ANNOYING WORDS & ACTIONS -- POLITICS FUN & GAMES

ANNOYING WORDS

In the scheme of life this topic matters little, but I keep getting annoyed every time I hear the word "jabbed" used to describe people getting the vaccination combatting this world sweeping pandemic.  I don't know why this word used for this purpose grates on me, but I find "injection" or even "shot" (though, come to think of it, shot can have a worse meaning) much less objectionable.

Maybe "jabbed" in my mind suggests just a careless imprecise sticking of someone with any ol' object, anywhere, in which case who would want a vaccination -- I wouldn't.   But I don't mind getting a shot?   Go figure!

Are there words that just automatically trigger a negative reaction aggravating you when you hear them used?

ANNOYING ACTIONS -- be forewarned of political commentary

Writing of jabs and annoyance, I might add I'm more than a little annoyed that my and others tax money here in California is being squandered to the tune of $276 million.   We're having to foot the bill for a special election to recall our Governor Newsom that I consider to be purely politically motivated.   Do you think there just might be better ways to spend that sum?  I do!

I don't question there are issues with actions our Governor has taken with which some Californians have not agreed.  I do not believe they have risen to the level warranting this recall vote, however.   This is especially evident when compared to the gross actions the previous U.S. President of that major political party's monied supporters promoting this recall consistently tolerated by denial and turning a blind eye -- they still do.

We California citizens are basically paying for a pre-primary election for the Republican Party prior to our future regular election, November 2022.  They view this recall election as an exercise to come up with a viable candidate to offer next year, as described by a writer with a newspaper that endorsed one of that Party's candidates for this recall election.  (Note: I'm not registered with any political party.)

If this recall is successful, we're really only shortening our current Democratic Party governor's term by one (1) year!  There is no justifiable reason in my view for not waiting for the regular election in 2022 to determine if we want him as governor, when we can reject or re-elect him at that time.  

My ballot arrived in the mail this past week offering me the choice of two actions.  The first choice is, do I want to recall our Governor -- "Yes" or "No".  The second action is to select who should replace him from the 46 listed candidates if he is recalled.  That's right -- 46 candidates!   (24 Republicans, 9 Democrats, 9 No Party Preference, 2 Green Party, 1 Libertarian, Write-Ins of unknown number, if any)

Our current Governor must receive a majority, 50% or more, of the votes saying "NO" we don't want to recall him in order to stay in office the last year of his elected 4 year term.

Here's the scary part -- if the voters recall him, the candidate who has the most votes will become our replacement governor.  The votes for all the other candidates may total more than the winning candidate but that won't matter.  

What kind of representative of the electorate would that person be?  This is how political nutsos (technical term) receiving only a meager number of votes can be elected to office!  That, and occasionally via the Electoral College less-in-number votes taking precedent over the larger majority popular votes.  The latter has taken place twice in recent years with disastrous consequences -- Iraq War, Capitol Insurrection.  

Reading the resume' of most of these candidates reveals qualifications that hardly prepare them to be our state's governor.  One or more candidates might realistically be considered as endorsement fodder by the Republican or Democratic Party come our regular election, but many other candidates might not be judged realistic prospects  for political offices in their own communities whether  the office of mayor, treasurer of a local club, or dog catcher.  

Of course, there is that woman who is simply described as "Entertainer", or more precisely, "Billboard Queen, Icon. Experienced politician."  She has a P.O. Box in Beverly Hills so what further qualifications or endorsements does she need?  (No Party Preference)

Hopefully, the majority of my fellow Californians will mark their ballot, "NO" we do not want to recall our current Governor.  Let him serve out his four-year term, then we'll decide whether to re-elect him or not.

Our current Governor Newsom is telling those who support him to vote "NO" on the recall, but not vote for a candidate.  I haven't heard him explain why not vote for a candidate.   He cannot be written in either as the vote won't be viable.   I guess he is optimistic that he will not be recalled.

Perhaps he does not want the primary opposition Republican Party to have the benefit of learning the voting strength of any of his Democratic Party's candidates, but especially which of their own candidates might attract the most votes in 2022.  So far, the most prominent Republican candidates agree on the major issues, with which I don't agree, despite whatever lesser issues they disagree on with each other.

Frankly, I'm not inclined to want to make the Republican Party's formulating their 2022 election ticket any easier for them either. I don't trust a political party whose actions have demonstrated efforts to undermine our democratic republic.  This gives me little confidence in whether most of their candidates would protect our freedoms -- a troubling perspective I never imagined their actions would cause me to form of that Party. 

I have mixed feelings about not selecting a candidate, since not only do I resent my tax money paying for this recall election, I am angry about being used by the Republican Party in this manner -- an abuse of the political process and all taxpayers.    Just when I think they couldn't ethically sink any lower  earning my respect for them, they keep managing to go deeper at every governmental level into the national cesspool they seem to have created.

What I think also, is, if by some fluke the recall vote succeeds, do I want to take a chance on who the candidate receiving the most votes will be?   No doubt the Republicans will come out to vote in full force, but if I don't select a candidate, do I want to risk their possibly choosing the most unacceptable to me of their candidates?

Their voter track record for quality candidate selection isn't too good as I recall the last time they put one of their own in the White House as a prime example.  Too many of the Republican Party members appear to continue to bend, bow and kowtow following this now ex-President's much less than noble, unethical example garnering votes with total disregard for facts and truth coupled with their promoting often  ridiculous, even dangerous conspiracy theories.

In addition to voting "NO" on the recall, I must decide whether to vote for a specific candidate, then vote by September 14th.  

LIFE -- COVID 19 -- VOTING -- MCCOY TYNER

My thoughts this week have been primarily focused on practical day-to-day living.   I was reminded of how quickly life’s circumstances can be altered when I somehow twisted an ankle while the knee on my other leg was slightly bent, so not locked to support my continued standing.  So, down I slid onto my tush just inside my front door.  That was the easy part.  Nothing broken.  The challenge came in getting back up.   This I finally managed in time but only after moving further into the house. 

