RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
3 Ways to Make Your Vote Count in a Money-Soaked Election Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=21315"><span class="small">Fran Korten, YES! Magazine</span></a>   
Friday, 21 September 2012 14:43

Korten writes: "Think of your vote as an act of protest and vote for candidates who vow to change the system."

Vote. (photo: Theresa Thompson)
Vote. (photo: Theresa Thompson)


3 Ways to Make Your Vote Count in a Money-Soaked Election

By Fran Korten, Yes! Magazine

20 September 12

 

our favored candidates may be outspent, but if they out-organize, they may be able to prevail.

Recently, a respected friend sent me an outraged email. His subject line: "BOYCOTT VOTING!" He was at wit's end over the vast sums of money that wealthy individuals and corporations are pouring into our elections: $400 million from the Koch Brothers; $100 million from Sheldon Adelson. If big money is going to buy the election, he said, then he will "withdraw his consent" by not voting.

I, too, am apoplectic at the money flooding our elections. It speaks of a level of corruption that undermines my hopes for solving the big problems of our time. That's why I'm promoting the passage of a constitutional amendment to curtail unlimited election spending.

But is boycotting the vote the right response? Here's how I see it: the big money doesn't buy votes. It mostly buys television ads to influence our votes or discourage us from voting at all. So why would I fall into the trap of doing what the big money wants? As I wrote to my friend, after the election, no one will notice your boycott. They will only notice who won. Think of your vote as an act of protest and vote for candidates who vow to change the system. Here's what you can do:

1. Vote the Whole Ballot

Vote the whole ballot. When we reach the bottom of the ballot, many of us find a bunch of names and initiatives we don't know and skip them. Judicial positions are notorious for low vote tallies. So a few voters can determine who wins positions that can have a huge impact on our lives. I prepare by reading the voter pamphlet with care, especially watching for partisan buzzwords. Then I check with friends for additional information. I also sign up for emails from organizations that recommend candidates who match my values. So when I go to vote, I make my choices with confidence.

2. Contribute to Campaigns ...

Another conundrum in this money-soaked election season is whether to give money to candidates. Does our measly $25, $50, or even $500 mean anything when the 1 percent can so far outspend us? My husband is pretty cynical about political contributions. But do we want to force candidates to get their funds only from the wealthy? One candidate told me, "I need to raise at least one-fifth of what my deep-pocketed opponent raises. Otherwise, I'm just not a player." I like this candidate. I think she has smarts and integrity. She wants to overturn Citizens United and other laws that make campaigns so expensive. So I (yes, together with my husband) made a contribution to her campaign, as well as to several other candidates we believe in.

3. ... But Not Just Money

Fortunately, money is not the only way to influence an election. Giving time can be even more valuable. One respectful conversation with a potential voter can reverse the effects of thousands of dollars of ads. Going door to door, phoning, helping people get registered and to the polls can all make a difference. Your favored candidates may be outspent, but if they out-organize, they may be able to prevail. Organizing, of course, means getting people like you and me to volunteer.

It's easy to be discouraged about a political system that seems so out of reach. I take heart from history. In the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, income inequality was similar to today's. There was widespread political corruption. Then people rose up and ushered in the Progressive Era. They voted in candidates who instituted the estate tax and progressive income taxes, changed election laws, and made many other reforms.

By the 1950s through the 1970s we had an expanding middle class and a fairer election system. We can make those changes again. But only if we get engaged and informed, and vote.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Senate Republicans Shaft the Vets Print
Friday, 21 September 2012 14:40

Borosage writes: "The young men and women who serve in our military return from fighting in the longest wars in American history to the worst jobs market in generations."

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., speaks about the veterans jobs bill killed by Republicans in the Senate. (photo: Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP)
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., speaks about the veterans jobs bill killed by Republicans in the Senate. (photo: Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP)


Senate Republicans Shaft the Vets

By Robert Borosage, Campaign for America's Future

20 September 12

 

he young men and women who serve in our military return from fighting in the longest wars in American history to the worst jobs market in generations. They suffer higher unemployment rates than the general population: More than one in 10 is officially counted as unemployed, and that does not include those who have stopped looking for work or are forced to work part-time.

So yesterday, in one final vile act before adjournment for the elections, Senate Republicans used a point of order to block passage of the Veteran's Jobs Act that would have provided a modest $1 billion to hire veterans to tend federal lands or gain priority in hiring at police and fire departments. The bill was crafted with bipartisan support. Fifty-eight senators supported the bill, but Republicans put together the 40 votes needed to block its passage.

