abuse of absentee ballots is where we really need to go.  Until we have a solution to those, there’s no integrity in the vote.   

There are virtually no controls on these.  There’s nothing to prevent someone from harvesting registrations and absentee ballots in nursing homes, among the mentally ill, or even having a student vote where they go to school in one state while also voting by absentee ballot in their “home” state. 

There’s also almost nothing to address the “dead” vote – which in most cities reliably votes the straight Democrat ticket.  Or the “vacant lot” vote, which is also a usually predictable element of the Democrat base.   Efforts to purge voter rolls of the dead as well as convicted felons – which most often happen in Republican-controlled states – are broadly opposed by Democrats.

Go figure.   

There is an answer.  It’s a national identity card, preferably with biometrics like a scan of a finger print.  One to every citizen.  Couple that with a national database of who has that card and their photo -- and whether they are in fact dead or alive -- and states would have a fighting chance to stop voter fraud. 

When someone tried to register in one state, you could quickly see if they were who they said they were, and also whether they were already registered there or somewhere else. 

In terms of absentee ballots, you’d need to include a photocopy of your national ID with your ballot.  That would stop the abuse of registering and voting as John Smith, J. Smith, J.P. Smith, etc.  

Would it be hard to get everyone signed up and equipped with a card?  Of course, but it would be worth whatever we had to spend.  And worth it to overcome whatever obstacles placed before it.  

Democrats and the ACLU will naturally oppose it, probably on the grounds that it’s an invasion of privacy.  That’s a weak argument, but if you see how whipped up they are about requiring a picture-ID to vote – not a very high threshold – you can imagine how hard they’ll fight against an ID with teeth.

It’s the step we need to take to insure that our one-person-one-vote standard means something. 

Is there anything more valuable to our democracy? 

NBCnews.com – at it again

It’s not that I want to make a personal mission out of keeping NBCnews.com honest – which would appear to be an impossible task – but sometimes you just have to call them out. 

One of today’s headlines was:

“Raise taxes and cut spending, business economists say” 

Which, if you only read the headline, would make you think that a majority of business economists are in favor of higher taxes and lower spending. 

And that would be the wrong conclusion.  In fact, there’s nothing in the article to support that headline.  If anything, the majority don’t think we should raise taxes anytime soon …

“Most of them think Congress should wait until 2014 before raising tax rates. Only a small minority favor a permanent extension of lower payroll tax rates. A higher percentage — between 35 percent and 45 percent — favor permanent extension of current tax rates on income, dividends, and capital gains.”

With the “current tax rates” being the ones so criticized as the “Bush tax cuts,” I believe. 

There’s also nothing about cutting spending in the article. 

Here’s the link to the article in full:  http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/24/14048116-raise-taxes-and-cut-spending-business-economists-say?lite

Now it could just be me, but what was NBCnews.com trying to do here?

Obviously, one goal certainly was to rile up their loyal lefty base, as witnessed by the comments.  The usual loons came out – who clearly hadn’t read the article – praising the need to raise taxes, and citing this article as more proof of the righteousness of their cause.

Except nothing in the article, except for the vaguely worded intro, supported that.  And that was unsubstantiated by the rest of the article.

So again, NBCnews.com distinguishes itself by misreporting the news.  Or trying to invent "news" they wish were true out of thin air, not to mention thin facts.  

Coincidence? 

I don’t think so.      

Romney’s problem is that he’s too nice

And too humble. 

What he accomplished at Bain creating jobs is amazing.  What he did in saving the Salt Lake Olympics is nothing short of astonishing.  How as governor he managed Massachusetts – and yes, how he put through comprehensive healthcare reform there – working with Democrats and Republicans in the bluest of states, is something we haven’t seen in years from other politicians. 

If you watched any of the Republican convention and saw the testimonials from ordinary people about what he did for them and their families, you couldn’t help but be moved.  There wasn’t a dry eye in the place, and perhaps none among the TV audience either.

So why doesn’t he talk about all this more? 