The next few days the body has dictated some accommodations and adaptations are necessary on my part due to aches and pain, especially the first night trying to sleep.   I’ve managed to handle the basic necessities including progressing to doing a couple loads of laundry.  Another day I went to the store.  I welcomed sitting down to drive one of their less than smooth-accelerating hot rod vehicles – even managed to avoid colliding with other shoppers. 

***

Meanwhile, I had plenty of occasion to view all forms of media and tech describing what was happening in the rest of the world.   The Coronavirus has us continuing to play catch-up in dealing with prevention and treatment.  I continue to respect select scientific data and some knowledgeable medical authorities reports in preference to this presidential administration’s political efforts to control and manipulate reality with what can best be described as their “massaging the facts”.   

Here in California our news is filled with periodic accounts of cruise ships filled with passengers stranded on board as tests are made to determine whether or not the Coronavirus is present.  A negative test of an ill passenger will now allow all on a ship offshore in Southern California Long Beach to disembark a day later than when they were scheduled.  Those waiting to board for the next trip had to find overnight accommodations due to their delayed departure – if they’re still going.  Another quarantined cruise ship stranded at sea elsewhere with some passengers testing positive is finally being sent to Northern California’s Oakland for further follow-up.   

Large groups of people around So Cal previously scheduled events continue gathering but inconsistently – some events are cancelled, others move forward, such as the Los Angeles Marathon with thousands of runner participants expected.  Everyone has their rationale and justification as to why their event is either occurring or not and why they may or may not attend.  Clearly there seem to be pretty fluid guidelines defining criteria on how best to conduct our lives in the beginning days of this health issue. 

The availability of tests to detect the Coronavirus has certainly been an overdue factor in aiding our more successfully coping with this health issue.  Meanwhile, we are well-advised to take responsibility for ourselves following prescribed hand-washing techniques and a variety of other recommended behaviors in this U.S. Government Center for Disease Control and Prevention – Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Important to note that older people and individuals with certain medical complications are considered to be at high-risk for contracting the disease as noted by the CDC.

***

A ‘Super Tuesday’ of primary 2020 election voting resulted in narrowing to two front-runner Democratic Party Presidential candidates in the days immediately following – former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders.    This coming Tuesday another group of states will hold primary elections to define even further Party delegate totals.  The Republican Party’s President Donald Trump is a virtually uncontested candidate as he seeks re-election for another four years.  

Los Angeles County voting was problematic as a new system using touch screen technology that prints a paper ballot for verification was introduced.  There were numerous voting sites where people had to stand in long lines for hours and hours with some not finished until midnight.  Machines didn’t work in some sites accounting for some of the problems.   Officials are challenged now to ensure the issues are all resolved when we vote in November’s 2020 Presidential election.   

*** 

The jazz world will miss McCoy Tyner who died Friday, March 6, 2020 at his home in New Jersey.  Here’s a solo piano performance of John Coltrane’s Giant Steps, by McCoy Tyner, 1996, Hamburg.

NPR (click for link) provides an extensive obituary beginning with this description:

 “McCoy Tyner, a pianist whose deep resonance, hammering attack and sublime harmonic invention made him a game-changing catalyst in jazz and beyond.”

You can also stream NPR’s In Memoriam Playlist on that site.  

REPRIEVE ---- LOSS

REPRIEVE FOR AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

The Trump/Ryan Health Care Act has been side-lined for now for the wrong reason – only because a minority group within the Republican Party refused to vote for it as they wanted even more draconian measures – not because the Act was a travesty against efforts to provide reasonable health care for the vast majority of American citizens.  

How about the rest of the Republican Representatives, or some of them, meeting with some Democrat Representatives – they could actually try to examine the ACA aka Obama Care to adjust for more cost effectiveness and efficiency.   Some adjustments were expected to be necessary after that legislation was implemented.   Congress could actually perform some meaningful work to earn the salary we hired/elected them to do. 

LOSS

Schmidley's Scribblings  daughter reports her mother has passed away.   I've enjoyed visiting this blogger who offered a true elder's perspective, garnered from years of significant work in our government and a master's degree in history obtained in her seventies.  She was grounded in contemporary life but respected the influence of previous generations she explored in her genealogy.  Her observations were concise, evidencing humor with a sharp wit.  I only knew her through a few years of blogging, but I'll miss her photos, stories, commentary on the world we live in.  

POSITIVE FUTURE POSSIBLE

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them, the first time."  

I wholeheartedly concur....with Maya Angelou.

The Republican Party Presidential candidate has repeatedly shown us who he is -- we need to believe him.   He clearly at heart is not the person he's been trying hard to present this past week or so prior to the election.   His Party's platform, assuming he would even try to promote it -- and I don't trust what he might do -- will not lead our nation to prosperity, especially since the financial approach is a repeat of a previously unsuccessful plan.    He and the wealthiest class will benefit most despite the platitudes of his caring about the rest of Americans -- campaign platitudes which are just that and nothing more.   If in doubt, consider news reports showing workers and businesses who've lost income owed them. 

A positive future is possible, I believe, with Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
I trust this candidate will make every effort possible to promote prosperity for this nation with plans she has outlined.  Hopefully, the legislative branches, especially the House of Representatives, will recognize they are long overdue to accept and engage in meaningful compromise for the good of the people which is precisely their job.   I am aware of her alleged shortcomings but believe them to pale in comparison to those of her opponent.

My perspective.....
I've given serious thought to what is at stake in this election as likely most readers here have also done.     I observed with great interest all the prospective candidates as they each burst on to the scene -- then their numbers were whittled down to the two major political party candidates.  I've been aware of all the shenanigans of one candidate turning this election into the basest of reality entertainment -- heard all the lies, innuendos -- noted the media suckered into providing free promotion of that individual, lessening the credibility of much of the serious news media in the process.   

