Final Thoughts on Election 2012:The Changing Face of America

So better late than never. There have been a few things on my mind since the re-election of our president on Tuesday Nov 6th. First of all-Yes!! Thank Goodness and Hallelujah that he won. Although the name of this blog is independent political thoughts, after writing my last blog entry post both conventions, I realized I had no choice but to vote for my country. Not for me. And that meant voting for our president. Election Day was stressful to say the least. I felt like I was in a fight for my life but in actuality it was for the poor and working classes, the disenfranchised, those without healthcare, for women and gay rights, for immigration reform. In the end, the country agreed with me including most swing states.

There have been many speculations as to why Mitt did not win. He has been getting bashed even by members of his own party. Was it his arrogance? His inability to connect with the majority of Americans vs. the 1%? Was it the video of him dismissing 47% of the American people as entitled? Or was it because he tried to appease the conservative base and tea party members while at the same time slipping back into his moderate views from the past IE flip flopping on so many issues it made most folks dizzy!

For me it was all of the above. Going back to my blog post "Who is Mitt Romney?" I realized he was not trustworthy. I felt he was truly the one with an entitlement problem by feeling he deserved to be president. I imagined him stomping on the floor like a 5 year old child saying "no its mine, its mine". And no one can tell me that losing to a black man didn’t make that tantrum worst. And not only for Mitt but for most of his party. The racial aspect has been, for lack of a better word, disgusting. From a T-shirt by a Romney supporter at a rally that stated "put white back in the white house" to the life like doll of the President being hung at a gas station in the south to Donald Trump and the members of the birther movement still asking for proof of his birthplace and college records to Ann Coulter calling our President a "retard" (side note-didn’t she see The Hangover? That word is not PC!)  I am not that old but I don’t recall any President being so viciously attacked and disrespected not just for his policies but for his race. That alone made me angry. That alone made me cheer for him regardless of whether I felt he was still the best man for the job. In addition there were many in the Republican Party who questioned black leaders such as Colin Powell who supported the president saying he was doing so only because he was black and so is the President. Really? Seriously? To belittle such an esteemed and educated former leader of our military was completely disrespectful and ignorant. And I ask-why is it that no one asked white leaders that supported Mitt if they were doing so because he is white? Clearly a double standard.

Speaking of race, Republicans including the republican nominee for vice president Paul Ryan stated since the election that the President won because of large turnouts in urban areas and because he received the Black and Latino vote. Mitt even stated that the President won because of gifts he gave and has promised to give to these groups. Insulting. But do they stop and ask why the President not only won these groups but also did well among women, Asian-Americans, Independents and even won Mitt’s home states of Massachusetts, Michigan and Paul's home state of Wisconsin and even the county where he is from ?! (Doubting this is one of the "urban areas" he was referring to).

So far I have heard very few Republicans address those statistics vs. pointing the finger back at the winning party. Except for Newt Gingrich. I have to say I was shocked when I saw him on The View speaking after the election. I have never been a fan of the "godfather of gridlock" but he admitted that the Republican Party needs to reach out to all of the American people and not just 53%. That the look of America is changing and there are a growing number of minority voters that can not relate to the Republican platform. That being said, it should still be made clear that if all white voters had voted for Mitt he would have won. They still make up the majority in this country so the President is not the President of minorities but represents the majority of the people shown by his undisputed victory in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

I realize it’s hard for certain segments of this society to come to terms with the changing face of America. I saw the movie Lincoln a few days ago and it struck me to see how the white men of that era lived in fear of the mere mention of not just ending slavery but giving blacks the right to vote. During the civil rights and women's movements there was that same fear and even violence as opposing views clashed over what America would be like if equal rights were given and power put in the hands of those deemed inferior. But right prevailed. Human decency prevailed. The majority spoke loud and clear back then as it has now. Yes it may make some in the majority race who have been in power since demolishing the natives feel uncomfortable and uneasy but thank goodness that in the end most have accepted the growing diversity in this country and could look past color to vote for the man who wants the best for all and not for some.

I will support our President as he moves "Forward". I hope both parties and people across this great land can do the same. For those into percentages I found the following numbers interesting.

La times 11/10/12

Nationally, according to exit polls, Latinos gave Obama 70% of their votes, Asian Americans 73% and blacks more than 90%. Voters younger than 30 went for Obama, 60% to 37%, and unmarried women sided with him by more than 2 to 1. Each of those groups made up a larger share of the electorate in 2012 than in 2008, except for blacks, who were steady.

 

Thoughts?