I think he simply feels uncomfortable talking about himself.  He’s doesn’t want to brag.  He thinks that all the selfless things he’s done for others were not extraordinary, but just the right thing to do.  If he were Jewish, they would be his mitzvahs – good deeds done that are never spoken of; the responsibility of every good person to help others in need.    

There’s no doubt that he is an honestly good man.  A good father.  A good husband.   A pillar of his community.  More importantly, he’s someone who was always there to do what was needed solely out of compassion and an intrinsic sense of duty to others.

Under any other circumstances, he’d be a saint.  He would be – rightfully – admired for his charitable work, his own personal sacrifices for others and all the good things he’s done. 

There’s also his business and governing success to consider. 

He’s proud of what he accomplished at Bain, but rarely speaks about how Bain helped build companies like Staples, or helped pension funds that invested in Bain. 

In governing Massachusetts, he reduced their debt and brought them back from impending financial disaster – and he did that by working with the largely Democrat legislature.  At the same time, he put together a comprehensive health program that worked for that state.

He rarely talks about those accomplishments, either. 

He’s demonstrated that, unlike a lot of our current politicians, he is willing to reach across the aisle, put party interests aside, and make the compromises needed to get what’s required. 

Again, under any other circumstances, he’d been the perfect model for what we want and need as President.  Solid business experience.  Proven experience in governing.  Openness to reasonable compromise and a willingness to put party politics aside to achieve the best result.

So why is he taking such a hammering in this election cycle?  (Especially against a President who has no business experience, no apparent competency in running the government, and an unwillingness to consider any ideas but his own.)

The simple fact is that Romney’s humility is killing him.

Unlike Obama, who has no problem claiming credit for everything positive and blaming G.W. Bush for anything negative, Romney is a stand-up guy who has trouble taking credit even where credit is due.  Maybe he thinks it’s unseemly.  He has to get over it, if he wants to win. 

He needs to change his attitude.  He needs to stand up for what he’s done.  He needs to be more out-there with his accomplishments.  He also needs to let the public know that he’s not just some rich fat cat who only cares about himself and other rich people.  He’s put his own skin in the game when it mattered to ordinary people; not enough people know this.   

Another drawback – at least in the eyes of the media – is that he’s honest.   What he said at that taped Republican fundraiser – while not politically correct – is undeniably true. 

People not paying any taxes aren’t interested in tax reform – it’s working just fine for them now.  People who feel they are “victims” and deserve special treatment won’t vote for Romney – he promotes personal responsibility.  And the Palestinians don’t want peace.

Anything in those three statements that wasn’t true?  

Candidly, for Romney to win he has to overcome three obstacles.  Obama.  The media.  And himself.  He can’t do anything about the first two, but he can do something about himself. 

If his fear is that he’ll lose the far right by claiming credit for healthcare in Massachusetts, or governing toward the middle, he should realize that the far right will vote against Obama no matter what.  They’d vote for a ham sandwich instead of Obama.

Plus, for all the frenzy over the individual mandate – which was part of the Massachusetts plan – the mandate is actually a good idea in principle and nothing to be ashamed of.  Conservatives came up with the idea years ago long before the Democrats.  It only makes sense that everybody pays into their own healthcare. 

It’s the rest of ObamaCare that’s a complete mess.  It’s an incredible mash up of bad ideas and even worse ideas, coupled with bribes, political payoffs, exemptions for the politically connected, sweeping and costly new bureaucracies, all wrapped in a ponderous piece of legislation that Congress didn’t read before they passed it.  That makes it perhaps the biggest piece of stealth legislation ever.  And with a provenance like that, you can be assured that virtually nothing good will come from it.   

So what’s Romney to do to turn things around?

Step up.  Stand up.  And don’t be afraid of telling people who you really are and what you’ve accomplished. 

It’s no time to be humble.   Obama certainly isn't.  

Nice try, NBCnews.com

In case you weren’t aware, MSNBC.com is now NBCnews.com.   