Why shaft the very veterans whose service politicians sanctimoniously celebrate at every occasion?

Is it because unemployed veterans are part of Mitt Romney's scorned 47 percent? Unemployed, they pay no taxes. They may feel they are "entitled" to the health care benefits they are guaranteed. Many take advantage of training and education benefits. Perhaps Republican senators simply didn't want to help these "victims" feel entitled to a job in addition.

Or is it because Senate Republicans remain committed to block any action that will produce jobs in their monomaniacal effort to defeat Barack Obama? In the midst of the worst recession in generations, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously announced at the beginning of the term that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Republicans then launched a scorched-earth policy of obstruction, using the filibuster to block everything they could. They worked overtime to weaken the president's initial recovery act, cutting its size and larding it with ineffective tax cuts. Once Republicans took the House, they joined in blocking additional jobs measures, including most recently the president's American Jobs Act, while forcing cuts in spending that cost jobs. And then, of course, they denounce the president for failing to fix the economy.

Or perhaps Senate Republicans are simply fools, not knaves. Conservative Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma explained his vote against putting unemployed veterans to work by arguing that making progress on the nation's debt was the best way to help them in the long-term. "We ought to do nothing now that makes the problem worse for our kids and grandkids," he said. In the long-term, as John Maynard Keynes once said, we are all dead – a comment that gains grim import as the Defense Department reports that veterans are killing themselves at the rate of one every 80 minutes

These same Republicans squandered over $3 trillion on the unfunded "war of choice" in Iraq. And now spending a billion on veterans imposes too big a burden on our grandchildren. This is disgraceful politics.

Naturally, the two Republican senators in close re-election races - Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Dean Heller of Nevada - were given permission to vote for the bill. The rest either are in safe seats or assume that Americans will forget by the time they come up for re-election. They'll salute the troops, march in the parades, celebrate the returning heroes, and call for larding more billions into the Pentagon. But a small jobs programs for veterans in need of work? Not this year, not before the election.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Cowboys and Millionaires Are in Mitt's 47% Print
Friday, 21 September 2012 13:30

Horsey writes: "With these comments revealed, it becomes even more obvious that Romney has vast gaps in his understanding of the people he aspires to lead."

'This latest evidence of Romney's obtuseness appalled credible conservative commentators.' (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
'This latest evidence of Romney's obtuseness appalled credible conservative commentators.' (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)



Cowboys and Millionaires Are in Mitt's 47%

By David Horsey, The Los Angeles Times

21 September 12

 

n the imaginary universe of Mitt Romney, the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax are loafers, shiftless bums and welfare queens who will all vote for President Obama in November. In the real world, that 47% includes the working poor, the newly unemployed, handicapped people, the elderly, veterans, 4,000 millionaires and the nation's greatest icon, the American cowboy.

A few years ago, I helped move a herd of cattle with some honest-to-God cowboys on a big ranch near White Sulphur Springs, Mont. At the end of the morning as the cows and calves mothered up, the cowboys told me how they loved the life they lived -- the broad land, the wide sky, the days tending animals, even the hard and endless work in all kinds of weather.

One of the cowboys said he knew he would never get rich; he and his wife lived with their kids in a tiny rental house and they would probably never have much more than that. But it was enough for him. He had no interest in being an entrepreneur, a venture capitalist or a king of Wall Street.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average yearly income of a cowboy is around $25,000. Tax laws that were passed under President Reagan aimed to help Americans of modest means by giving them an income tax break. As a result, working people in the income strata below $30,000 a year are likely to pay little or no income tax. That covers a lot of cowboys.

Are they slackers? No, there is no one with a stronger work ethic than cowboys. A willingness to work does not guarantee affluence, though. Among the 47% that Romney disdains are millions of hardworking, poorly compensated people and other millions of retired folk who labored all their lives. But, in a speech to wealthy donors last May, Romney said he would not even try to win the votes of this 47% because they were "dependent on the government" and felt "entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

With these comments revealed, it becomes even more obvious that Romney has vast gaps in his understanding of the people he aspires to lead. He speaks as though he is being fed lines by a staff made up of Ayn Rand zealots and Rush Limbaugh dittoheads and has no clue how they are misleading him.