Consider this.....
Third party candidates will receive votes from a small percentage of people who believe they're making a statement.  Unfortunately,  the reality is this is an empty gesture that will  serve to do little more than sway the election to one of the two realistic potential winners.   This is a critical time for our nation that would be best served if a choice between the top two candidates is made  based on major party platform, consideration of probable need  for Supreme Court nominee appointments.

After the election, third party voters need to then align themselves to actively promote whoever their favored candidate is for the future and build their party  to viable numbers for the future elections.  Some may well believe we need to relegate to lesser status that major party taken over by their current candidate repelling so many of their number -- or maybe some of that party can form that third party, and other possibilities.      

MORE ELECTION THOUGHTS

This is a momentous election year---with choices unlike any others in my lifetime --- so
--- we better get it right on who we select to be in charge of decision-making for us and our nation ---  if we want to retain our constitution's democratic republic as intended by our founders. 
Our next U.S. President needs to be------


... someone who understands our nation's importance and place in the world for our own security and need to foster peace
... someone who respects our country's various relationships with that of other nations
... someone who recognizes the significance of fostering unifying actions within our country
... someone who demonstrates genuine understanding of the needs of all socioeconomic groups 

... someone who actually offers realistic plans and solutions for problems facing our nation rather than simple-sounding grandiose or previously failed trickle-down financial schemes

.... someone not afraid to release their income tax form to demonstrate the truthfulness of claimed charitable contributions, true net worth
....  someone whose life's work has evidence of public service beyond self-aggrandizement
....  someone who speaks civilly of all genders
....  someone who does not disparage, ridicule, belittle and bully other individuals
....  someone who can verbalize meaningful ideas so does not have to resort to name-calling


....  someone who appreciates the need to value and preserve the fourth estate  instead of automatically condemning the press when they report the truth or what is unfavorable to them  
....  someone capable of using reason to recognize and build on what's positive in our government
....  someone  who.........there are more positive comments that could be written .......

VOTE TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER 8, 2016

POLITICAL CONVENTIONS OF YORE

Election intrigue continues as this preliminary to the 2016 Presidential campaign goes on.   I haven't had so much fun following all the unpredictable antics beginning prior to the Primary Election -- and now, with rumors that one of the political party's pre-convention planning may include determining how to thwart their presumptive candidate's nomination --  since I was first able to vote -- listened to and viewed political party conventions.

That's not to say I haven't considered  this year's election prospects with great concern, even alarm, especially with the rhetoric of one candidate,  but sometimes I have had to laugh in order to keep my sanity.  Make no mistake there are vital issue outcomes at stake in November's final vote. 

When I harken back to the '50's -- more people were beginning to afford owning TVs then -- cable was emerging to allow viewing in communities previously without service -- I could actually see and hear the nominating convention process that had  previously only been described on radio.

TV was becoming the hot technology of the time -- in the years ahead video was  progressing  from black and white to color -- sound was evolving from high fidelity (hi-fi) to stereo (stereophonic) sound -- actually allowing us to view the convention halls with newsmen (no women) who had star-like status calling a sports-like play-by-play from up in their booth overlooking activities on the stage and in the auditorium below.

On the convention floor investigative news-types scurried about from state groups to state groups seeking news crumbs, or ideally some major revelation with which to startle their news anchors and the viewing public.  Then there were only three major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) who competed rabidly with one another to be the first with some new information bit.

The party platform and convention rules had been ironed out in meetings held in the days before the televised convention began  There was likely some "fine-tuning" in many areas throughout  the actual convention along with delegates jockeying about in support of their candidate.

Each state's elected representatives arriving were busy back-slapping one another.  There could be contentious moments between groups as to who actually had the legitimate credentials to represent their state, but those disputes we viewers were often only privy to after the fact in news commentary during the proceedings.  

The higher-up electors with political party bosses were busy negotiating one thing or another  in those legendary cigar and cigarette, occasionally a pipe, smoke-filled rooms.   Who was picked to be a convention's keynote speaker  always had great significance.

When the opening ceremonies preliminaries  finished in the auditorium, the countdown began.  From the stage a stentorian-sounding voice began an alphabetical roll call of each state.  As a state's name was called to cast their votes for the candidate(s) chosen in the months earlier primary election process, we heard that delegate group's leader shout out a flourishing response of varying length.

Each state's spokesperson praised their state's assets, attractions and claim to fame.  Their words often started with "The great state of ...(fill in the blank)... with many lakes...", or "The magnificent state of ...(fill in the blank) -- home of more presidents than any other state...," or one of my favorites was the declaration "The territory (or commonwealth) of ...(fill in the blank)...proudly casts its votes for......!"    Alaska and Hawaii had not yet become states until 1959 in different months when I first viewed these conventions.    So, I always was fascinated as they passionately advocated their state's attributes and dedication to our 48 continental United States as that phase of the procedures concluded.

Votes were tallied and then began the process of determining a winner.   If the first ballot had not decided one, in subsequent balloting states representatives maneuvered about more freely, deferring to one another for nominating a candidate.  Some delegates were released from voting for the candidate they were pledged to on the first ballot so they could vote for whoever.   Some years more than one ballot was required to select a final candidate as tensions would build from ballot to ballot with sessions going late into the night.   Ongoing pressure-filled meetings out of the camera's sight and newsmen's hearing (yes, still just men)  were the order of the day.

Who knew what all was going on off camera but news accounts offered lots of "leaks" from 'informed sources' -- spiked with a quote taken out of context --  plus adding a degree of  speculation -- all made for a tantalizing mix.  Once a candidate was finally chosen the normal loud boisterous noise became ear-splitting with the sound reverberating throughout the auditorium.

Another day and it was time to select a Vice President.  In some elections wheelin' an dealin' to decide the Vice Presidential running mate was an activity if -- he--  hadn't already been selected but generally the choice was ostensibly the nominated President's choice.   That's right, "he", until the year many years later when a "she" was actually selected for the first time to be the running mate or second banana Veep by one of the two major parties. 

