Americans Elect 2012 Review and Comments

I'm always spouting off about being or getting involved. Even if you don't agree with me you should be engaged in your world and the movers and shakers. A new, to me anyway, method is Americans Elect 2012. I looked it up and signed up just to see what it was all about.

Essentially the site is going to do the things needed to get a non-partizan candidate for President and Vice-President on the ballot in all fifty states. It will do this by havign registered voteres sign up, answer questions about thier views, and vote in an online convention. The winner of the vote will be placed on the ballot in all fifty states. The site believes it will break the gridlock of partisan politics.

Overall I think the site has merit. I think that if their sales pitch actually works it could, over time, become a focus of a growing debate. So, I will see it through just to find out if I am right or not.

After answering 136 questions (there are more but my clicker was asking for overtime cash) I stumbled across one that floored me. Remember that everyone on the site is supposed to be a registered voter. That means they care and actually participate in the process. Your answer, weighted based on priorites you establish, is factored into all the other answers so you get a national and state average.

The Question was: Which of the statements below is closest to your personal view?

The results were:

Option and % Of Answers	Answers
A 13%	It is very important to stick to principles
B 18%	It is more important for politicians in Congress to stick to the principles and values on which they campaigned
C 67%	It is more important for politicians in Congress to work with members of the other party and make consensus policy
D 2%	Unsure

That tells me that I am wasting my breath talking about character. It appears to me that 67% of the registered voters who have been to the site would knowingly elect crooks and liars as long as they reach across the aisle and come to a consensus.

It's no wonder that an Ethics Challenged for Speaker who moonlighted as a Serial Adulterer is gaining in the polls.

Tweet

What's It Going To Take?

Are you ready for the end of the election yet? I mean, it's pretty obvious that the world is going down the pot in an ugly swirling motion. This is the year that the best the Republicans care to offer is a Serial Adulterer and Ethics Deficient Congressman, or the perfect coif of the Obamacare Architect. Yeah things are shaping up good for the shining city on the hill.

We've managed to add language to the NDAA which trashes the Bill of Rights. Our Supreme Court has decided against religion. The super pacs are in charge of the political debate. And, the average American hasn't figured out that it is time to get angry.

The OWS crowd can't seem to get unified in anything but anger at the rich and demands that they be accommodated. The Tea Party is in danger of being marginalized even though they had a great start.

And, the average American still hasn't figured out that it is time to get angry.

What's it going to take?

Tweet

Character Counts in Politics

The Presidency is not merely a political figurehead. The person holding the office is supposed to be a leader. And, if you cannot trust the fundamental character of a leader you need a new leader.As a child, it used to be common for kids to say "I want to be President when I grow up". The President was someone we were supposed to admire for all the right reasons and chief among them was the persons character. A list of Leadership Traits and Principles used to train Marines quantify the importance of character in a leader.

To put a point on it, the name of the game is character. The word itself has positive and negative aspects. If you say, "That George, he's such a character" the impression is often good. But, tell someone that they are not real, they are "just playing a character"; and depending on context it could be a bad thing. Then there is character in the form of the gestalt of personality traits and quirks that often defines if one is perceived as a good and moral person.

Mitt Romney, as a person, appears to be a man of character. I've seen nothing to indicate that he is anything but a loving father and husband. He is devout in his faith. As a person of high morals I'd say that he is a man of good character. Politically I cannot endorse him since he reminds me of the typical chamelion politician. But that is a professional observation.

Newt, on the other hand, is the opposite of Romney. Newt is a great politician. But, his character stinks. He is a serial adulterer, his ethics are atrocious, and a he's moral hypocrite to boot. I used to be a fan back in the day until his (now) obvious character flaws came to light.

Ron Paul appears to have the character of Romney in his personal life. Politically, his character is one of consistency over about thirty years. So, I can vote for him instead of simply against President Obama.

Tweet

Ron Paul is Right. Politifact Got It Wrong.

I wrote about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. In my opinion, the Senate made a huge mistake. Politifact has decided that Ron Pauls comments regarding this legislation are mostly false.

Go ahead and read it for yourself. By page 428 you will notice that the Secretary of Defense merely need submit a waiver which states you are a national security risk. That paragraph ensures that the provision stating that this entire process doesn't apply to US Citizens is null and void.

Politifact got it wrong.

Tweet

RIP for the Bill of Rights

It's official, we the people are screwed without getting kissed. Our Senate voted 93 to 7 to pass a bill that allows you and I to be scooped up on a whim. Don't believe me. Read it for yourself on page 426 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

If you are still here, you are probably shaking your head in disbelief. This is so blatantly anti-Constitutional that the entire Senate should be taken out and beaten.

Tweet