This latest evidence of Romney’s obtuseness appalled credible conservative commentators, such as David Brooks and Bill Kristol. Limbaugh, of course, was ecstatic to have the Republican presidential nominee join him in a world without facts.

The sad reality is that Romney is wrong about one other thing: There are plenty of folks among the 47% who will vote for him -- and not just the millionaires who have found ways to evade the income tax. Working-class men, in particular, have fallen for the Republican call to "take back America" from gays, illegal immigrants, baby-killing feminists, tax-crazy liberals and a president who is just not truly American. They feel embattled and hope Romney will be on their side. But how can he be their champion when he does not even know who they are or how they live?

If Mitt Romney saw a real cowboy, he'd think it was costume night at the country club.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Case for Optimism Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=21308"><span class="small">Bill Clinton, TIME</span></a>   
Friday, 21 September 2012 11:30

Clinton writes: "I firmly believe that progress changes consciousness, and when you change people's consciousness, then their awareness of what is possible changes as well - a virtuous circle."

Former President Bill Clinton speaks at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. (photo: Unknown)
Former President Bill Clinton speaks at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. (photo: Unknown)



The Case for Optimism

By Bill Clinton, TIME

21 September 12

 

ur world is more interdependent than ever. Borders have become more like nets than walls, and while this means that wealth, ideas, information and talent can move freely around the globe, so can the negative forces shaping our shared fates. The financial crisis that started in the U.S. and swept the globe was further proof that--for better and for worse--we can't escape one another.

There are three big challenges with our interdependent world: inequality, instability and unsustainability. The fact that half the world's people live on less than $2 a day and a billion people on less than $1 a day is stark evidence of inequality, which is increasing in many places. We're feeling the effects of instability not only in the global economic slowdown but also in the violence, popular disruptions and political conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. And the way we produce and use energy is unsustainable, changing our climate in ways that cast a shadow over our children's future.

But I firmly believe that progress changes consciousness, and when you change people's consciousness, then their awareness of what is possible changes as well--a virtuous circle. So it's important that the word gets out, that people realize what's working. That where there's been creative cooperation coupled with a communitarian view of our future, we're seeing real success. That's the reason I try to bring people together every year for the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). Here are five areas in which there has been concrete, measurable and reproducible progress.

1) Technology

Phones Mean Freedom

Forget what you may have heard about a digital divide or worries that the world is splintering into "info haves" and "info have-nots." The fact is, technology fosters equality, and it's often the relatively cheap and mundane devices that do the most good. A 2010 U.N. study, for example, found that cell phones are one of the most effective advancements in history to lift people out of poverty.

In Haiti, one of the poorest places on the planet, phones have revolutionized the average person's access to financial opportunity. Until very recently, banks in Haiti didn't make loans. Since about 20% of the country's income comes from remittances from Haitians working in the U.S, Canada, France and around the Caribbean, the banks concentrated on converting the dollars, francs and Canadian dollars to Haitian currency. While that kept the banks in business, it didn't help the ordinary Haitian or change the fact that roughly 70% of the country's people were living on less than $2 a day before the 2010 earthquake.

As a consequence, only 10% of Haitians have a bank account. But around 80% of Haitian households have access to a cell phone. So the chairman of Digicel, Irish businessman Denis O'Brien, worked with a Canadian bank, Scotiabank, to provide a service that lets Haitians withdraw cash and make deposits and person-to-person transfers using their mobile phones without a bank account. By the end of 2011, this service had processed over 6 million transactions.

Similar stories are happening in Africa. Only 4% of households in Africa have Internet access, but more than 50% have cell phones. Because counterfeit medications are a huge problem in sub-Saharan Africa, a CGI member created a company called Sproxil, which lets people in Africa (and now India) use cell phones to text a code on any medication they have to see if it's counterfeit. Ericsson--with the U.N., big investment firm Delta Partners and an NGO called Refugees United--is helping families that have become separated because of conflict reunite using cell phones.

Smart phones help restart the lives of many individuals, but they also help millions of individuals help restart the lives of others. We've seen how technological advances have democratized charitable giving as never before, allowing people to make a difference even if they don't have much time or money to give. The 2004 South Asian tsunami was the first natural disaster in which huge numbers of people who were poor or of modest means gave a little of their money because they could use global communication networks to do it. For example, Americans gave $1.92 billion toward tsunami relief, with a median contribution of $50. When the earthquake hit Haiti, Americans also gave a billion dollars, but that time the median was even lower, because by then cell-phone technology had enabled people to give as little as $5 or $10 simply by texting their favored charity.