That final night  we also ultimately  met the Party's chosen Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, their spouses.  Other activities, speeches, culminated in delegates vocalizing in noise-making volume becoming louder, faster, higher in pitch, reaching almost sound barrier breaking level with balloons and/or confetti snowing down on all.  Viewers were there -- seeing it all!

Here's a link to the simplified version of what we can expect in 2016 as Political Party Conventions Day-By-Day will proceed like this:

Day One -- Keynote Speaker
Day Two -- Credentials and Platforms
Day Three -- The Nomination
Day Four ---   Picking a Vice Presidential Candidate

Suspense fills the air for the Republican Convention already in progress for preliminary behind the scenes rules making and platform determination.  There are rumors the Presumptive Presidential Candidate rejected by so many party faithful could encounter delegate rules changes jeopardizing his nomination -- or not!   What then?   Reportedly none of the Party's  living previous presidents or the party's prior nominee will attend the convention in Cleveland, Ohio  beginning July 18-21, 2016.  

The Democratic National Convention is in Philadelphia, PA July 25-28 with their presumptive presidential candidate expected to be nominated with little dissension.   Her primary competitor has finally endorsed her, but only after achieving adoption of some issue positions he promoted.   If she -- that's right, a "she" -- is nominated, this would be a first for our nation so could arouse a high level delegate reaction.

Both conventions will be telecast and also can be viewed via live streaming video on the internet.  

"RIGGED" PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING SYSTEM?

We hear a lot of accusations from some of our current presidential candidates and others about our “rigged” political party presidential nominating system.   Are the systems rigged?

Those of you in other states might want to examine how effectively your state political party nominating system works.      

Here’s a look at how California’s system works with links to sources:

(Note:  forms and most time deadline information that must be submitted I have omitted in this abbreviated recap.  Only the two major political party systems are shown here in alphabetical listing.)

In order to be a California delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention  you must be a registered Democrat and be selected as one of three types of delegates:  

District-Level, At-Large or PLEO.

July 25-28 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania California’s Delegation to the 2016 Democratic National Convention 

Delegates:   317    Alternates:     30

At-Large Delegates:  105      Alternates    10

PLEO Delegates:         53      Unpledged Delegates:  71

Total Number of Delegates: 546    Alternates:  40                   

District-Level: Each of California’s 53 congressional districts (CDs) are allocated a number of district level delegates and alternates, based upon population and presidential voting from the 2008 & 2012 elections. Potential candidates for district level delegates must pledge their support during the filing period to a presidential candidate, Caucuses will be held in each CD where Democrats registered in the CD will be able to vote to slate delegates. Presidential vote levels per CD in the primary will determine which district level delegates are selected, based on the caucus rankings. 

At-Large: At-large delegates are selected from a statewide pool and offer another way for Democrats to participate in the national convention. Potential candidates for at-large delegate must pledge their support to a presidential candidate, within the filing period. Selection of at-large delegates will be confirmed at the Statewide Delegation Meeting. 

PLEO:  Party Leaders and Elected Official (PLEO) are Democrats from one of the following categories: big-city mayors and statewide elected officials; state legislative leaders and state legislators; other state county and local elected officials; California Democratic Party leaders. PLEO candidates must pledge their support to a presidential candidate, during the filing period.  Selection of PLEO delegates will be confirmed at the Statewide Delegation Meeting.

Here’s a link to the Democratic delegate selection plan for more detail.  

The Democratic presidential candidate must win a majority of votes from the estimated 4765 delegates which would be one more than half -- 2383.  

* * * * * 

July 18-21, 2016 Republican Party Delegates to 2016 Presidential Convention

National California Delegation      Total: 341

172 delegates

-- 159 (3 delegates per Congressional District)

--   10 delegates at large

--     3 pre-determined (State Chair, National Committeewoman, National     Committeeman)

169 alternates

--159 (3 delegates per Congressional District)

--  10 delegates at large 

Frequently Asked Questions:

Who chooses the delegates?   Delegates are chosen by the Presidential candidates, NOT by the CRP or the RNC.

Do I need to select a candidate to support when I apply? Yes. By selecting the candidate you support we are able to provide those same candidates with a comprehensive list of delegate candidates

How does the winner-take-all primary work?  California’s primary is a winner-take-all system by Congressional District. The Presidential candidate who wins any given Congressional District will receive all 3 delegate appointments for that district. In addition, 10 at large delegates are awarded to the presidential candidate receiving the largest number of votes statewide.

I’m a delegate to the California Republican Party does that mean I’m part of the California Delegation?  No. The delegates to the Republican National Convention are chosen by the Presidential candidates and are not in any way related to your status as a member or delegate to the California Republican Party.

What are the requirements for being a delegate?  You must be a registered Republican and a resident of the Congressional District you are representing. You must attend the Delegation Meeting. You must commit to vote for the presidential candidate by whom you are selected.

If I am a delegate to the California Republican Party can I be a delegate to the Republican National Convention?  No. The delegates to the Republican National Convention are chosen by the Presidential candidates and are not in any way related to your status as a member or delegate to the California Republican Party.

Essentially, to win the Republican nomination, a candidate must secure the support of 1,237 (half plus one) of the 2,472 expected delegates that will be present at the Republican National Convention (RNC).  

The allocation of delegates for each state and territory has been determined in advance according to Rule 14 of the rules for the election and government of the Republican National Committee. The major points of the rules are as follows:

(i)Each state is allocated ten delegates at large

(ii) The chairman, national committeeman and national committeewoman of every state and territory’s Republican Party is a delegate at large

(iii) The total number of U.S. House of Representatives seat in each state x 3 district delegates

(iv) States that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 are awarded 4.5 delegates at large plus additional delegates amounting to 60% of the number of electoral votes of each respective state. For D.C., an additional 30% instead of 60%, if qualified (all rounded up higher)

(v) Fixed number of additional delegates at large for each territory and D.C. (6 x American Samoa, 16 x District of Columbia, 6 x Guam, 6 x Northern Mariana Islands,20 x Puerto Rico, and 6 x Virgin Islands)

(vi) One delegate at large each for states with a Republican governor and for states which has a majority in its respective state legislature and Senate.

(vii) One delegate at large for states with an elected Senator for the U.S. Senate state within six years prior to January 1, 2016

* * *

Here's a link at This Nation.com to a site providing their summary of the processes described above.

* * *

Should your state political party consider a change in this presidential primary voting process for future elections?   If you think so, I suggest you start working now beginning at your local level to make any changes for future elections as it's too late for this 2016 presidential primary election.  

* * *

Tuesday, June 7, 2016 -- California Presidential Primary Election

Currently the top two Democratic party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are reported to be tied in the latest primary polls.

Donald Trump is reported to be the presumptive Republican party nominee.

CALIFORNIA MATTERS

CALIFORNIA MAY MATTER THIS ELECTION PRIMARY!

The 2016 Presidential Primary state elections to select our two major political party's candidates convention delegates continue to be the most unusual, even bizarre, in my lifetime -- considering the rhetoric used.

This year, candidates need to acquire western states delegates to reach the necessary total to become their party nominee at the convention.   For so many election years the required total would be achieved much earlier in the year, following  mostly eastern states primaries vote tally.   So...California's June 7th primary is taking on more significance.

Once ignored Californians can now anticipate for the next couple months or so being subjected to all the hoopla first hand we've read about taking place in other states as candidates seek votes for their respective July political party conventions.  In fact, some candidates have already been in the Los Angeles area holding campaign appearances.  I suppose we'll soon have TV commercials, phone calls, and mail flyers to plague us voters which we've largely been spared previous years.   I've been signed up several years with our local "No Knock Registry".  That means I have a decal on my door also stating "No Solicitations", so I won't have those door-to-door campaigners.    

Here's how it looks up to this point from my perspective.....

The Democratic party candidate-choosing has proven to be more of a two candidate competition than anyone had anticipated.   They each are defining their positions on the major issues facing our nation and the world, allowing those who are paying attention to distinguish how they're different and how they're the same.  They stress intent and action, but they also have an underlying design toward national and international unification.  Personal attacks and negativism have been absent, fortunately.  The  front runner candidate continues to be expected to achieve the required nomination numbers by their July 25-28, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania convention.   

The multiple Republican party candidates have continued being whittled down in number and now are three.
The third -- whose behaviors indicate he may be the only sane sensible one in the group -- has acquired the least number of delegates and is said to be unable to obtain enough more to become the candidate. 

Debates of the other two most prominent Republican candidates have revealed intent to institute alarmingly extremist irrational approaches to addressing our nation's and the world's issues in a destructively divisive manner.  Their debates, and I use that term loosely, have waffled all over the place from focusing on actual issues to denigrating one another -- and lately even disparaging each others wives.

The current Republican leader offers what appear to be overly-simplistic knee-jerk type problem solutions reflecting a failure to understand and consider all of an issues complex nuances, coupled with a repelling enthusiasm for initiating personal attacks on his opponent(s).   Frankly, I find it scary, even dangerous,  to think that leading candidate is expected to secure enough votes for the nomination.   One fly in this ointment is despite gradual increasing overt support, there continues to be a lot of open and covert opposition to his becoming the nominee.  How, or even if, the Republican party can prevent that, should they decide to do so, will be interesting to observe in the months ahead, then later at their July 18-21, Cleveland, Ohio convention.

The Democratic party is expected to continue as a political force, basically consistent with their long established principles, whatever the outcome of their convention.  The same may not be true for the Republican party which long ago strayed from principles for which they always said they represented.  Years ago a vocal Republican party minority segment began disrupting congressional legislative function, then more recently has been trying to hijack their party's election primary. 

Voting outcomes to date in both party primary results clearly reflect a desire for change, but..... from what to what?    

PRES. PRIMARIES PROCEED

Super Tuesday continues to make this Presidential Primary year a surreal, entertaining, but serious event.    One of our two major political parties has been undergoing internal ideological changes for quite a few years.  They've skewed  away from moderate conservatism to a more conservative position -- actually extremely conservative or even beyond. 

Many of their more traditional party members  have been facing an increasingly perplexing dilemma  as they try to accommodate the more extreme element of their party.  Doing so has not been easy since that element's original small number has had  a "my way or the highway" attitude.   We citizens of all political persuasion experienced the consequences of that obstinate position when exercised in our Congress for too many years -- so many issues on which they failed to take action.    Too many of that group lacked either the willingness or skill to employ the finer points of governing which include a need for negotiation and compromise.

So now, this same political party has produced a multitude of candidates who desire to become President.   Their few candidates who could be slightly more inclined toward moderate conservatism have largely been excised from candidacy as various state primary election totals have been eliminating them.

In the beginning, one unexpected candidate flamboyantly entered that parties political race turning the campaign dynamics upside down.   He has resorted to appealing to voters basest values  in a most negative manner with promises to likely continue the same tactics, or worse, if he becomes the party candidate.     He is winning in most of the state primaries to date. 

Considerably fewer states voters have kept two remaining challengers in the race -- men whose rhetoric raises the possibility they could  bring a troubling degree of religion into governing -- more theocratic than democratic.  One other candidate with governing experience who could be the more rational of all continues to hang on at least through his state's March 15th primary. 

Speculation has had some pundits saying we may be witnessing a demise of one of our two major political parties, but maybe the party is being rejuvenated -- just not as they have previously presented themselves.   Will some party members leave?   Will they throw their support to the other party?   

I still wonder if a new third political party and candidate will emerge in the next couple weeks as a former NYC mayor said he would run if candidate options consisted of those we now see to be emerging as the  contenders.

Our other major political party has two candidates that appear to be winnowing down to one -- the person expected to be their nominee as state primaries proceed.   The rhetoric from these two has been mostly respectful, issue oriented and framed to appeal to voters.   We'll begin to see the increased tensions as candidates become the final nominees campaigning toward the November Presidential election. 

I firmly believe in our nation's need for a strong two party political system.    Others views are important.  Often the numbers of those of like mind do form another party, but seldom have they attracted enough supporters to be elected to national governmental office.    In some situations a strong third party can adversely affect a final election's outcome but it's premature to examine that possibility further. 

Will we see one of the major political parties in existence throughout  my entire lifetime begin to fade from the scene?   Will another party, perhaps with disenchanted members of that fading party, form a third party?   We hear mention of the possibility of holding an "open convention" in hopes of preventing a candidate  unwanted by party leaders becoming their nominee.    We'll see what develops -- especially after March 15th. 

So Cal Update

Rain and snow have come to California courtesy of El Nino, finally.  We're still shy of adequate amounts to fully replenish our needs to overcome the drought we've been experiencing.  Regrettably the storms have brought high winds with many trees felled, flooding, ocean cliffs collapsing leaving an uninhabitable dwelling, other related destructive consequences in some areas, and worst of all a life lost.  We are predicted to receive more storm than we may want in the next two to three months.

Fortunately, where I live in So Cal (Southern Calif.) we've primarily benefited from the weather and been spared most of the negative effects.  Mountain area resorts have been elated their ski area recreational activities are thriving.   I can only wish others would be spared any damages to person and/or property from the future moisture we need.

This Presidential Election year continues to be unbelievably bizarre compared to any I recall in my lifetime.   The American public is truly angry and seems to be saying, "a pox on politicians" as we know them.   Seems to me replacing some of those in our Congress might serve to be a more effective step toward having our nation's problems meaningfully addressed, but that must wait until another election.  However, this election is critical in many ways including the next President potentially needing to make several Supreme Court appointments.

Whoever is finally elected President cannot "fix" everything despite the verbose blustery pronouncements of some -- but amazingly to me there are many people who seem to believe such a miracle could occur.  Issue views espoused by most candidates so far seem to indicate a void of moderate positions.

Surprisingly, supporters for some candidates have squeeked out of the woodwork from elections-past to lend excitement to this whole affair.    Will all this hullabaloo bring out more voters?   Maybe -- in this nation that seems to want news as entertainment and worships celebrity!

I think the Republican Party is fighting for survival as they appeal to the most extreme conservative elements and nourish base divisive human instincts in their followers.  One of their candidates has literally turned this election inside out and upside down with the result their expected front runner(s) seem to have been lost in the shuffle.  Their multitude of candidates are slowly whittling down in number as Iowa and later New Hampshire are the first States whose supporters will express their opinions this month.  These States chosen candidates in either Party ultimately may not be the final Party candidate.

The Democratic Party has found itself unexpectedly having a strong race between two candidates with a third shadowing those two.  They have moved toward more liberal positions on a few issues that might not have been expected if there hadn't been such a fierce competition.  They have maintained a consistent strong stance defending all Americans,  as our nation's Constitution prescribes, in contrast to rhetoric from their opposing Party.  

Recently mutterings have been heard that a candidate might form a third Party if the surviving candidate in at least one of the Parties emerges as a nominee.  Ah, the battle of the billionaires!  I thought some of that money group were the ones everyone is angry with -- part of the 1% -- suffocating the middle class and thrusting all the rest of our population into the less-than 99%.  

So much more could be said and getting into the specific issues which is what I'm really interested in seems almost premature at this point with all the drama that's going on.   There's plenty of time for getting to those matters for some of us, I guess, after all these candidates get sorted out since Californian's don't vote until June.   Also, this will be the first Presidential Election when all of those who have registered no political party preference can vote either Party.

When all final Presidential candidates have been selected, then, perhaps, we will have a better idea of exactly what issues will be pursued so, if in doubt, our choices will be evident.  

  

  

UNDECIDED - 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Listening to comments after the 2012 Presidential Debate at C-Span, where I viewed the event in live streaming video, I was surprised some phone callers and twitterers were saying they were still undecided about how to cast their ballots.    Perhaps some individuals may only recently have begun to examine all the significant issues. Maybe only now they’re seriously considering the desired direction for this nation in the next four years as election day draws near. 

I think there are profound differences between candidates and political parties.  Anyone viewing all the 2012  debates, including those of the Vice-Presidential candidates, carefully listening to the rhetoric, and fact checking candidates statements in those debates, could acquire sufficient information on which to make an intelligent decision about whether to vote for Democrats President Obama/Biden or Republicans Romney/Ryan, I think.  However, I’ve been a political junkie since I could first vote many years ago, so have been tracking events all along, and there are many other pertinent issues that were not mentioned that voters would be wise to learn about.

In addition to opinions formed from the debates, I would highly recommend consideration also be given to the basic philosophy and values of each candidate's political party.  Long-time straight party ticket voters should keep in mind there have been very significant changes in those two major political parties beliefs and practices from their once traditional positions as I've observed and based on the analysis of some political experts.   Unfortunately, we’re subjected to the detrimental consequences of these changes resulting in a Congress unable to come together to solve our nation’s problems.    Given these political party differences voters would be wise to carefully research the voting record and political beliefs of  current and future Congressional candidates before voting for them, too. 

Both parties used to be composed of conservative, moderate and liberal members so that coalitions across party lines were more easily formed on issues as some political analysts have said.   I would  also compare the composition of both parties in more recent years to have been altered in ways others have  described.

The Democratic Party position on many issues has become more conservative, moderate, and much less liberal than it was for many years.   

The Republican Party has become primarily extremist/ultra-conservative, marginalizing/rejecting their moderate and more liberal thinking members.

A lobbyist who is not even a member of Congress has commandeered the Republican House of Representatives members, holding them hostage to criteria he has dictated.  That’s not my idea of how an effective government of the people is intended to function.

That ultra/extremist Republican group drives their candidates, Romney/Ryan, with the extreme budget proposals (that don’t even balance), while also predicting job creation based on an approach tried before that is known to not work.  Despite generalizing rhetoric about moving our nation forward in today’s world they provide few specifics that compute accurately in dollars and cents/sense.   

I’m also very troubled by candidate Mitt Romneys waffling around about issues as he continues to do since he first began campaigning for his political party’s nomination.  He even denies making previous well-documented pronouncements when he has contradicted them in later statements.    

Here’s an original jazz recording with a title and lyrics most appropriate for candidate Romney’s "Undecided" wishy washy positions:  

“Django Reinhardt et le Quintette du Hot Club de France, avec Stéphane Grappelli Stéphane Grappelli (vln); Django Reinhardt (g solo); Joseph Reinhardt, Eugène Vées, Pierre "Baro" Ferret (g); Emmanuel Soudieux (b); Beryl Davis (vcl)
1939 August 25 – London”

“Undecided” Partial lyrics:

First you say you do
And then you don't
And then you say you will
And then you won't
You're undecided now
So what are you gonna do?
Now you want to play
And then it's no
And when you say you'll stay
That's when you go
You're undecided now
So what are you gonna do?
I've been sitting on a fence
And it doesn't make much sense
'Cause you keep me in suspense
And you know it

Now we know from Mr. Romney’s former company, Bain, that he is able to invest the money of wealthy people to make them even more money – and some for himself, too, (so what if it means collapsing a few companies, sending jobs overseas and/or workers losing jobs.)   Could we expect his business skills to translate well to national governmental office?   Well, how did he do on even a smaller governmental level – say for just one state – when he was Massachusetts Governor?   Hm-m-m…..

Gov. Romney’s state then was among the lowest in the country in job creation.

Under his stewardship they had the second largest labor force decline in the nation.

They lost double the rate of manufacturing jobs that the nation as a whole lost.

He vetoed legislation that would have prevented doing business with companies who outsourced jobs to other countries.   

His state had below average economic growth, often close to the bottom nationally.

Thinkprogress.org/economy

Romney doesn't have much to crow about and is hypocritical when it comes to what he says about health care given the program with which he was involved in Massachusetts.  These are only a few of many more less than positive facts that prevent my voting for the Republican Romney/Ryan ticket.

I believe the Democrat Obama/Biden ticket offers the most hope for continuing this nation on a road to gradual recovery in a manner that will:

create jobs,

benefit new business,

launch a rebirth of middle class America, 

institute a fair and balanced tax system

..... that doesn't place undue financial hardship on the wealthiest class,

cause the least financial and health harm to those of less means, 

provide health care to all citizens, 

preserve Social Security and Medicare with realistic adjustments,

reduce our national debt in a sane reasonable manner, 

rebuild our educational, social and physical infrastructure, 

maintain our military defense capability and national security, 

continue developing positive foreign relations around the world.

We'll need a Congress with forward thinking vision  that's willing to work for the salaries and benefits our taxes pay them to accomplish these goals for all generations today and for the future.

2012 PRESIDENTIAL1st TV DEBATE

We've heard the first of three 2012 Presidential TV debates between incumbent, President Barack Obama and challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.   (Note: I wrote this debate night, but only now am finally re-publishing.)      

The term "debate" is loosely applied in describing how these events are conducted, but this has been true since broadcasting these programs was first conceived many years ago.   This time I listened only on the radio since I’m still engaged in my temporary experiment of life without television.   One significant positive without TV  is that I'm not being subjected to negative Super Pac ads, and possible political use of 501C nonprofits ads. 

Formulating a complete debate event impression is significantly disadvantaged without video to actually see the participant speakers and moderator.  Listening only to a radio broadcast as I did, allowed me to hear the words, note the voice quality, tone, inflections, and formulate my sense of the participants emotions.  I was deprived of seeing the body language and facial expressions -- both major perception influencing factors.

I lacked information derived from seeing an opponent’s reaction to what the other speaker was saying.  Also, I could not see nonverbal signals and actions of the moderator which could influence what I might think about his effort to control the proceeding, or a debater whose conduct failed to respect the standard participation rules.

Soon after the debate began I became acutely aware that PBS moderator, Jim Lehrer, whose broadcasting skills I respect, was losing control of this event.   The shortcomings in this TV version of a debate format couldn't have been more obvious.   Candidate abuse of time guideline limitations is always an issue in these TV debates for which there is no penalty if the speaker does not respect such rules, or respond to being told their time is up. Once one candidate oversteps the boundaries as happened at this debate's very beginning, the other rightfully feels they’re entitled to equal time.  Maintaining and/or re-establishing program timeline direction can be adversely affected as was graphically demonstrated in this most recent debate.

Despite all this my personal opinion is that overall Mitt Romney left more of a positive  impression in this TV debate than Barack Obama.  That is not to say that candidate Romney "won" the debate, that his ideas were superior, or the information he provided was more factual, since some viewers might debate that matter.

Romney did briefly elaborate on some specifics, but continues to leave far too many unanswered questions about exactly how he'll make some changes he says he intends.  Voters would be strongly encouraged before voting to verify the credibility of statements Romney has made.  They would be wise to investigate whether his dollar numbers compute accurately, and actually make sense.  Some of his logically sounding  pronouncements are deceivingly simplistic because of significant factual omissions.

Much that is known of a Romney administration plan is very troublesome, coupled with his positions on so many issues that have been all over the map, so to speak, since he came into the political eye as a budding Presidential candidate.  Those inconsistencies should give many thinking voters serious reason for concern – IF they’ve been paying attention since he first came on the scene.  

We know his policies are predicated on channeling funds to private sector entities, taxes, regulations, subsidies that protect corporate and individual wealth, such as his own, for investment purposes -- mostly under the guise of claiming this will benefit middle class Americans -- presumably this has always been the argument he and such supporters have long professed.  Unless all the percentage figures and pie graphs I've seen for too many years are incorrect, these ethical, morally motivated, magnanimous, generous financial industry, corporate business leaders, politicians (not to be confused with statesmen,) and others, seem to be populated with a high percentage of individuals who've been strikingly unsuccessful in accomplishing their middle class re-birth goal by those means.  

Whatever could have gone awry?  The obvious answer is that greed has raped our capitalism.  I've said for the past thirty years that capitalism has been running amok at an escalating rate and degree.  We've reaped the consequences of this behavior for several reasons including:   betrayal by some leaders and fellow citizens, collusion by others through honest sincere judgment errors and, finally, apathy -- especially egregious with too many voters.  (Check the percentage of people who actually vote in all the elections in your community -- local to national, and not just the Presidential elections every four years.) 

If that small  percentage of citizens and corporations with the most wealth among us truly care about prosperity for all, then they should be willing to bear at least as equal a percentage share of the tax burden as the rest of us.   What is their justification for avoiding paying taxes by using legal shenanigans, paying at a tax rate much lower than the average American, or not at all, then hiding riches in non-taxable offshore accounts?   That's not saving to invest in creating American jobs for a strong middle class -- as we're told is the justification for some of these obscene tax rate differences.  This whole tax matter is symbolic of Romney's attitude toward most Americans.

(I still think Romney's tax returns he so zealously refuses to release would reveal information voters would be wise to know before casting a ballot for him.  We would see by what he has actually done tax-wise and with his wealth what he really believes -- revealing whose interests would be of primary focus from such a leader.)

President Obama is going to have to present his positions much more clearly and forcefully in the remaining weeks before election day.  He is going to have to be more concise with facts and specifics reiterating how he will keep this nation on a road to financial recovery through job creation. 

I want to hear from him more stress on the means by which the nation's middle class numbers will grow in America.  Plus I want descriptions of the measures that will protect those who may have need with reassurance he will resist efforts to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare, instead gradually adjusting these programs with reasoned care.   His policies and plans are not without need for refinement on several matters.   His re-election will not eliminate the fact there will continue to be specific issues requiring the public to forcefully make our expectations known to his administration and legislators as well especially in healthcare. 

President Obama’s responses were often indirect to the issues his opponent raised, plus he needs to hone in with focused rebuttals which he did not do in too many instances.  His statements need to culminate with a transition to a verbally offensive position.  (Easier said than done.) 

Frankly, I learned very little new from this debate, or much that I didn’t already know about both candidates, but there are many issue fine points about which we still need to be informed.   

Of course, the reality is that many people have already voted, others have made their choice, but will await voting until the traditional November election day as I will do. So the candidates’ goals must be to convince potential voters who can still register in some States to do so, then to vote.  Undecided registered voters, and potential unmotivated voters must be stimulated to cast their ballots.   

(Voting on the Internet is now available in California, select other States, with varying degrees of ballot security.  Computer scientists Douglas Jones and Barbara Simons have written "Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count" highly regarded for reading.   Every tech machine vote must be verifiable Simon says, which to date can only be accomplished with a back up paper ballot.   Simon cites Virginia as one State using some questionably secure voting machines (a system Pennsylvania rejected).  Note that Virginia is also one of the States in which accuracy of ballots and totals is considered to be of special significance influencing the national election's outcome this year.) 

I have great difficulty understanding why citizens don’t vote.   I’ve always believed voting is every citizen’s responsibility for the privilege of living in our republic/democracy – especially if we want to keep our nation from becoming an autocracy,  theocracy, plutocracy, or some other undesirable form of government. 


The very least we can do is to educate ourselves on the issues, candidates and vote – to preserve this nation’s government for our children, grandchildren and future generations.  Maybe then we also won't elect leaders whose judgement much too readily takes our nation to war, squandering our resources while neglecting our nation's infrastructure and handicapping the internal structural elements of our society.   

I think voters with passionate perspectives will vote but am concerned that others with more moderate views may be disenchanted with all government.   Moderates have had their ideas and beliefs marginalized, even discounted, by a vocal few for too long.  Disparate groups promoting a variety of extreme positions representing various minority issues have been allowed to exercise a disproportionate influence on congressional legislation, even preventing problem-solving actions – as witness Congresses past four years failure to meaningfully address major challenges facing this nation. 

Those congresspersons have deliberately failed to act in good faith on behalf of most citizens.  Then they tout what they characterize as a high-minded philosophical ideal to justify their inaction as a form of action.   In reality, Romney's political party members  have categorically said they were more interested in getting themselves elected into positions controlling this government than acting in a conciliatory manner respecting any others views than their own to resolve the problems this nation faces -- despite the fact at least half this nation's population does not agree with their ideas.  Now they hypocritically complain about the state of our economic recovery, the national debt, the slowed rate of job creation, health care cost resolution efforts and actually have the gall to blame the entire situation on this current Administration.

Such repeated frustrating behaviors from these political party bullies may have resulted in fostering an apathetic attitude in many moderates and young people who were previously interested in participating in the governing process through voting and/or service.   These discouraged moderate-thinking sensible potential new leaders and voters may have become so disgusted with the distorted influence of those obstructionist groups, that some moderates have been leaving Congress, other moderates among the public and young people are choosing to not vote in this election. 

This is a time when the nation most needs the moderates support to prevent our country from being lead rapidly by a Romney administration toward becoming a plutocracy – government controlled only by the wealthy.  Even our Supreme Court’s recent past years decisions have increasingly fostered our government’s trend in this direction.

The challenge is to reach the individuals in these moderate groups of all ages, dispel their cynicism, incite their passion to support the election of President Obama and other national legislative candidates -- probably Democrats -- in order to break the obstructive stranglehold used to immobilize our government's more efficient functioning.  Perhaps voters can elect more responsible moderates in both major political parties to Congress in the future.

The next debate will be between the Vice Presidential candidates.  There will be two more Presidential candidate debates in the weeks following with date and other specifics at this  Election Central site.   I'll look forward to viewing the next debates via live streaming video if available on the Internet for those like myself without cable or satellite service.