 

DNC vs RNC Lessons Learned

I have to say, I felt both conventions were brilliant and informative. The speeches at both covered everything from the economy, Osama, a women's right to birth control and foreign policy.

Of course there was no speech more entertaining than that of Mr.Clint Eastwood!! Even funnier was the twitter feeds #eastwooding and the empty chair. Other notable speeches at the RNC included Condoleezza Rice, Senator Marc Rubio, Paul Ryan and of course former Governor Mitt Romney. Who for the first time I felt came across-Real. But where was the former president George W. Bush? Were they afraid to remind us of what the last republican president did? :-)
As for the democrats, I felt the current Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick presented a very interesting take on Mitt Romney's former politics and policies. John Kerry was brilliant and of course former president Bill Clinton brought it home. But most moving to me was the speech by the FLOTUS Michelle Obama. It brought tears to my eyes and gave me chills to hear her speak of her husband and children. The president as usual brought his swag and to me made a heartfelt sincere plea for 4 more years. Unlike his previous run for the presidency in 2004, he did not make a list of promises and admitted to his mistakes and slow but current turnaround of the economy. Lesson learned? Their slogan "Forward" seems to fit.

But the main question that arose in my head was "do people vote for what affects them and their household the most or do they vote for what they feel will better the country as a whole"? Yes in an ideal world these 2 things would be the same but for many it is not. I tried to summarize the theme I got from both conventions. Republicans: "every man and state for themselves". America is a great country full of opportunities so you just have to go for it and make something of yourself. Based on the "every man for themselves", if you make it and you are successful you should get to keep most if not all of your money, not share AND get tax breaks and loop holes more than the average person. Since every American can just become successful and have money, you can pay for your own health insurance and save for your own retirement and therefore do not need assistance from the government in the forms of  medicaid and medicare.

Democrats "we are all in this together". We need to share the burden of our society. America is a great country but some people need help and not everyone is exposed to its opportunities. When you become successful you don't forget about those that are left behind. You reach back and help pull them up. The poor and middle classes need our help. The rich can afford to give back more and be taxed more to make this country a better place overall. Everyone has a basic right to health care. Some would say this sounds like socialism. I beg to differ according the definitions I have read on it http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

I must state that I do not think either view is terribly wrong but my heart goes out to the democrats and their mission. Eva Longoria made a great point in her speech. She said that the Eva Longoria that was a waitress needed a tax break but the Eva Longoria that is the celebrity and actress does not. It baffles me that millionaires and billionaires including Mitt Romney pay less in taxes than the middle class. Warren Buffet has even asked to be taxed more! However, I do believe my taxes should go towards helping those that help themselves and I do not believe in entitlement. I also believe that this is America and you should not be punished for your success. Mitt Romney having always been rich and never poor does not in my mind exclude him from being a good president or having the ability to help the poor and middle class. But all this leads me back to my initial question.

 

When voting, do you vote for yourself or for the country at large? Personally, most of the things I vote for have nothing to do with me. In fact most physicians will vote for the republican party and against Obamacare because we will make less money when it goes through. We will also likely be taxed less by republicans than by democrats. There is no doubt that we work hard for the money we make, have a high liability in taking care of people's lives and have enormous school loans to pay back. But I also realize that I am fortunate enough to live a comfortable life. I can afford to give back to those who need it more.

 

I read a description recently that I felt suited me far more than just saying I'm an independent. "Social liberal and fiscal conservative". I like it! In the end, I vote for what I feel will help this great country as a whole. I vote for the issues that tug at my heart more than my pocketbook which include a woman's right to choose, a person's right to love and marry whoever they please, the end to the wars in the middle east, bringing our military families back home, and the right of every American to have health care.

 

Thoughts?

The Black Republican

WOW! It has been awhile since I have blogged! I have been busy with a few major life changes like moving to a new city, getting ready to start a new job and launching my online magazine www.thesophisticatedlife.com (shameless plug) but with the republican convention underway and the election just a little more than 2 months away, there is no better time than the present to get back to political blogging.

Over the past few months I have been struck by comments by black men and women criticizing other black men and women who dare to express that they are republican or have conservative views. It is somehow a basic assumption that if you are black you are a democrat and a supporter of President Obama. When I first started this blog I was told by several friends with republican and conservative views that they did not comment on the site since they were afraid of being chastised. This saddened me. We are Americans who value freedom of speech and should not be afraid to share our political views to others especially those of our own race.

So why is there that basic assumption that blacks are and should be democrats? Is it based on our history in this country and the feeling that democrats are more likely to look out for the poor and disenfranchised? Is it because there are many more black democrats therefore the black community can identify better with that party? Is it based on the idea that republicans are the rich and only care about protecting their assets? Or is it based on actual beliefs about issues such as health care, taxes, abortion rights, gay rights, gun control and foreign affairs?