2) Health

Healthy Communities Prosper

While governments, the private sector and foundations have long worked to combat major health crises, innovative partnerships among these three sectors have led to greater advancements in building lasting health systems in poor countries than any of those groups could have made on its own. Working together in innovative ways results in an exponential increase in the good they all can do.

When my foundation began working to address the AIDS crisis in 2002, only 230,000 people in the developing world were getting treatment with lifesaving but expensive antiretroviral medicines. Today, in part because the pharmaceutical industry moved from being a low-volume, high-margin business to a low-margin, high-volume one with guaranteed payments, that number is 8 million. A recent study found that with the exception of South Africa, treatment now costs on average just $200 per patient per year, and that number includes the cost of drugs, diagnostic tests, personnel and other outpatient costs. All of these savings have been achieved while also improving the profitability of the drug companies.

So the good news is that we're winning the global fight against HIV/AIDS. With the help of government-funded programs like UNAIDS and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which I think was President George W. Bush's finest foreign policy achievement, together with the work of NGOs like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and companies like Coca-Cola, the idea of an AIDS-free generation has become a tangible goal rather than a dream.

The troika of government, the private sector and foundations is seeking to improve health care for the long term. I was in Rwanda over the summer for the launch of that country's Human Resources for Health program, which is addressing a critical shortage of health workers. Rwanda has only 633 physicians to treat a population of over 10 million. In partnership with 13 top-ranked U.S. schools, the program is addressing this deficit not by staffing clinics and hospitals with foreign specialists but by building a local, sustainable education system that will reduce the country's reliance on foreign aid.

Other good examples of innovation and cooperation have come through members of CGI. In 2010, the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center committed to improve cancer care in Haiti, Mexico, Jordan and Rwanda in collaboration with Partners in Health, co-founded by Dr. Paul Farmer, at their locations and other cancer facilities. Partners in Health has also teamed up with the Rwandan Ministry of Health, the Jeff Gordon Children's Foundation and the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's center to open the Cancer Center of Excellence in Butaro, Rwanda--a part of the country that until four years ago didn't have a basic hospital for a population of over 320,000. The new center goes beyond basics to supply world-class care, not just for local Rwandans but for the entire region.

Finally, in the U.S., where Americans face an epidemic of childhood obesity, one way we're fighting it is to have healthier beverage choices in schools. The beverage industry voluntarily committed to changing the mix in schools across the country by removing full-calorie soft drinks and replacing them with lower-calorie, more nutritious options. At the beginning of the 2009--10 school year, 98.8% of all surveyed schools and school districts were in compliance with the guidelines, which meant that shipments of full-calorie carbonated soft drinks to schools had dropped by 95%.

3) Economy

Green Energy Equals Good Business

There's no denying that too much of the world is still mired in an economic slowdown, but some of the brightest examples of significant and lasting opportunity are right under our noses. In tough times, it's harder to accept that some economic instability is good--if there were no possibility of failure, there would be no room for success.

In spite of all the recent criticism of free trade and free markets, it's important to remember that in the 25 years leading up to the current economic crisis, more people worldwide moved from poverty to the middle class than at any other time in history.

The problem is that the population is growing fastest in the areas least able to take advantage of the benefits of the modern world. Talent and intelligence may be spread evenly across the planet, but opportunity is not.

All around the world, in poor countries and rich ones, the private sector, governments and nonprofits are combining their skills and resources to form networks of creative cooperation to boost local economies while addressing problems like climate change and poverty. Smallholder farmers in Africa are planting trees so they can not only harvest timber or fruit but also profit by selling carbon credits on the world market.

But it's hard to top the economic success stories concerning clean energy, and it's tragic that these achievements aren't more widely known. Germany, where the sun shines on average as much as it does in London, reportedly set the world record for electricity generated from the sun in a single day: 22 gigawatts, or roughly the output of 20 nuclear power plants.

Long mislabeled as expensive and unwieldy, the clean-energy sector in the U.S. was actually growing by 8.3% before the economic slowdown, more than twice the rate of the overall economy. In fact, those European countries meeting their Kyoto Protocol commitments have been among the least hard hit by the economic crisis, including Germany, Denmark and Sweden.

