The Old Orchard wallpaper – until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream

green landscape

The Old Orchard wallpaper


Nate Silver still has President Obama up, Late Poll Gains for Obama Leave Romney With Longer Odds. While Gallup is calling it a dead heat. At the same link Pew has Obama up by three points. If Obama loses ( unlikely, though possible)  it will be especially galling since if Democratic voters would simply vote we would not only easily win the presidency, but would take back the House as well. Democrats do seem to have a problem with frustration and letting the desire for perfect progressive change get in the way of making solid if slow and incremental change. Romney lost all three debates on the facts, on a genuine vision for the country and on pure arrogance. Yet Republicans – in any platform they had access to – social media, TV, radio, newspapers and good old direct mail, declared Romney the winner. Perhaps not so much the last two, but after the first debate, Democrats on most of the same media platforms decided that Obama gave a lack luster performance, almost as though the debate was about getting the best actor award instead of being grounded in reality and rallying the nation behind American values. Instead of the values of the elite. It took the conservative movement fifty years to reach the level of organization they have today. After every set back, they got angrier and more determined. A lesson that seems to be lost on some Democrats. We seem to have the votes, the organization is good and getting better, but we’re still letting psychology and/or apathy get in the way – Young Voter Turnout Fell 60% from 2008 to 2010; Dems Won’t Win in 2012 If the Trend Continues

In 2010, polls showed that young people were still supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But only 20.9 percent of them bothered to vote.

CIRCLE director Peter Levine said, “For liberal students, this election felt, at best, as a defensive move, protecting a Congress they don’t like that much.”

That cost Democrats Senate and House seats across the country. And the down-ballot losses were even more significant, as close contests for legislative and local races tipped to the Republicans after young people failed to show.

One can understand being disappointed that as an idealistic voter – student, white male, union worker, mother, environmentalist, or whatever, that one does not get everything on their wish list after the election. In that case one can choose to not vote and make your wish list even more difficult to achieve as happened in 2010 or you look at the choices and decide what action should I take to get even a centimeter closer to my goals. Just one historical example. The 19th Amendment, passed in 1920, which gave women the right to vote was a product of the suffrage movement. You know when the suffrage movement started? In the 1850s. It took them 70 years to achieve this fundamental progress. Let’s say your disappointed with Obama for not closing GITMO. That is a reasonable objection to this administration’s national security policy. There is no reason why most of those prisoners cannot be given trials and the conceited kept in the same maximum security prisons that we keep America’s most dangerous criminals. We might have been able to make that happen if Democrats had kept the House in 2010. Romney will certainly not close GITMO or stop using drones or whatever other issues the center-left has with Obama. That still leaves a dozen hugely important issues on the table along with a few hundred less urgent, but meaningful ones that Democrats could pass in Congress and Obama would gladly sign into law. A Romney presidency, with Democrats holding the Senate would mean that maybe Harry Reid (d_NV) could hold the line of the very worse of the radical Romney agenda, but watch progress – like health care and financial reform be chipped away. While Democrats will likely hold the White House and the Senate we could have won it all. And we didn’t. Not because of the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson or Karl Rove and his billionaire PACs, but because we did not vote.

National Anti-Suffrage Association, 1911. The current iteration of the NAA is now commonly known as the Republican Party. Top 6 Lies Romney Has Told Women in an Election Season Full of Whoppers

2. Reproductive Freedom

Mitt’s plans for women at home are as cruel as those for their sisters abroad. Make no mistake: Romney will say whatever it takes to get elected, and then govern exactly as he pleases. In a Republican debate, he boasted of switching positions on a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy once he became governor of Massachusetts. He campaigned as pro-choice to secure votes, and then reversed himself in office to win conservative GOP support. In his own words [4]:

“I changed my mind as the governor. This didn’t just happen the last couple of weeks or the last year. This happened when I was governor the first time a bill came to my desk that related to life. I could not sign a bill that would take away human life. I came down on the side of life every single instance as governor of Massachusetts. I was awarded by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life with their leadership award for my record.”

For a mind-bending trip through Romney’s lies, switches and obfuscations on pregnancy termination, check out a video by Slate’s William Saletan [5].

Mitt has pledged [6]to defund Planned Parenthood, appoint only the most anti-women judges, and reverse Roe v. Wade. He has lately taken to pretending that he cares about contraception, a necessary part of women’s healthcare, and in the second presidential debate, he said he didn’t believe Washington bureaucrats or employers should tell a woman whether to use contraception. Don’t buy it. Mitt backs the Blunt Amendment [7], which would allow employers to refuse to cover things like – contraceptives.

Women have been fighting this battle for over a hundred years. They are not, despite what Rush Limbaugh or Mitt Romney thinks, three-fifths of a person.

Conservatives are already working to de-legtimize an Obama victory, Politico: Only White Voters Give a President a “Mandate”

Political reporters love the concept of political “mandates” even though political scientists are skeptical that mandates even exist. On Sunday, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen penned the latest entry in this genre, arguing that Barack Obama, if he wins, won’t have a mandate because he won’t have won a majority of white voters:

If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.

A broad mandate this is not.

This pseudo-Buchananite argument—that the white vote is important for symbolic and totemic purposes beyond the actual tally—is a favorite of the political press. At best, VandeHei and Allen are regurgitating the Republican argument that there are “real Americans” who vote Republican and then there is everyone else. The converse argument—that the Republican Party’s overwhelming reliance on white votes while the Democrats represent a broader cross-section of the country means that the GOP would lack a mandate—is rarely made. When VandeHei and Allen address the GOP’s growing demographic problem, it’s merely a matter of numbers and winning elections. They do not question whether a party whose supporters are 91 percent white would have a mandate to govern an increasingly diverse nation.

VandeHei and Allen’s delegitimization of nonwhite voters is reprehensible in and of itself, but it’s also historically illiterate. Race may affect perceptions of Barack Obama, but Democrats began having a white voter problem decades ago. In 1964, Johnson carried nonwhites by Barack Obama-like margins because his opponent Barry Goldwater, though not himself a racist, made common cause with white supremacists.

Johnson memorably declared after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act that “we have lost the South for a generation,” which in hindsight was less prophetic than optimistic. Johnson’s prophecy, however, helps shed light on the details of the Democrats’ “white voter problem,” details that VandeHei and Allen ignore. When you look at the white working-class vote by region, for example, Democrats remain competitive everywhere but in the South, where they get crushed.

As an election year issue it is too late, but it is always interesting, or maybe maddening is the correct word, to contemplate my home, the South. White southerners have no problem at all with receiving government benefits – from new roads to a new fire station to Medicare and civil service pensions, hell red states are the biggest recipients of gov’mint larges. They just resent anyone getting them that does not pass their race and gender litmus test. When southern white folks collect food stamps it is because they really need them. When those ‘others’ collect them, they’re mooching. Democrats cannot crack this cognitive dissonance with charts and statistics because it is a deeply held belief imperious to facts.

Civil Rights Memorial, Montgomery, Alabama –  2010 February 19.The inscription reads, “…until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Fox News Poised To Manufacture Another Bogus New Black Panther Controversy

But Fox appears ready to go through the same cycle again, highlighting a reported member of the New Black Panther Party who reportedly showed up outside the doors of a polling station and was shown on video opening a door for someone going inside. Co-host Steve Doocy stated that “the organization claims they are monitoring the 2012 election, but some critics say that it looks like intimidation like in 2008.”

That intimidation that Doocy is so concerned about was one guy.