In terms of the issues, most democrats have liberal political views, are anti war, pro-choice, supports gay rights inc gay marriage, universal health care, a tax system that does not shelter the rich and allows sufficient funds to take care of the poor, supports gun control and immigration reform inc the Dream Act which allows certain illegal immigrants ie undocumented immigrants to remain in this country with a path to citizenship. While most republicans are conservative, pro-life, against gay marriage instead believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman, against entitlement, believes in the right to carry arms with little or no restrictions, against universal health care, believes in less taxes including for the rich, smaller government, believes we should close the borders and are against the Dream Act, supports going to war, even if needed to protect the interests of allies and not just our own. There is also an assumption that most republicans vs democrats are more religious, "god-fearing" and follow the bible more than Democrats do. Of course this is a simplification of both parties ideals and beliefs. But the question I have is-do any of these issues or categories scream black or white? Isn't it possible to be black, have those republican views and also support the advancement of blacks and minority causes in this country? Is there something wrong with being black and having "strong family, christian values" as conservatives like to say? Although that does somehow imply that Democrats do not have those same values.

One of the recent figures that caught my attention was Mia Love. She is a 36yo black female of Haitian descent from Utah who is a congressional candidate. She converted to the Mormon religion, is married to a white Mormon man and is mayor of a predominantly white town in Utah. If she wins her election, she would be the first elected black republican female to serve in Congress. She has emphasized what Condoleezza Rice has in interviews. That her parents believed in working hard and fulfilling the American dream of a better life for their family (anti-entitlement). She will be speaking at the republican convention tonight and some see it as a ploy to get blacks to vote for Mitt Romney when most polls show that he has garnered  0% of likely black voters. 0%-harsh!! Black republicans like Clarence Thomas are often thought of as "Uncle Toms" and despised by many in the black community. Reasons for this include 1)feeling that once certain blacks reach a certain level of success they turn their back on and cant relate to those that are left behind 2) that most white republicans are racist and only accept black republicans into their party and promote them in order to use them to get black votes. How much of this is true is not clear to me. But I have to admit-I have never been a fan of Clarence Thomas :-)

Besides Mia Love, in recent years there have been many famous black republicans. As noted above, Condoleezza Rice, also Colin Powell and most recently, Herman Cain who until his sexual harassment scandal was winning over black, white and Hispanic voters in the republican party. Many people do not realize there have been other famous black republicans including Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. There has also been strong mention that Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican.

Based on all of the above, I continue to hope that in the future there will be stronger independent candidates. That like myself share views and beliefs of both parties. But in the end, the bottom line is to allow people of all races and colors to join whichever party they feel best represents their core values and beliefs. One should not be afraid to express his or her views, be called names by people of their own or any race, be ridiculed and chastised especially after having the courage to go public and run for office. Also, be sure that you are aware of the issues and how they affect you, your family, and the country as a whole. Do not support or vote for anyone simply based on race.

Thoughts?

The Wisconsin Recall-Governor Walker projected winner

10pm-CNN projects that Republican Governor Scott Walker is the projected winner of the Wisconsin recall election! He ran against his former competitor in the 2010 election-Democratic Mayor of Milwaukee-Tom Barrett.

The road to the recall election began when the new Governor passed legislation to limit the bargaining rights of unionized government workers. In layman's terms it means that union dues became voluntary, unions had to re certify every year, most state workers, including teachers, had to pay more for health insurance and pension plans and had a limit on pay raises. This was all done to help the state's deficit. Of note, Governor Scott of Florida experienced backlash last year when he proposed that Florida teachers contribute to their pensions. He suggested that teachers who received free pensions be forced to contribute 5% into their pension funds. This did not seem unreasonable to me since along with most Americans, regardless of income, contribute 95-100% towards their pension plans. But back to Wisconsin....

The state has obviously been divided on this issue. Democrats and Unions held rallies in the statehouse-a statehouse that was run by a republican majority-elected along with Governor Walker in 2010.They obtained almost 1 million signatures to force a recall vote. They obviously felt strongly that the new legislation infringed on union rights. Republican supporters felt that the new legislation was reasonable to help the state as a whole financially. Pollsters asked Scott Walker supporters how they felt about the main issue at hand. They stated it was time for state workers and unions to "feel the pain" so to speak of private sector workers who have had wages and benefits cut in a tough economy.

This was also felt to be a precursor to the presidential election in the fall. President Obama won the state in 2008 and it is considered a swing state. Does the failure of the recall mean a win for Mitt Romney in the state in the fall? Many would say yes.