If sustainable energy were bad economics, Costa Rica wouldn't be one of the richest countries in the region, with what is arguably the greenest economy in the world. Costa Rica certainly has one of the world's highest percentages of electricity generated from renewable resources as well as an enormous conservation ethic: 26% of its landmass is in national parks, 51% in forest cover.

At the moment, I am most optimistic about Brazil, not only because of its significant growth in the past decade but also because of something that simultaneously declined: its level of economic inequality.

Brazilians did it by creating a pile of new jobs and paying poor families to send their children to school and get annual checkups. They did it by controlling their energy destiny, not simply developing their oil resources but also maximizing their hydropower. And they did it while planning to cut by 75% the annual rate of rain-forest destruction. Brazil certainly still has its share of challenges, but its successes have been truly astonishing.

4) Equality

Women

Simply put, no society can truly flourish if it stifles the dreams and productivity of half its population. Happily, I see evidence all over the world that women are gaining social and economic power that they never had before. This is good news not only for the individuals themselves but also for entire societies, for it's been proved that women tend to reinvest economic gains back into their families and communities more than men do.

Rwanda provides some great examples. It's changed dramatically since my first visit 14 years ago. Today, Rwanda's per capita income is five times as high as it was in 1998, roads and infrastructure have improved immensely, and--in one of the greatest signs of progress--more than half the members of Parliament are women, making Rwanda the first country to achieve that distinction. Rwandan women are gaining economically too. During a visit to the country this summer, I toured the construction site of what will eventually be a large soy-processing factory. My foundation helped get the project off the ground, but eventually it will be owned and maintained by local farmers and the government. It will create domestic demand for soy, and once completed, it is expected to provide 30,000 farmers in eastern Rwanda--55% of whom are women--with jobs by contracting with them to grow soybeans.

In nearby Malawi, there's a large commercial farm that leverages economies of scale to secure bulk pricing for things like soy seed and fertilizer. On a previous trip there, I met a female farmer who had joined the program and as a result had increased her yield from five to 20 bags per acre, earning double what she had under the old system. With her extra income, she put a new roof on her home and paid tuition to send her daughters to school. So you can see how this work can change not just an individual life but also the fate of a family or the course of an entire community.

The private sector can play a big role here. Gap Inc. has a program called Personal Achievement and Career Enhancement (PACE), which is expanding from India to Cambodia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka and hopefully beyond. PACE focuses on building the life skills of female garment workers and enhancing their career opportunities by providing technical-skills training. Ultimately this helps the workers and managers of garment factories view the welfare and potential of their female line workers as key to their success.

Women face similar challenges in emerging and affluent countries too--but we're seeing signs of progress, particularly in the Middle East. Since 2002, Bahrain's national elections have been open to women. Saudi Arabia has serious modernization efforts under way, and in the past several years there have been more women than men enrolled in institutions of higher education globally.

5) Justice

The Fight for The Future Is Now

Many of the world's greatest challenges today are simply modern manifestations of our oldest demons. The truth is, the future has never had a big enough constituency--those fighting for present gain almost always win out. But we are now called upon to try to create a whole different mind-set. We are in a pitched battle between the present array of resources and attitudes and the future struggling to be born.

It's struggling just as much in every distressed community in America as it was in Tahrir Square in Cairo. We have to define the meaning of our lives as something other than our ability to control someone else's. The persistent inequality among and within societies breeds instability and conflict, but there are success stories all over the world that we can use as models for reform.

In places once synonymous with conflict, like the Balkans and Rwanda, former antagonists are now working together to solve problems. In 2011 I attended a global-sustainability conference in Manaus, Brazil, at the edge of the rain forest. Remarkably, utility companies and all the oil companies were represented. The native Brazilian tribes that live in the rain forest, which are protected by law and will be hurt if there's further development, were represented. The woman who ran for President on the Green Party ticket and spoke out against all this development was there. Small businesses and environmental groups were represented. The delegates sat around small tables, speaking to one another with great respect, believing that if they worked together, they could find an answer. They all understood that if this were a simple issue, someone would have already solved the problem.

My last example of why I'm optimistic concerns one of my favorite partnerships, the Hult International Business School and its annual Hult Global Case Challenge. Each year the school joins with leading NGOs to pose a series of real global social challenges, and teams of four or five university students from around the world compete to find the best solution. The NGO partners then receive seed funding for implementing the winning ideas through a $1 million cash grant.

