There has been no shortage of doomsday memes targeting the so-called Affordable Care Act since President Barack Obama and his koolaid-drinking worshipers (er, rather, his fellow Democrats in Congress while they held the majority in both houses of it) began promoting it in 2009.
If you’re a regular at Politifact, then you can be reassured they’re all patently false. Certainly, Politifact is entirely free of any bias or agenda; you can trust them, of course.
Well, getting ready to join the dot-com bubble, housing bubble, and banking bubble in bursting is the left-wing fairytale bubble.
We were all reassured via teleprompter talking points, “If you like your present insurance plan, and you’re happy with it, you’ll be able keep it.”
That sounded so wonderful so long as you utterly ignored economic and market histories and the reality they tend to predict with annoying accuracy.
My fellow Buckeyes, reality is trying shake us all out of a slumber-like haze.
Days ago, I was informed during this particular shift that at a recent roundtable session between production associates and management, one of our co-workers asked a straight-up question regarding benefits down the road. When Obomneycare [my reinterpretation of the actual term used] goes into full-swing, what will happen to their insurance coverage?
What this individual received was an equally straight-up, eye-contact answer.
When the provisions of Obomneycare are fully implemented, Honda of America Manufacturing will drop its employer-based health insurance plan and simply pay the IRS penalties – as that will be less expensive than providing a coverage plan under the forthcoming health care regime.
This news got others at the area of discussion wondering out loud what their choices will be. That will be simple: they either can sift through the sea of federal laws and regulations in order to pursue their own health insurance or be moved into the government implemented insurance exchange.
As the prospect of the second option quickly sank-in, I heard people who have been employed with Honda for the better part of 20 years ask a very pointed question. What even is the point of working like we do if everything we need can be had through public assistance?
Here we have two seminal exigencies that beg examination.
First, what will the overall economic impact be here in Ohio (not to mention nationwide) when one of the three largest job providers in this state has every intention of canceling insurance benefits?
If an employer the size of Honda of America Manufacturing, which keeps thousands of residents working, will no longer carry job-based insurance there can be no way to predict how long will a prominent portion of one-sixth of our economy even remain in existence.
That is, unless your prediction is that sooner – rather than later – it won’t.
Second, I watched regular, salt-of-the-Earth people unknowingly discuss what latter-day philosophers such as Alexis du Tocqueville and Frederic Bastiat have predicted as the inevitable consequence which results from making more and more components of life a matter of public distribution.
When one hears hard-working, blue-collar folks question the very purpose of staying employed and being productive contributors to society – people who are at a point in life when they have been working for the majority of it – what impact will that have on future generations who will seek everyday examples to guide their own choices?
The alarm clock of reality is ringing, everyone. Please stop hitting the snooze button.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
A well regulated Media, being necessary to the security of...
I can’t get enough of online social media.
You probably already know this: you’re 99.99% likely to be reading this at my public Facebook page. My regular stream of posted links demonstrates it – as does my still-expanding waistline.
There’s also the occasional game session via Facebook’s apps.
Read through my body of writings and you’ll see that a number of my essays are the product of comment-section debates or even a direct copy-and-paste of an entry in one of those exchanges.
When it comes to my private timeline, I’ve allowed myself to become swept-up in the latest craze of “Sharing” pictures (you know, this current trend of activity that has Facebook looking suspiciously a lot like MySpace). I have no doubt my indulgence of said trend is to the chagrin of my friends who are less libertarian than me.
However, one “Share” by someone on my friends list shortly ago has my mind’s red flags waving as if a meteor strike were impending.
I am largely in agreement with the graphic in question, which explores the various forms of doublespeak which have been circulating through the mainstream media (particularly over the last 10 years) – that is, except for the statement, “Well, that’s what happens when governments transfer the public airwaves to private corporations in a practice known as deregulation.”
While much of the other commentary contained in it is a legitimate criticism of what our federal government has been doing for far too long, I am curious how one is able to argue that the best remedy for inadequate scrutiny of governmental activity is to put operation of broadcast media (news media in particular) in the hands of the same government.
The author of the graphic points to the embedding of reporters among our military while they are in theater – thus compromising their objectivity when it comes to covering all that transpires.
That last point is a valid one. However, to use it as the basis for arguing – or even suggesting – we need greater regulation of media (if not outright handing-over of the airwaves entirely to a government monopoly) is to miss the point completely of the following axiom in the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”
To belabor my point, how does it make sense to put any form of media under the control or constraints of government if its first-and-foremost function is to keep watch over the actions of government?
I contend that, even in their present state of so-called deregulation, America’s major media operations have been doing a good-enough job of serving as lapdogs for the elected and appointed statists – without making them outright agents of the state.
Additionally, given the size and scope of the Federal Communication Commission’s authority (especially in recent years), the whole notion of the airwaves lacking for regulation is downright laughable.
Further problems I have with any pro-regulation argument is the fact our understanding of concepts such as “speech” and “press” has necessarily had to evolve with the advent first of radio broadcasting, followed by television, then cable and satellite transmissions, the Internet, and now wireless handheld electronics.
“Speech” and “press” arguably can (if not must) be thought-of under the blanket delineation of “media” – with “media” being afforded the exact same constitutional protection today as “speech and press” were understood to enjoy 225 years ago.
If this notion does not reign supreme in the consciousness of our society we run the risk of it embracing such rationales as the airwaves are public domain and even the Internet is a public utility – thus both must be governed in the same manner as a utility.
What would be the next domino in the row to fall: independent blogging along with video posting (a la YouTube) inevitably suffering the same fate as all other independent enterprises in any hyper-regulated industry?
For example, independent farm operations are being steadily squeezed out of existence by an ever-growing body of laws and regulations that are popularly perceived to exist in order to keep large corporate agricultural and food production operations in line – all in the name of public safety for the masses at large.
Just look at the growing crackdown by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on independent operators offering farm-fresh versions of products such as milk, cheese, and eggs in rural locales. This development in the regulatory nanny state is the inevitable next stage in the progression of a government that believes it exists to save us all from ourselves.
Consider the consequences of, for example, taking the equivalent approach by the USDA toward Amish farmers and applying them in the realm of traditional and new media.
Imagine if the provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 (thankfully which had key components struck-down by the U.S. Supreme Court in its January 2010 decision in the Citizens United case) were still in play and even expanded via interpretation by the courts to hold dominion over online activity. What would become of print and broadcast media – and potentially any electronic access to information – if such laws and regulations were applied by the FCC with the same tenacity local produce co-ops have had to endure at the hands of the USDA.
Pardon my boldness, but I’ll gladly take my chances with media in our nation being able to take to the presses, airwaves, and Net – free of regulatory circumscription.
You probably already know this: you’re 99.99% likely to be reading this at my public Facebook page. My regular stream of posted links demonstrates it – as does my still-expanding waistline.
There’s also the occasional game session via Facebook’s apps.
Read through my body of writings and you’ll see that a number of my essays are the product of comment-section debates or even a direct copy-and-paste of an entry in one of those exchanges.
When it comes to my private timeline, I’ve allowed myself to become swept-up in the latest craze of “Sharing” pictures (you know, this current trend of activity that has Facebook looking suspiciously a lot like MySpace). I have no doubt my indulgence of said trend is to the chagrin of my friends who are less libertarian than me.
However, one “Share” by someone on my friends list shortly ago has my mind’s red flags waving as if a meteor strike were impending.
I am largely in agreement with the graphic in question, which explores the various forms of doublespeak which have been circulating through the mainstream media (particularly over the last 10 years) – that is, except for the statement, “Well, that’s what happens when governments transfer the public airwaves to private corporations in a practice known as deregulation.”
While much of the other commentary contained in it is a legitimate criticism of what our federal government has been doing for far too long, I am curious how one is able to argue that the best remedy for inadequate scrutiny of governmental activity is to put operation of broadcast media (news media in particular) in the hands of the same government.
The author of the graphic points to the embedding of reporters among our military while they are in theater – thus compromising their objectivity when it comes to covering all that transpires.
That last point is a valid one. However, to use it as the basis for arguing – or even suggesting – we need greater regulation of media (if not outright handing-over of the airwaves entirely to a government monopoly) is to miss the point completely of the following axiom in the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”
To belabor my point, how does it make sense to put any form of media under the control or constraints of government if its first-and-foremost function is to keep watch over the actions of government?
I contend that, even in their present state of so-called deregulation, America’s major media operations have been doing a good-enough job of serving as lapdogs for the elected and appointed statists – without making them outright agents of the state.
Additionally, given the size and scope of the Federal Communication Commission’s authority (especially in recent years), the whole notion of the airwaves lacking for regulation is downright laughable.
Further problems I have with any pro-regulation argument is the fact our understanding of concepts such as “speech” and “press” has necessarily had to evolve with the advent first of radio broadcasting, followed by television, then cable and satellite transmissions, the Internet, and now wireless handheld electronics.
“Speech” and “press” arguably can (if not must) be thought-of under the blanket delineation of “media” – with “media” being afforded the exact same constitutional protection today as “speech and press” were understood to enjoy 225 years ago.
If this notion does not reign supreme in the consciousness of our society we run the risk of it embracing such rationales as the airwaves are public domain and even the Internet is a public utility – thus both must be governed in the same manner as a utility.
What would be the next domino in the row to fall: independent blogging along with video posting (a la YouTube) inevitably suffering the same fate as all other independent enterprises in any hyper-regulated industry?
For example, independent farm operations are being steadily squeezed out of existence by an ever-growing body of laws and regulations that are popularly perceived to exist in order to keep large corporate agricultural and food production operations in line – all in the name of public safety for the masses at large.
Just look at the growing crackdown by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on independent operators offering farm-fresh versions of products such as milk, cheese, and eggs in rural locales. This development in the regulatory nanny state is the inevitable next stage in the progression of a government that believes it exists to save us all from ourselves.
Consider the consequences of, for example, taking the equivalent approach by the USDA toward Amish farmers and applying them in the realm of traditional and new media.
Imagine if the provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 (thankfully which had key components struck-down by the U.S. Supreme Court in its January 2010 decision in the Citizens United case) were still in play and even expanded via interpretation by the courts to hold dominion over online activity. What would become of print and broadcast media – and potentially any electronic access to information – if such laws and regulations were applied by the FCC with the same tenacity local produce co-ops have had to endure at the hands of the USDA.
Pardon my boldness, but I’ll gladly take my chances with media in our nation being able to take to the presses, airwaves, and Net – free of regulatory circumscription.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
As '4/20' comes and goes, only honesty will win discussions
Some people would have us believe that if the United States were to "stop enforcing the War on Drugs" our country would "turn into Mexico."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores one simple truth: as the violence in Mexico escalates, it is slowly spilling over our borders because of the "War on Drugs."
The reason why Mexican drug cartels are so brutally and cold-bloodedly violent is that since what they're doing already is illegal, there's absolutely no incentive to spurn other criminal actions such as turf wars, kidnapping, and so on. Instead of vying for customers through marketing and offering a superior product – which is the case with legal goods, the most assured way to get and keep customers is through violently eliminating the competition.
By legalizing at the very least all-natural intoxicants such as cannabis, the raw coca leaf, and poppy plants, there becomes incentive for those who still would engage in distributing and/or selling them to not just step out of the shadows but even to comply with regulatory statutes such as those governing the production, handling, marketing, and sales of alcohol. There would be no point in violent activity directed at competitors.
Also, by ending the "War on Drugs" that would mean no longer aggressively pursuing, prosecuting, and incarcerating those who use drugs: there becomes incentive for those individuals to step out of the shadows with their choices (much the same as what happened with alcohol consumption once Prohibition ended as a result of the repeal of the 18th Amendment), which would in turn make it much easier for those who wish to engage in drug abuse outreach to identify the people they desire to help.
That, right there, is billions (if not tens-of-billions) of dollars saved every year. Much of the remaining tens-of-billions of dollars saved comes from not having to house the vast majority of those who are in prison for "drug-related crimes" – particularly those prosecuted as felons for simple possession of small amounts.
Also, the reason why Mexican drug cartels are multi-billion-dollar operations is that there is (for a lack of a better phraseology) a market for their products. If those who would produce, ship, and sell legal intoxicants were given the incentive to stay out of the cross-hairs of the criminal justice system (licensing, taxation compliance, local zoning ordinances, etc.), there would be an even further quelling of violent and corrupt practices as operating completely above board offers the promise of staying out of prison.
When the 21st Amendment was passed, America did not descend into a sea of drunkenness where anyone and everyone old enough to unscrew a bottle cap would die by drowning in booze and their own vomit. The same will hold true with drugs.
It is beyond time to do-away with the irresponsible rhetoric permeating this issue.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores one simple truth: as the violence in Mexico escalates, it is slowly spilling over our borders because of the "War on Drugs."
The reason why Mexican drug cartels are so brutally and cold-bloodedly violent is that since what they're doing already is illegal, there's absolutely no incentive to spurn other criminal actions such as turf wars, kidnapping, and so on. Instead of vying for customers through marketing and offering a superior product – which is the case with legal goods, the most assured way to get and keep customers is through violently eliminating the competition.
By legalizing at the very least all-natural intoxicants such as cannabis, the raw coca leaf, and poppy plants, there becomes incentive for those who still would engage in distributing and/or selling them to not just step out of the shadows but even to comply with regulatory statutes such as those governing the production, handling, marketing, and sales of alcohol. There would be no point in violent activity directed at competitors.
Also, by ending the "War on Drugs" that would mean no longer aggressively pursuing, prosecuting, and incarcerating those who use drugs: there becomes incentive for those individuals to step out of the shadows with their choices (much the same as what happened with alcohol consumption once Prohibition ended as a result of the repeal of the 18th Amendment), which would in turn make it much easier for those who wish to engage in drug abuse outreach to identify the people they desire to help.
That, right there, is billions (if not tens-of-billions) of dollars saved every year. Much of the remaining tens-of-billions of dollars saved comes from not having to house the vast majority of those who are in prison for "drug-related crimes" – particularly those prosecuted as felons for simple possession of small amounts.
Also, the reason why Mexican drug cartels are multi-billion-dollar operations is that there is (for a lack of a better phraseology) a market for their products. If those who would produce, ship, and sell legal intoxicants were given the incentive to stay out of the cross-hairs of the criminal justice system (licensing, taxation compliance, local zoning ordinances, etc.), there would be an even further quelling of violent and corrupt practices as operating completely above board offers the promise of staying out of prison.
When the 21st Amendment was passed, America did not descend into a sea of drunkenness where anyone and everyone old enough to unscrew a bottle cap would die by drowning in booze and their own vomit. The same will hold true with drugs.
It is beyond time to do-away with the irresponsible rhetoric permeating this issue.
Monday, April 9, 2012
GOP antics took ugly turn
Just when I thought it was safe to deduce partisan politics couldn’t get any more bizarre in Ohio, another story emerges which boggles the mind.
Bill Yarbrough was an erstwhile candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2010: he sought the 3rd District State Senate seat then. For this year’s election cycle, he made the decision to re-identify himself as a Republican and challenge incumbent congressman Pat Tiberi for that party’s nomination for Ohio’s District 12 seat. At his Website he even discusses frankly the fact he “ran as a third party candidate to learn the ropes” about pursuing public office.
Since getting to know him during our respective campaign trails two years ago, I came to admire Yarbrough. Naturally, I was disappointed to learn he had chosen to make the switch in party identities. But, I will do my best to respect his choice – the freedom for him or anyone else to do so is one of the many little things which make America great.
That choice, however, led to circumstances I doubt Yarbrough (or anyone else, for that matter) could have anticipated.
When I spoke with him during the recent Libertarian Party of Ohio state convention, he told me when he began his run for Congress he contacted each of the Republican Party chairs in each county the 12th District touches. His main goal in doing so was to seek potential endorsements from the county parties.
What he got, instead, from Delaware County’s Executive Committee chair Bob Mann was a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging Yarbrough had committed federal election fraud.
And the heinous crime about which Mann felt so strongly that he sought federal felony charges to be brought against him?
Yarbrough identified himself as “Republican” on his candidate petitions.
That’s right: for engaging in the sinister act of realigning himself with the Grand Ol’ Party, it was not enough in Chairman Mann’s eyes to petition the OEC to have Yarbrough removed from the Republican Primary ballot – Mann was fully ready to have him prosecuted and incarcerated.
So, instead of being able to run an effective primary campaign, Yarbrough had to begin pouring money into his legal defense, spend time publicly clearing his name in the weeks leading-up to the March 6 primary, and watch the inevitable stress on his wife and children mount.
Needless to say, Tiberi coasted to his party’s nomination by a wide margin.
This is where my blood begins to boil over this situation. I don’t give a damn what your party affiliation may be, no one can deny that Mann was perfectly willing to risk destroying the life of an innocent man, a good man, a family man with young children. And, he was willing to do so for the narrow, repugnant purpose of preserving the status quo.
To all of you who identify as Republicans, there is no middle ground on this item. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Mann’s actions constitutes complicity and approval. Sympathy for Yarbrough is cheap. You need to show a backbone and fully denounce what Mann did.
Furthermore, it is easy to see Chairman Mann clearly wanted to set a precedent that was intended to have a chilling effect on anyone further down the road who might dare challenge any Republican incumbent within the party – especially if they’re running as a liberty candidate or constitutional conservative.
So, Tea Partiers, take heed of Bill Yarbrough’s ordeal. To those of you who insist the path to restoring America must be accomplished by reforming The Republican party from within, does your beloved political party really want that reform?
In his run for State Senate two years ago, Yarbrough successfully earned the endorsement of local Tea Party groups and identifies heavily with the Tea Party movement.
Now, we know what the Republican Party was willing to do to him.
What will they be willing to do to you?
Bill Yarbrough was an erstwhile candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2010: he sought the 3rd District State Senate seat then. For this year’s election cycle, he made the decision to re-identify himself as a Republican and challenge incumbent congressman Pat Tiberi for that party’s nomination for Ohio’s District 12 seat. At his Website he even discusses frankly the fact he “ran as a third party candidate to learn the ropes” about pursuing public office.
Since getting to know him during our respective campaign trails two years ago, I came to admire Yarbrough. Naturally, I was disappointed to learn he had chosen to make the switch in party identities. But, I will do my best to respect his choice – the freedom for him or anyone else to do so is one of the many little things which make America great.
That choice, however, led to circumstances I doubt Yarbrough (or anyone else, for that matter) could have anticipated.
When I spoke with him during the recent Libertarian Party of Ohio state convention, he told me when he began his run for Congress he contacted each of the Republican Party chairs in each county the 12th District touches. His main goal in doing so was to seek potential endorsements from the county parties.
What he got, instead, from Delaware County’s Executive Committee chair Bob Mann was a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging Yarbrough had committed federal election fraud.
And the heinous crime about which Mann felt so strongly that he sought federal felony charges to be brought against him?
Yarbrough identified himself as “Republican” on his candidate petitions.
That’s right: for engaging in the sinister act of realigning himself with the Grand Ol’ Party, it was not enough in Chairman Mann’s eyes to petition the OEC to have Yarbrough removed from the Republican Primary ballot – Mann was fully ready to have him prosecuted and incarcerated.
So, instead of being able to run an effective primary campaign, Yarbrough had to begin pouring money into his legal defense, spend time publicly clearing his name in the weeks leading-up to the March 6 primary, and watch the inevitable stress on his wife and children mount.
Needless to say, Tiberi coasted to his party’s nomination by a wide margin.
This is where my blood begins to boil over this situation. I don’t give a damn what your party affiliation may be, no one can deny that Mann was perfectly willing to risk destroying the life of an innocent man, a good man, a family man with young children. And, he was willing to do so for the narrow, repugnant purpose of preserving the status quo.