I have to say in general I do not believe in recall elections. Unless in cases of  complete fraud or federal crimes (not indecent exposures:-), everyone should have to accept the decisions made by the governor, president, congress and senate that they elected. Once the person gets in office, you should not get to kick them out because you do not agree with a law they have passed. If that was the case then there would be pure chaos in states and in the white house with elections being recalled and overturned every month or every year. There have only been 2 other recall elections of governors in this country's history and they have both failed. This will make the third.

Thoughts?

Mitt Romney Finally Clinches the Nomination

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-calls-obama-economic-record-twig-hang-onto-180809549.html

It seemed like an eternity but the former Governor of Massachusetts finally accumulated enough votes to be the Republican presidential nominee.
Maybe now the race will get more exciting? I am admittedly a bit bored. The initial phase of the republican nomination process including the many debates were quite entertaining but now all I read about are polls that show President Obama and the former Governor are neck and neck in many states. The only big stir up lately was when mayor Cory Booker of Newark-a Democrat-stated that he was "nauseated" by the President's attack on Mitt Romney's career at Bain Capital. Cory Booker was soon defending himself and refusing to let Republicans use him as a Democrat attacking the President. Really? Is this all we got? It is clear that most voters main concern is the economy (duh) and Independent voters will likely be the deciding factor in November.

Thoughts?

Words of Admiration for First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton

Strong, Smart, Successful, Powerful, Influential. Oh- and wife and mother.  Even if you do not agree with their political views, it is hard to not admire these 2 women. Both women have high approval and favorably ratings of roughly 66%. Here is why....

Most are aware that Michele Obama was raised on the south side of Chicago but has an Ivy league education with an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard. After law school she returned to Chicago to work at the law firm Sidley Austin where she met her future husband. She campaigned brilliantly for him during the race for the presidency in 2008 and gave the keynote address at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. She is the mother of their 2 beautiful daughters and has become a fashion icon often compared to former first Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

The First Lady has had two main focuses while in office. Along with the vice president's wife-Dr.Biden, they have been touring the country promoting "Joining Forces". An organization that assists military families. It showcases ways ordinary Americans can support and  help these families by pledging service hours and sending messages of thanks, ensuring veterans get the opportunities they have earned, supporting military spouses and creating a stronger connection between the American public and military families.

Her other main focus has been the fight against childhood obesity. With her "Let's Move" campaign she has promoted exercise as well as healthy eating and living for children and families. She has made appearances on TV shows such as "The Biggest Loser" during which she exercised with the trainers and contestants. She has also planted a vegetable garden at the White House.

Besides all of the above attributes, The First Lady is to me just a basic likable human being. She is simply radiant. In every speech or TV appearance that I have viewed, she is eloquent, funny, supportive of her husband and this country and speaks with love and pride when discussing her children and her husband. When asked what is her most important role, she always states its being a mother. She is a great example of multitasking at its best fitting the image that most of us have of a First Lady.

Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton. Yes the Clintons are well known and have been in the news for decades. Rightfully so as President Bill Clinton served 2 successful terms as President amid scandals and impeachment. Even as Governor prior to his presidency, the rumor mill of improper conduct had begun but the former first lady stood by her husband. She most definitely has lived up to their wedding vows of "for better or for worse" :-) During this time she also raised their daughter Chelsea who is successful in her own right having attended Stanford and Columbia, who worked at a consulting firm in NYC, the Clinton Foundation and as a NBC news special correspondent and is also now a wife. I am sure Hilary Clinton had her own agenda in being a loyal wife to her controversial and successful husband including her failed attempt to get health care legislation passed during her husband's presidency. She then ran against the current president in 2008 for the Democratic nomination. Ironically, her approval ratings were lowest around that time. Many Americans, including Democrats, saw the Clinton's as very polarizing figures. Democrats were afraid that they were so disliked that Republicans and Independents who don't normally vote would turn out in droves to vote against Hilary Clinton for President. I felt this overshadowed her talents and intelligence and her platform. I was very pleased that she was chosen by the President for a cabinet position as Secretary of State. Only the 3rd woman in US history to do so. Finally, Hilary has had her chance to shine in front of and not behind her husband.

As stated above, as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has had her highest approval ratings. So much so that there is talk of her running for the presidency in 2016. She is currently 64 and therefore would be 69 in 2016 if she decides to run. But she doesn't look it!! If anything I think she looks younger and more alive than she has in years. This year there were photos published of her literally "letting her hair down", drinking a beer and dancing in Columbia after several long days of work there with the President and her cabinet. The pics went viral! I think most people like myself were happy to see someone who has endured so much negativity in the press, due to her personal and public life, get to just simply-have fun. She has also been photographed recently without makeup and wearing her glasses vs contact lenses. Again, good for her. She has earned the right at her age and service to feel comfortable and relaxed on occasion. Most women can relate to this feeling. The antidote to feeling like you always have to be "on" and "made up". There were also the "texts from Hilary" tumbler in which she took part in comedic texts sent out from a "fake" Hilary Clinton.

All that aside, she has traveled the world tirelessly as a successful Secretary of State. She has done so with a strong hand and negotiating constantly on our President's behalf and with our country's best interest at heart. Going up against world leaders who are mostly still male is not an easy feat especially as a petite woman and in countries in which women are still considered to be second class citizens.
For all this and more I say-Bravo Hilary!! Bravo!

Thoughts?

To be or not to be Entitled.

The definition of entitled:to give a person or thing a title, right or claim to something.

Recent media stories and my current work experience keeps bringing this word into my head. I have also heard republicans mention it in debates stating that they are against entitlement. I cant say I blame them.

Being born in America does entitle you to A LOT. Once you are born in this country, you are considered a citizen. That entitles you to free education, free health care (if you can not afford it-more on that in a minute), the right to vote, the right to government services such as WIC, food stamps, social security, subsidized housing, medicaid and medicare.

But should being born here or legally residing in this country be all the criteria that's needed to feel entitled? Lets cut to the chase-I mean-is being a citizen or legal resident all the criteria that's needed to expect hand outs?

I currently work with a large migrant population composed of illegal-aka undocumented workers. I am sure they struggled to get to America in hopes of a better life for them and their children. Some have even left a number of children back home in countries such as Guatemala. However, even though they speak no English and are below the poverty line, they continue to have several children as many as 8, 9,10. Since the children are born here and are citizens, even though both parents are in the US illegally, they receive all of the benefits listed above. This includes free health care and vaccines at local health departments and the mothers also receive free prenatal and postnatal care at these clinics. In addition, many white, black and Spanish American women with little education, no job, and dependent on public assistance have child after child expecting everything to be handed to them. I did say many-not all. A few have even mentioned to the hospital staff that they will be back the following year since they get more money for each child. The mothers ask me to sign WIC forms that entitles them to free formula. When I mention that they need to have it signed by their primary care physician in a week, they ask me how are they supposed to get or pay for the formula for a week. I'm sorry-did you not think of that prior to having the baby? Shouldn't you have some responsibility for the child or children you created? Plus, breastfeeding is free :-)

All I'm simply asking is what happened to being responsible? If physically and mentally able, why not work hard to provide for yourself and your family and make rational choices as to how big that family should be. Nadia Suleman aka Octomom comes to mind. She chose to have 14 children and is now in jeopardy of losing her home. Because she stated several times that she would not ask for public assistance, she has posed nude and is considering porn to save her home and keep her kids. Also, a man was in the news recently that is asking for a break from paying child support for his 30 children!! No, he is not a sperm donor. He just willingly had 30 children with different women and he is not a millionaire.

Here in lies the problem. This is America and I do not think any American with a heart could stand by and watch a child go without food, shelter or an education. Also, we can not stand by and see a pregnant women without offering medical care if needed. We can not see someone who is sick and is in need of medical attention to save their life and not do so. But who pays for these services? Taxpayers. Hard working taxpayers including working class individuals that can barely provide for their own families and go without health insurance since they may be at that precarious line where they make too much to get free health care, food stamps etc but they don't make enough to pay for it. Even for those that are in the so called "high tax brackets" but not in the elite 1%, that did not inherit their money but instead worked long and hard for it, why should their tax dollars go towards paying for those that do not think before they act? To those that assume, rightfully so, that they don't have to since it will be given to them no questions asked? Shouldn't there be some punishment for such actions? After the fact, shouldn't there be some law that forces people to learn a trade and work to help provide for themselves and their families? I was struck last year by the fact that different families-2 single mothers each with 4 children- applied to rent my mother's home using section 8 vouchers. They were given a large enough amount based on how many children they had that would allow them to rent a single family house with 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 car garage in a quiet gated suburban community. There were several working class families with 2 working parents and less children that could not afford it. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

I will always agree with taking care of children, the disabled, veterans who are brave enough to serve this country and the mentally ill. But for able bodied individuals, shouldn't they want to or be forced to contribute to society, work hard and make responsible decisions vs doing whatever they want knowing the rest of the country "got their back" at whose expense? Taxpayers.

Thoughts?