One of the winners this year was from the Abu Dhabi campus of New York University, and the team was four students: one from India, one from Pakistan, one from China and one from Taiwan. When they came onstage to receive their award and pose for a picture, I asked them, "Are you sure you guys want this in the local paper?" And they said, in various ways, "We are so over this." The differences between India and Pakistan over Kashmir are real, as are the tensions between China and Taiwan, but these students are living 10 years from now. They have something to look forward to, and they set a wonderful example for the rest of us to follow.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I Know Why the Caged Bird Shrieks Print
Thursday, 20 September 2012 13:46

Blow writes: "I'm inclined to take Mitt Romney at his word when he disparages nearly half the country to a roomful of wealthy donors on a secretly recorded tape."

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pauses during his address to the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Los Angeles on Sept. 17, 2012. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pauses during his address to the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Los Angeles on Sept. 17, 2012. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)


I Know Why the Caged Bird Shrieks

By Charles M. Blow, The New York Times

20 September 12

 

hen people show you who they are believe them; the first time."

That comes from the inimitable Maya Angelou (via the equally inimitable Oprah). And I agree.

So I'm inclined to take Mitt Romney at his word when he disparages nearly half the country to a roomful of wealthy donors on a secretly recorded tape.

As I'm sure you know by now, Romney said that the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes are people who are

dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

He also said:

My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

There is no amount of backtracking and truth bending that can make this right. It's just wrong. It's not just the patently false implication that half the country is parasitic. It's not just the bleak view that they wallow in victimization. It is also his utter dismissal of this group: "my job is not to worry about those people."

Those people? Those miserable peasants scrounging around the castle entrance? Those lay-abouts with mouths open for a spoonful of rich folks' bounty? Those fate-forsaken unwashed with dirty hands outstretched for help unearned? Those ingrates who bring in a pittance but reap a premium?

Only a man who has never looked up from the pit of poverty could look down his nose with such scorn.

At the event Romney also said:

By the way, both my dad and Ann's dad did quite well in their life, but when they came to the end of their lives, and, and passed along inheritances to Ann and to me, we both decided to give it all away. So, I had inherited nothing. Everything that Ann and I have we earned the old-fashioned way, and that's by hard work.

Can this man truly be so blind as to believe that being the son of an auto executive and governor played no role in his development and access to opportunity? Can he truly believe that having a family with the means to send him to a prestigious boarding school and then on to some of the best colleges in the country had nothing to do with them and everything to do with him? Can he truly be willfully ignorant enough to not acknowledge the huddled masses at the bottom of the hill just because he started his climb half way up?

Now the Romney campaign is in full damage control mode, feverishly trying to convince Americans that they didn't hear what they heard, that there was some confusion. Romney first said that his comments were "not elegantly stated," then he tried to pivot to an argument against the redistribution of wealth, saying he believed in an America where "government steps in to help those in need." He continued, "we're a compassionate people."

Those in need? Would those be the ones "who believe that they are victims," the ones who it's not your job to "worry about," the ones who you'll never be able to persuade to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives"?

Romney's feeble explanations reek of insincerity and desperation.

And I think I know why: he's terrified.

Romney is trapped by a desperate desire for legitimacy. He is a square - in more ways than one - trying to squeeze himself into the conservative circle of trust.

In so doing, he says all the right things the wrong way. His facts are off. His timing is off. His pitch is off. He's just off. Try as he may, he just doesn't fit in. But he's now so lost in his thirst for high office that he has also lost himself. Co-opted convictions will always betray you.

Romney, whose economic plan is titled "Believe in America," demonstrated with brutal efficiency that he doesn't in fact believe in America.

I once wrote the following:

I have no personal gripe with Romney. I don't believe him to be an evil man. Quite the opposite: he appears to be a loving husband and father. Besides, evil requires conviction, which Romney lacks. But he is a dangerous man. Unprincipled ambition always is. Infinite malleability is its own vice because it's infinitely corruptible by others of ignoble intentions.

But Romney's taped comments open the door to doubt. I'm no longer confident in the basic goodness of his constitution.

One doesn't have to operate with great malice to do great harm. The absence of empathy and understanding are sufficient. In fact, a man convinced of his virtue even in the midst of his vice is the worst kind of man.

Mitt Romney keeps showing America who he is. When will we start to believe him?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 Next > End >>

Page 3257 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN