A Turd with a Bow

As the road to November 6 stretches on and on and on . . . and on, we find ourselves under constant bombardment by both sides.  Hate and negativity proliferate the airwaves, striving to direct a campaign weary populace towards one candidate or another.  Somehow, through the deluge of spun facts, slight distortions, and outright untruths, our voting population is supposed to pick the party that will lead us down a path to a better America.  Best of luck to us all.

Emotion will win the election, not facts.  Campaign strategists know this and exploit it at every opportunity.  Their job really has two simple aims - 

1. Energize the base with fiery rhetoric designed to enflame their emotional attachment to the party brand.
2. Paint opposing pictures of the two parties/candidates using an unequal mixture of fact and emotion to generate a gut reaction in the independent population

This week’s Republican National Convention provided a prime example of both, as I am sure the Democratic National Convention will.  Networks treated viewers to both the Republican All-Stars, standing at the bully pulpit to preach their conservative agenda mixed with the anti-Obama fear-mongering, and the Democratic talking heads (depending on the network), who offered the opposing ideology.  This week, the Democrats will present the yin to the Republicans yang, completing the circle of full cycle campaign rhetoric.

Most people have difficulty expressing their political opinion in a calm and focused discussion.  Usually it breaks down into emotional responses instead of intellectual ones.  This is the way the parties prefer it.  They want us thinking with our stomach rather than our brain.  If the only reason we vote for a specific candidate is the way we feel about them (or the other guy) instead of reasoning through the facts about each of their policies, then the campaign managers have earned their paychecks.  They don’t want thoughtful voters, they want panicked lemmings.

They way I hear it, from all media sources, not just the ones labeled as biased, from the messages in campaign ads, from the candidates themselves, from their PACs and Super-PACs, is that I have a choice.  My choice is limited to one disaster or another.  I can choose between two different economic dooms, two different types of destruction, two different kinds of American apocolypse.

Basically, I am getting a turd with a bow on it, but I get to choose the least offending bow.

Is this the kind of way we should be making our decisions?  Do you want the greatest country in the world run by a man placed there because you were scared of the alternative?  I certainly don’t.  I want this country to head in a direction crafted by thoughtful choice instead of fearful negativity.  Emotion is easy, but thinking will yield greater results.

Consider the facts.  Instead of reacting emotionally to a speech, an ad, or the chopped up soundbites loved by the media, do some research.  Cobble together your own realty-based impression of the candidates and the parties and use your brain to decide who you will vote for, not your stomach.  This is the only way to sort through the maelstrom of partial facts and misinformation thrown at us everyday.

Remember that you are an American.  You have your own voice.  You are allowed to be an independent thinker free of social pressures.  Wade past your emotional responses and find the issues important to you, then think about them.

It is this way that we can ensure America’s greatness.  Otherwise, regardless of the man we choose, or the party we put in power, we are guaranteed an America as the result of emotion tugging campaign managers instead of an America built by the thoughtful will of its citizens.

The Difference Between 15% and 31% is Zero

I am not entirely sure what the deal is with Presidential candidates and their tax returns.  Apparently, there is no law on the books that requires candidates to disclose their income tax return, but since 1968, when Mitt Romney’s father ran for President and released his own records, it has become tradition.

Recently, Romney revealed that he was taxed around the 15% level.  His income comes primarily from financial investments made years ago, which keeps the bulk of his income taxed at the capital gains rate.  By contrast Newt Gingrich revealed his tax rate was 31%.

So what.

What is the big deal that Romney was taxed at a lesser rate than Gingrich?  Does this somehow affect either of the men’s ability to govern?  Does it change their politics or their electability?  

No.

So what is the big deal?  Well, the point Gingrich seems to be hinting at is that Romney’s income level, based primarily on investments, prevents him from understanding the plight of the working man.  How can someone worth over $200 million understand what it is like to worry about bills at the end of the month?  How can someone who theoretically never has to work a day in his life to earn a dime connect with the overwhelming number of Americans who are now below the poverty line?

I think Gingrich has a point.  Romney can’t.  Now, please don’t get me wrong.  I am not saying that because of Romney’s financial situation he would not be a good leader.  I am saying that Gingrich is correct.  Romney can’t understand.  Romney himself, in an effort to make light of his own income level, shoved his own foot into his mouth by saying his speaking fee income for last year wasn’t very much.  It was $374,327.62.

You know what is even funnier about Romney’s not very large speech related income?  In 2009, it only took $343,927 to be in the 1%.  I think this is where Gingrich hits the nail on the head.  Romney is so used to a lavish life, so used to money always being there, that an income that qualifies him for the 1% is regarded as “not very much.”

So, does Gingrich prove anything about being a better Presidential candidate by exposing Romney as wealthy?  Not necessarily.  Gingrich, while being taxed at twice the level as Romney, was still taxed at 31%, which also happens to be the tax rate for the top 1% of income earners in the US.  So both Gingrich and Romney are in the 1%.  The only difference is that Gingrich was taxed on earned income versus investment income, leaving him subject to a higher tax rate.  

Gingrich has since said that his goal in getting Romney to reveal his tax level is not to lambast the man, but to point out that everyone should be taxed at that rate, not just the super wealthy.  I don’t think he minded scoring political points with lower income groups though by seemingly bloodying Romney’s nose.

Gingrich himself is worth somewhere between $10-$20 million.  While only a paltry 10% of Romney’s worth, his net worth is still at the very least 100 times the net worth of the average American citizen.  While Gingrich still has to work for his money, he is still a far cry from the ability to connect to ordinary, everyday Americans.

I am sure many of you think I am trying to play the angle that the Republicans are out of touch with the common American experience.  You are right, I am.  But, I am playing this angle as well -  so are the Democrats.

The point I am trying to make is that it doesn’t matter what the finances of the President are like.  Presidents over the years have been very wealthy men.  Some were not wealthy until they left office, but most recent presidents already had accumulated wealth prior to entering office.  If Romney were elected President, he would be the 4th wealthiest man to hold the office (accounting for inflation).  Gingrich would be the 21st wealthiest.  Even the esteemed George Washington was worth over half a billion dollars.

What matters is their character, their leadership traits.  Bullying someone into releasing their tax records accomplishes nothing because it proves nothing.  The only result is that it demonstrates that the current tax code benefits those with a lot more money than you or I.  We all know these men have more money than we do - does it matter how much more?  

Instead of losing ourselves in the drama, pay attention to how the candidates act.  Review their record, not what they say.  Sure, the rhetoric can be entertaining, but half of what any politician says seems to false and the other half confusing.  Choose your candidate based on what you see in their soul.  You can just about count on them being rich.

Frank Chambers

Follow @fxcIV

Save a Pretzel for the Gas Jets!

I am for Rick Perry.  That is right.  You did not misread the words.  I did not stutter.  I am supporting Rick Perry for the President of the United States of America.  Governor Good Hair has proven himself worthy, earning my vote for the 2012 General Election.

My position may come as a surprise to some of you as many of my previous blogs have railed against the Governor as being out of touch with education, preferring to favor the wants of his cronies before the needs of his constituents, and pursuing a type of government that supports those with power over those with the least.  I understand your confusion, after all, I have only recently come to the decision to support Mr. Perry myself.

What changed my mind?  Let me lay it out for you.  This country is in a bad place.  We have definitely been far worse - the 1930s, the 1860s, the 1810s, the 1770s - but not by much.  This country is in need of something different, something Rick Perry has to offer that we haven’t seen since the likes of George W. Bush.  We need humor.  We need strategery.

What could be better than a country full of smiling Americans?  We would be the goodwill ambassadors to the world, spreading our cheer everywhere we go.  

What recession?  We have laughter.  (nb: we are not currently in a recession)

What debt crisis?  We have joy.

High unemployment?  We are high on life!

Has the stock market got you down?  Angry about the conflict in Afghanistan?  Sick of hitting the pavement looking for a job?  Never fear.  With President Rick Perry, all of your cares and worries will vanish immediately.  

Never has a country needed a pick me up like we do.  The Governor’s amazing ability to lend himself to parody and satire are perfect for the job.  Just check out his latest campaign video.  

SAVE A PRETZEL FOR THE GAS JETS!!!!  I can get behind that.

In fact, I can get behind a President who favors Hot Yellow Kool-Aid.  Can’t you?  I’ll drink that Kool-aid!

The Republican battle for the presidential nomination is exceedingly boring, save for Rick Perry.  Most of these people are way too serious.  I think it would be fun to have a president named Herman, but Cain looks like he gets paid by the frown.  

If Michelle Bachman would turn to the camera every once in a while and make her famous crazy eyes, I might be more supportive, but she prefers the serious, motherly look.  

Huntsman has some comedic value, but I am afraid he will either succumb to skin cancer or shrivel up like a raisin before the election.  

Ron Paul is . . . well . . . he is Ron Paul.  I am just waiting for the punch line from him, something like, “y’all know I am just kidding about this repeal talk, right?  JK, LOL!”

Besides, he kind of looks like Magneto from X-Men.  I don't know that I liked Magneto's politics either (although they are very similar, aren't they).

But, Rick Perry trumps it all.  Well, unless Trump jumps back into the race.  I can just see Trump’s speech after winning - “Barack Obama . . . You’re Fired!”  Speaking of Obama, there is a serious man.  The reason this country is sitting on the edge of a financial precipice right now has nothing to do with Washington politics or overreaching banking institutions, rather, President Obama is just too serious.  

When Obama speaks, I am soothed, I am comforted by his tone.  I am lulled into a sense of peace.  Comfort?  Peace?  No thank you!  I want to laugh, smile, pat my friends on the back, and not be cajoled into false confidence in the future.  Even the attempts to parody Obama don’t live up to what Perry has to offer, and besides, Obama has a foul mouth.

Basically, what I am saying is that our country needs to head in a new direction, a direction dictated by a man whose intrinsic value is measured in his ability to produce laughter, not in his ability to adeptly answer questions posed to him during debates.  

Rick Perry is that man.