The name may have changed, but it’s still as loony as ever.  Yesterday was a perfect example. 

They made a big deal about two people – that’s right, just two -- who had hung empty chairs from trees.  One in Texas; another in Virginia.  One chair had a U.S. flag taped to it; the other had a sign that read “Nobama.” 

This was apparently worthy of the national spotlight: two chairs hung from trees.

Certainly both were political statements based on Clint’s empty chair metaphor.  Hanging a chair from a tree, however, is a far cry from how NBCnews.com treated this.   

So as real, unbiased journalists, not prone to idle speculation, or jumping to unfounded conclusions, they headlined the story: 

“Empty chair ‘lynchings’: Anti-Obama protests gone too far?”

Subtle.  And just the right neutral tone, don’t you think?     

(For fun, here’s the link to the story:  http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/20/13989510-empty-chair-lynchings-anti-obama-protests-gone-too-far?lite)

They didn’t waste any time getting to the implied racial implications of this, did they now?  All they needed was a rope and a tree and they were on their way.   

Over 4,000 nitwits commented on the story, most with how this showed the rabid, racist tendencies of the Republican Party.  Clearly, to NBCnews.com readers, it was intended to be a metaphorical lynching of President Obama.  Assuming they knew the meaning of "metaphor."   

Folks, it was two chairs in trees.  No racial slurs.  No hangman’s nooses.  No KKK or other hate-group tags.  Just two chairs in trees. 

But that was enough to get the liberal bloggers’ panties in a knot.  One of them tried to interview the guy in Texas about his display, and to tell him how disturbed they were by it.

According to the blogger:

“He replied, and I quote, "I don't really give a damn whether it disturbs you or not. You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you. I don't give a [expletive]. If you don't like it, don't come down my street."

I like this guy.  And I particularly love free speech.  Welcome to America.  'Bout damn time.  

BTW: the article fell off the main page of NBCnews.com today.  I can only guess it didn’t fan the firestorm of manufactured outrage they’d hoped for.  I don’t think it even got picked up anywhere else. 

So, nice try NBCnews.com.  And liberal bloggers everywhere.  Unfortunately, it didn’t work. 

But please, please keep putting out bullshit stories like this.  These remind us of what real, objective, and balanced journalism once was. 

You know … the stuff you don’t do.   

  

The problem is not taxes, it’s spending

A lot is made about the 47% who don’t pay Federal income taxes.  About how the rich should pay more – their “fair share.” And how our tax rates are too low to support our government. 

Lost in all this barrage of claims and counter claims is one overlooked reality. 

We’re not going broke because taxes aren’t high enough. 

We’re going broke because we’re spending too much.    

Nobody wants to address that.  The presumption – particularly by the media and the Democrats – is that what the government needs is not open to discussion. 

Which is why you hear the media and Democrats constantly hammer at the need to raise taxes on someone or something to provide more money to the government.    

They never bring up that maybe – just maybe – we should look at the other side of the equation. 

Maybe government doesn’t actually “need” as much money. 

Maybe government could cut spending so they didn’t need as much money.  Or have to borrow so much from the Chinese. 

Maybe government – and politicians – could get in touch with reality, first.  Maybe they should consider what we actually need as opposed to what politicians and special interests want.

If they honestly grasped that, maybe we wouldn’t be wasting money on building an international airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.  Or financing a road to nowhere in Alaska.  Funding a golf course somewhere, teaching inner-city kids to play tennis, building bike paths in urban areas, or financing a high-speed railroad to connect California to Nevada,

Or forcing the military to buy stuff they don’t want or need.   

None of these things are really needed.  But we spend a lot of money on them.   

And maybe, if they knew we were paying more attention, they wouldn’t use our dollars to pay for a media campaign to encourage illegal immigrants to sign up for food stamps.   Or to fund advertising to seniors to promote the benefits of ObamaCare.

   

Sure these may all be nice ideas – to somebody – but should government be paying for them?

The American public can’t seem to get the point across to elected officials and bureaucrats that we can’t afford to squander money on “nice” ideas.  We have to focus on necessities.   

The harsh reality – and why we apparently can’t get out of our current fiscal mess – is that as soon as politicians get their hands on new money, or even the promise of new money, they immediately spend it.  Give them more money through higher taxes, and poof, it’s gone. 

And almost always on other things that have nothing to do with what they got the money for.  

Remember when Social Security taxes were raised a few years ago to “save” the program for seniors?   Do you know where that money – and the money before it – actually went? 

Now some people do know that the government has been looting Social Security funds for years for all kinds of purposes. And then replacing what they take with government IOUs.  It’s perhaps the worst-kept secret in D.C.  And both parties have done it. 

But most people – except for those who run the programs – don’t know that for decades Social Security has been paying for pre-school education programs and a whole range of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with assuring financial security for seniors.  You’d be amazed at everything your Social Security taxes pay for – and astonished how little of your money goes toward its long-term solvency.  Go ahead, look it up. 

It’s not just the Feds and Congress.  The tobacco settlement, which brought billions into state coffers to help offset health costs of smokers and to promote anti-smoking campaigns, was instead dumped into most states’ general funds.  The states then immediately spent almost all that money on everything from reducing state debt to raises for government employees.   

That’s why it’s maddening to hear the constant harping about the need for more money for the government – be it state or Federal.  Most of what they get they’ll squander. 

We all know this.  We see it every day.  

Which is why many of us are inherently opposed to higher taxes.  

It’s not because we are selfish and piggish, which is what the media wants you to believe.

Honestly, most Americans don’t mind paying taxes – what they do mind is how frivolously and wastefully our tax dollars are used.   

The unspoken reason why many of us oppose higher taxes and are in favor of tax cuts is not that we simply want more money for ourselves. 

It’s because we want to starve the government.  We want it to learn to do what it needs to do with less.  We know it’s possible.  Government is desperately in need of an “intervention.”  We need to force the issue, address the government’s addiction to spending, and this is one way we think government will finally understand. 

I don’t understand why so many people are so hesitant to admit this. 

Government will never control spending until we cut up their credit cards and force them to balance spending and income.       

But until they recognize that the problem is spending, not solely income through taxes, the problem cannot be solved. 

We will never be able to co-exist with the radical Islamists

It’s naïve to think there’s any possible way for us to come to terms with these fanatics.  Anyone who thinks we can simply does not understand the situation. 

It’s a waste of time to even try.  Obama should know this.  So should Hillary Clinton.  So should all those “love thy neighbor” bleeding hearts who think otherwise. 

The radical Islamists hate us.  They hate everything about us.  They revile everything we treasure – especially our freedoms embodied in the First Amendment.  They think our culture is inherently immoral, pernicious and must be destroyed before it infects the world further. 

They also hate the Jews.  They want Israel wiped off the face of the earth.  They despise all other religions – and sects – but theirs.  That’s why radical Islamist Sunnis and radical Islamist Shi’a Muslims have no problem killing each other. 

Everyone who doesn’t believe exactly what they believe is an infidel, and according to their interpretation of the Koran infidels may be slaughtered like sheep. 

In short, they hate everyone and everything that is not them.  And they see no moral obstacle to killing infidels – be they men, women or children – because they believe the Koran encourages them to kill infidels.  The same Koran also instructs them that to die in defense of their religion is immediately rewarded with a shortcut to their heaven where the men will have 72 virgins awaiting them.  That’s why radical Islamists have no problem strapping on a bomb and blowing up others. 

So much for Islam being a religion of peace.  Or at least their interpretation of it. 

And we think we can reason with them? 

That’s impossible.  They want to kill us all.  They want to take civilization back to the 7^th century.  They want Sharia – which is not only a system of laws and rules, but also a form of theocratic government – to replace all other forms of government, especially democracy.

Forget liberties.  Forget freedom of expression.  Freedom of the press.  And especially freedom of religion.  Where we have an amendment to the Constitution that protects all these, and specifically prohibits the establishment of a state religion, they want a state religion that governs all. 

While we waste our time debating whether free contraceptives and unfettered abortions are essential women’s rights, they would wipe out all the rights we’ve fought to achieve over the past couple of centuries.  And if you think our current justice system is tough, just read up on Sharia law. 

There’s simply no reasoning with these fanatics. 

They think it’s God’s will to take any offence to the Prophet – no matter how slight – as an attack on all Muslims that needs to be met with violence.  Like a death sentence for a cartoon.  Or a fatwa calling for a death sentence for an unflattering book.  Or a death sentence – since rescinded after global outrage – for a Muslim woman who converted to Christianity

Or as just happened, that a stupid half-assed movie almost no one will ever see apparently warrants the killing of U.S. diplomats and embassy personnel, the torching of other U.S. embassies, and thousands in the streets calling for the death of America. 

Oh, friends of mine may say that they are but a lunatic fringe; the majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful, good people.  Our current President says stuff like that, too.  It may be true that there are many Muslims, here and abroad, that don’t agree with the radical Islamists. 

My question is – where the Hell are they?  Why aren’t they  leading the charge to stop these monsters in their own faith?  Why aren’t they speaking out?  Why aren’t they as outraged as the rest of us are? 

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.  Why are they silent? 

Others say that there are radical Christians as well, no better and no worse than the radical Islamists.  Yeah, maybe, but you don’t hear them calling for the death of all non-Christians, do you?  You don’t hear about Christians slaughtering Muslims, as when the Muslim Brotherhood took over in Egypt – with our President’s support – and Muslims started slaughtering Coptic Christians.   

Look, this isn’t solely a Christian/Muslim conflict … it’s radical Islamists vs. modern civilization and all other religions.  They just as eagerly destroyed centuries-old statues of Buddha as they did the Twin Towers.  There’s absolutely nothing they won’t do, and no one who is safe from their wrath. 

So what should we do? 

Well, first, we can stop pretending.  There’s no peaceful solution. 

They behead aid workers and civilian contractors trying to help them.  They destroy schools we build to educate their children.  They burn books.  They slaughter innocents.   Only the Mongol hordes under Genghis Khan can match them for wanton disregard for humanity. 

They are barbarians, attacking our civilization and scorching the earth whenever they can. 

Yes, there may be nice Muslims in the world, but these aren’t nice Muslims.  These are monsters.  They want to force an Armageddon where they believe it has been prophesied the faithful will vanquish the infidels and the world will have peace under the laws and teachings of Mohammed. 

We cannot negotiate with them, any more than you can negotiate with a rabid dog.  We need to put them down before they do any more damage. 

It’s our modern civilization vs. their vision of civilization. There’s no middle ground.  No room for compromise.  We need to just stop blowing smoke up everyone’s skirts that somehow, some way, we can be so nice and so conciliatory that we can win their hearts and minds. 

Not going to happen.  Ever. 

We need to kill them. Wherever they are.  Whoever they are.  No matter who their friends or allies are.  And we need to do it with no mercy.  We especially need to do it before they get their hands on a nuke, which is what they really want.  If we don’t do it soon, they will have a nuke – we all know that. 

So we need to issue our own fatwa.  Death to these lunatics.  These barbarians.  And make it public, so the whole world knows what we intend to do.  It’s that simple. 

If that pisses off the rest of the world, so be it. 

We have to look out for ourselves.    

A special note to undecided voters

It’s unlikely that anyone reading this falls into that category – but just in case you have friends who claim to be undecided, here’s some advice for them:

If you’re going to vote for Obama, say so.

If you’re going to vote for Romney, say so. 

If you’re going to vote for Gary Johnson or some other fringe candidate as a protest against the major parties, say so. 

And if you’re not going to vote, say so. 

Frankly, we’re all fed up with your wishy-washy “well, I really don’t know” crap.  Or the “I like some of what Romney says, but I like some of what Obama says” nonsense.    

You’re not choosing between Coke or Pepsi, or Jif or Skippy peanut butter.  And you don’t get to mix and match.  There’s no Cokesi or Jifippy.  It’s either one of the other.

Unless, of course, you’re going to throw away your vote by choosing some green party or Libertarian candidate, either of which have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning

Obama vs. Romney is not a battle of the brands, where one is pretty much like the other.  But that’s how you’re dealing with it.  As if the contenders are separated by mere nuances. 

Maybe if you hold out long enough something – some now-unforeseen event like one of the candidates caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy – will make the decision for you. 

What the Hell are you thinking? 

Better still, who cares?  You probably spend hours deciding which pair of black socks to wear. 

The only time I can remember having such a clear choice between candidates was when McGovern ran against Nixon and when Reagan ran against Carter.  (For the record, I voted for McGovern – who lost in a landslide, and I voted for Reagan – who won in a landslide.)

Pretty much every other recent election was between two guys who could have switched parties and nobody would know the difference. 

This time you really have a clear choice.   

Obama wants to expand government, raise taxes on the rich, kick the can down the road on most entitlements, cut defense, and continue borrowing. 

Romney wants to scale back government, lower everybody’s tax rate while closing loopholes for the wealthy, deal with entitlements now with some means testing, keep defense spending high, and reduce overall government spending.

On healthcare, Obama clearly wants to move to a single-payer system, and he wants to cover everyone, regardless of income level.   Romney wants to increase competition among insurance providers and move toward vouchers to help offset rising costs only for those who qualify. 

One preaches social responsibility; the other, personal responsibility. 

Honestly, they could not be more different. 

And you can’t make up your mind? 

Is it the likeability thing?  Obama seems like a warmer, friendlier kind of guy than Romney. 

That’s fine if you’re looking for a drinking buddy or someone to go fishing with. 

But we’re talking about being President of the United States – a job that requires making hard decisions all the time, not doing rock-paper-scissors or flipping a coin to see who pays for the next round.  The decisions you make as President have far-reaching consequences, so you always have to know what you are doing, and what could happen as a result.   

When something needs to be fixed, you have to know how to fix it.  And have the guts to do what’s necessary to make sure it gets fixed. 

Without worrying about remaining likeable.  Or what the polls say. 

Think of it this way:  if you had a serious illness, would you want a doctor who is very likeable, or a doctor with the proven experience and skill to treat you?  Which is more important?   

Don’t know about you, but I’d take experience and skill every time.  They could have the bedside manners of a lowland gorilla, but if they’re the best at their job, they’re my choice. 

But I digress.  This is a note to the undecided, after all. 

So never mind.  You probably won’t vote anyway.  In the meantime, spare us your insipid posturing about how you’re carefully weighing which candidate to choose. 

You want everyone to believe you’re intelligently deliberating the pluses and minuses.  In reality you’ve already made up your mind.   

So stop the BS. 

And if you are really, truly, positively, absolutely undecided in November, do us all a big favor. 

Don’t vote. 

News Flash:  Conservatives won’t vote for Obama; Liberals won’t vote for Romney

You heard it here … well, not first.  And that’s the point.

Amidst all the huffing and puffing in the media about the “battleground” states, the “swing” states, the “independents” and the mythical “undecided,” the talking heads keep trotting out conservatives to criticize Obama and liberals to criticize Romney. 

It’s always the extremes. It’s always the same stories. 

Liberals blather on about how Obama’s done a great job given what he “inherited,” and how most Americans agree with what he’s done, and plans to do; you just have to believe in Obama.   Conservatives harp about Obama’s shortcomings, his “failed policies,” and how he’s always blaming Bush for everything; Romney’s the non-nonsense business guy who will end all this. 

After this charming little tête-à-tête, both sides start calling the other liars.

And that’s where the real fun begins.

Let’s face it … most politicians and their campaign staffers wouldn’t know the truth if it bit ‘em on the ass.  The so-called “fact checkers” they both quote are hardly impartial either.  Even the CBO only quotes on specific questions, so if you include or exclude data, you can get whatever answer you want out of them.

It’s lies, damn lies, and statistics, per Mark Twain.  Manna for policy wonks and wonkettes; same old crap for the rest of us.

And how many times do we have to listen to blowhards parsing out the most insignificant things to make a point – usually that the other side lies.

Does it matter more that Obama ignored the Simpson-Bowles recommendations?  Or does it matter more that Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations because he disagreed with a provision that essentially accepted ObamaCare as a given?

It’s stuff like that – the “I voted for it before I voted against it” – kind of crap that makes us all crazy.  And why the public feels politicians in general, and Congress in particular, are about as trustworthy as a gypsy playing poker with blind people.

Simpson-Bowles is over the heads of the general public.  They don’t understand what the panel recommended.  They don’t even know who Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are.

Most probably think Simpson-Bowles wrote a string of Motown hits.

Net/net, neither the Republicans nor Democrats had the guts to support the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles.  Now move on.

In another tidbit of contention, both parties claim the other has released no detailed plan for dealing with the economy.

That’s true. Neither has, and why would they?  Whoever puts a detailed plan out there now will be savaged and that plan will be micro analyzed and misrepresented by the opposition.  The Republican and Democrat parties may not be that smart, but they at least know that.  (That's also why you're not seeing Romney's tax returns either; not that he has anything to hide and he's apparently not broken any laws, but it would just give fuel to fools.)

However, not having a plan does not stop the same politicians from running ads claiming their plan is better than the other guy’s plan.  Which is to say – in reality – that  their lack of a specific plan is better than your lack of a specific plan.

Net/net, we’re all left guessing.  We do know what Obama’s done so far, and that clearly hasn’t worked.  A lot of us think that almost anybody else – Romney included – would do better.

If that’s a somewhat tepid endorsement of Romney, so be it.

He doesn’t set hearts aflame with the passion Obama supporters have, and never will.  He’s just not that kind of guy.  Ryan is; Romney’s not.   Then again, while Obama excels at bringing the heat, Biden’s like some drunken uncle who always says the wrong thing at family gatherings.

But back to the bickering …

Despite what Democrats say, Romney’s not a monster and Paul Ryan doesn’t want to push granny over the cliff.  Obama’s not a monster or a lunatic bomb-throwing radical either, nor a savior held back solely by an obstructionist Congress.  Joe is … well, just Joe; he’s the Democrat’s Dan Quayle. 

Obama's just proven to not be a very good politician; Clinton faced Republican majorities as well -- and people devoted to his failure -- but got major pieces of legislation through compromise and gaining real bipartisan support, including welfare reform.  Obama can't seem to bridge the gap.  

Both sides are now scrambling to sway the “undecided” and the “independents,” so the claims and counter claims keep amping up.  And the champions of whatever specious causes politicians are using to micro-slice the electorate keep getting more air time.

That’s the only reason some nit-wit like Sandra Fluke got a key speaking spot at the Democrat Convention.  Or why a moron like Todd Akin gets so much attention from the left.   Or why another out-of-far-right-field guy like Rick Santorum got to address the Republican convention.

And why, night after night, the Karl Roves of the world are pitted against the Debbie Wasserman Schultzes of the world.

The silliness is that anybody thinks any of this is going to change anybody’s mind.  As if liberals listen to anything Karl Rove has to say, or conservatives anything that Debbie Wasserman Schultz says, either.  Or, for that matter, anything speakers at either convention say. 

None of this matters.  Most people have already made up their minds over who they’ll vote for.  Anybody who tells you they haven’t decided yet or don't know who they’re even leaning toward is full of crap.  Chances are they aren’t even registered to vote.  They just like the attention.     

In the end, those who think things are on the right track will vote for Obama, as will most of the Democrat base.  Those who think things are on the wrong track and want a change will vote for Romney, as will most of the Republican base. 

That’s how it works.