To all of you who identify as Republicans, there is no middle ground on this item. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Mann’s actions constitutes complicity and approval. Sympathy for Yarbrough is cheap. You need to show a backbone and fully denounce what Mann did.
Furthermore, it is easy to see Chairman Mann clearly wanted to set a precedent that was intended to have a chilling effect on anyone further down the road who might dare challenge any Republican incumbent within the party – especially if they’re running as a liberty candidate or constitutional conservative.
So, Tea Partiers, take heed of Bill Yarbrough’s ordeal. To those of you who insist the path to restoring America must be accomplished by reforming The Republican party from within, does your beloved political party really want that reform?
In his run for State Senate two years ago, Yarbrough successfully earned the endorsement of local Tea Party groups and identifies heavily with the Tea Party movement.
Now, we know what the Republican Party was willing to do to him.
What will they be willing to do to you?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Olbermann wears-out another welcome
The inimitable Keith Olbermann has once again found himself wanting for a job.
Evidently, in the waning days of the month of March, he was terminated by Current TV for breach of contract. As is being reported by those who simply may have been bored due to a lack of real news to cover, the folks at Current got tired of him being an incomparable ass.
Being that much of an ass is not new to Olbermann. It was the catalyst for his parting ways with ESPN in 1997 as well as Fox Sports Network in 2001.
When it comes to his abrupt departure from MSNBC, his droning and baseless commentary of the Tea Party’s inherent racism opened the door for karma to rear its ugly head. As was noted by members of the Tea Party in Dallas, the percentages of people of color at Tea Party rallies was dramatically higher than could be found on that network’s daily line-up of political coverage.
True to form, Olby didn’t let this obvious hypocrisy deter him from perpetuating this meme – for what would be the remainder of his tenure at MSNBC.
One thing about his dismissal from that channel which continues to surprise me is the fact no one in mainstream media or even an online alternative source was able to reach the following observation: Olbermann got bitten by the quota bug.
I have no doubt executives at MSNBC were feeling significant heat for maintaining such a monochrome corral of talking heads while allowing their primetime darling to decry the absence of color at Tea Party events. "Where are these people?" he once droned.
It had not yet occurred to me when the network hired Cenk Uygur (also known for his work on The Young Turks) for what would prove to be an eight-month run how desperate executives there were to combat the issue. It was when they hired Rev. Al Sharpton to fill the 8 p.m. slot that my epiphany happened.
Perhaps the clearest example that the era of Olby was waning at MSNBC came when he felt compelled to bring his college diploma with him to work to prove he earned his degree from Cornell University (if you watch the video, the highlight takes place at the 1:40 mark).
And, now, he managed to irritate executives enough at a network co-founded by Al Gore – of all people – to prompt his latest dismissal.
Karma: she is as unforgiving as she is entertaining.
Evidently, in the waning days of the month of March, he was terminated by Current TV for breach of contract. As is being reported by those who simply may have been bored due to a lack of real news to cover, the folks at Current got tired of him being an incomparable ass.
Being that much of an ass is not new to Olbermann. It was the catalyst for his parting ways with ESPN in 1997 as well as Fox Sports Network in 2001.
When it comes to his abrupt departure from MSNBC, his droning and baseless commentary of the Tea Party’s inherent racism opened the door for karma to rear its ugly head. As was noted by members of the Tea Party in Dallas, the percentages of people of color at Tea Party rallies was dramatically higher than could be found on that network’s daily line-up of political coverage.
True to form, Olby didn’t let this obvious hypocrisy deter him from perpetuating this meme – for what would be the remainder of his tenure at MSNBC.
One thing about his dismissal from that channel which continues to surprise me is the fact no one in mainstream media or even an online alternative source was able to reach the following observation: Olbermann got bitten by the quota bug.
I have no doubt executives at MSNBC were feeling significant heat for maintaining such a monochrome corral of talking heads while allowing their primetime darling to decry the absence of color at Tea Party events. "Where are these people?" he once droned.
It had not yet occurred to me when the network hired Cenk Uygur (also known for his work on The Young Turks) for what would prove to be an eight-month run how desperate executives there were to combat the issue. It was when they hired Rev. Al Sharpton to fill the 8 p.m. slot that my epiphany happened.
Perhaps the clearest example that the era of Olby was waning at MSNBC came when he felt compelled to bring his college diploma with him to work to prove he earned his degree from Cornell University (if you watch the video, the highlight takes place at the 1:40 mark).
And, now, he managed to irritate executives enough at a network co-founded by Al Gore – of all people – to prompt his latest dismissal.
Karma: she is as unforgiving as she is entertaining.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Morality Card versus the Race Card
To the inevitable chagrin of readers who lean to the right, it is time to restate the obvious: former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is blurring further the lines between the Democratic and Republican parties.
The only genuine differences between those two parties are their target audiences (in terms of appealing to their respective voter bases) and the occasional controversy du jour.
While I already have examined Santorum’s argument for Right-Wing collective salvation, his campaign stop at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Louisiana on March 19 and the more notable activities therein have prompted me to take my analysis one step further.
Conservatives and libertarians alike have long lamented the left-wing propensity for playing the Race Card in political discourse – a tactic which especially hit overdrive when President Barack Obama began to emerge as a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination process in 2008.
However, in 2012 Santorum may have perfected a mirror image of this argumentation device and given the American Right Wing its own card to play when the debates and public sentiment aren’t going the way they like: the Morality Card.
Playing the Morality Card at this juncture of the primary and caucus process appears to be the logical next step for Santorum’s campaign. He has tried to portray himself as a fiscal conservative and staunch defender of Christian values. The problem for him is his voting record does not back that up, having cast “Yea” votes for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and various pieces of legislation he knew contained earmarks for Planned Parenthood. That is just the tip of the ice berg.
So, what is a candidate left to do when they cannot run on their record? The answer is find the quickest boogeyman against-which to redirect everyone’s attention. In Santorum’s case, it’s the steady decline in America’s moral compass. It is the perfect way to rally the GOP’s Christian Conservative base – pandering to voters who place much of their focus on issues of morality.
I am a lifelong Christian. I have recently come to understand the importance of Evangelism in spreading and promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have no problem seeing right through Santorum’s rhetoric.
Please tell me I’m not the only Christian who does.
The only genuine differences between those two parties are their target audiences (in terms of appealing to their respective voter bases) and the occasional controversy du jour.
While I already have examined Santorum’s argument for Right-Wing collective salvation, his campaign stop at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Louisiana on March 19 and the more notable activities therein have prompted me to take my analysis one step further.
Conservatives and libertarians alike have long lamented the left-wing propensity for playing the Race Card in political discourse – a tactic which especially hit overdrive when President Barack Obama began to emerge as a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination process in 2008.
However, in 2012 Santorum may have perfected a mirror image of this argumentation device and given the American Right Wing its own card to play when the debates and public sentiment aren’t going the way they like: the Morality Card.
Playing the Morality Card at this juncture of the primary and caucus process appears to be the logical next step for Santorum’s campaign. He has tried to portray himself as a fiscal conservative and staunch defender of Christian values. The problem for him is his voting record does not back that up, having cast “Yea” votes for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and various pieces of legislation he knew contained earmarks for Planned Parenthood. That is just the tip of the ice berg.
So, what is a candidate left to do when they cannot run on their record? The answer is find the quickest boogeyman against-which to redirect everyone’s attention. In Santorum’s case, it’s the steady decline in America’s moral compass. It is the perfect way to rally the GOP’s Christian Conservative base – pandering to voters who place much of their focus on issues of morality.
I am a lifelong Christian. I have recently come to understand the importance of Evangelism in spreading and promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have no problem seeing right through Santorum’s rhetoric.
Please tell me I’m not the only Christian who does.
Cheney story illuminates wider ballot access issues
Don's note: if you're not fully familiar with the developments surrounding the would-be independent candidacy of Brian Cheney for Allen County Commissioner, read the initial story at The Lima News and the recent follow-up article.
First and foremost, this press release is not authored with the intent to comment on any of the particulars surrounding the Allen County Board of Elections’ decision to reject Brian Cheney’s candidate petitions for county commissioner, his ties with other local public figures, or even Cheney himself.
The one hidden story in the recent events that warrants greater exploration is the fact Cheney – in order to run as an independent candidate – had to gather almost seven times as many signatures as any of the major party candidates and more than 13 times as many as a minor party candidate.
State election laws require independent candidates for an office to gather signatures equivalent to one percent of the votes cast in the previous election for the given electoral jurisdiction. In the case of Allen County Commissioner in 2012, a prospective independent had to get 330 valid signatures – compared to 50 for someone vying for a major party nomination and 25 for those of us affiliated with a minor party.
It should not be difficult to conclude the wide disparity in requirements is nonsensical.
As a current and past candidate for elected office, have I benefited from such variations? Yes, of course. Do I agree with this setup? That answer is, “Absolutely not.”
The only possible legitimate argument for placing such a high threshold for independent candidates is the fact any registered voter may sign one of their petitions regardless of how the Ohio Secretary of State’s office lists their party affiliation (which is another issue in and of itself regarding violation of voters’ privacy rights – but as usual, I digress) – thus an independent candidate has a potential “unfair” advantage by having any-and-all would-be petition signers available to them.
In truth, it is an underhanded means of deterring anyone who would demonstrate the audacity to engage in the electoral process outside of the party system.
For my personal perspective, it is my hope the situation involving Brian Cheney proves to be nothing more than an honest mistake. It would seem obvious to me the inevitable “mad dash” for signatures – created by the State of Ohio’s disparate candidate requirements – is sure to increase the likelihood of mistakes being made. Also, as evidenced by my body of essays and posts in social media, I simply am not a fan of aggressive prosecution for non-violent offenses.
As all this relates to Ohio election laws, my hope is now that the potential consequences of these provisions have hit close-to-home for someone in leadership in the state’s prevailing majority party (meaning, Allen County Republican Party Chair Keith Cheney), we may finally see some long-overdue reform of those laws that actually fits such a description.
First and foremost, this press release is not authored with the intent to comment on any of the particulars surrounding the Allen County Board of Elections’ decision to reject Brian Cheney’s candidate petitions for county commissioner, his ties with other local public figures, or even Cheney himself.
The one hidden story in the recent events that warrants greater exploration is the fact Cheney – in order to run as an independent candidate – had to gather almost seven times as many signatures as any of the major party candidates and more than 13 times as many as a minor party candidate.
State election laws require independent candidates for an office to gather signatures equivalent to one percent of the votes cast in the previous election for the given electoral jurisdiction. In the case of Allen County Commissioner in 2012, a prospective independent had to get 330 valid signatures – compared to 50 for someone vying for a major party nomination and 25 for those of us affiliated with a minor party.
It should not be difficult to conclude the wide disparity in requirements is nonsensical.
As a current and past candidate for elected office, have I benefited from such variations? Yes, of course. Do I agree with this setup? That answer is, “Absolutely not.”
The only possible legitimate argument for placing such a high threshold for independent candidates is the fact any registered voter may sign one of their petitions regardless of how the Ohio Secretary of State’s office lists their party affiliation (which is another issue in and of itself regarding violation of voters’ privacy rights – but as usual, I digress) – thus an independent candidate has a potential “unfair” advantage by having any-and-all would-be petition signers available to them.
In truth, it is an underhanded means of deterring anyone who would demonstrate the audacity to engage in the electoral process outside of the party system.
For my personal perspective, it is my hope the situation involving Brian Cheney proves to be nothing more than an honest mistake. It would seem obvious to me the inevitable “mad dash” for signatures – created by the State of Ohio’s disparate candidate requirements – is sure to increase the likelihood of mistakes being made. Also, as evidenced by my body of essays and posts in social media, I simply am not a fan of aggressive prosecution for non-violent offenses.
As all this relates to Ohio election laws, my hope is now that the potential consequences of these provisions have hit close-to-home for someone in leadership in the state’s prevailing majority party (meaning, Allen County Republican Party Chair Keith Cheney), we may finally see some long-overdue reform of those laws that actually fits such a description.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
