Obama plans Two Vacations – First Family to Visit Gulf and Martha’s Vineyard – Media – He Attempts to Move to the Right?

Obama on the Cover of Time - media depiction as FDR, a call to moderates - who prefer Clinton

According to the the AFP President Barak Obama and his familyare planning two more vacations before summers end – one to the Gulf and one to Martha’s Vineyard. The Gulf vacation is family only, according the this Euro news service, and while in Louisiana the President also plans on mixing in a bit of “business” – visiting small businesses who may have been affected by the oil spill. The last summer vacation will be in Martha’s Vineyard.

This, despite, the fact that the nations unemployment rate remains steady at 9.5% with no change anticipated for August”, and appearances, as “they” say, are everything. Apparently, advisers must have suggested a get-away or two – not realizing that this move may not be the best way to endear the suffering populace. On the other hand, with Congress on recess, and embattled Democrats fighting to maintain their seats, it may have been a directive from the DNC to “get out of Dodge” and find something to do away from Washington and any Democrat that is up for reelection – as he is less effective, say than President Bill Clinton, who is the preferred “party star” to aid endangered Democrats (NPR). That said, at every opportunity, the President and Democrats in general, are still blaming President George Bush for every problem that occurs (including the Gulf Oil Spill), a man who was eviscerated by the media for taking vacations at a working ranch (owned by Bush), while a natural disaster was occurring (Katrina).

With a political party in hot water, it is, in all likelihood, a good idea for Obama to maintain a low profile, after all, 2012 campaigning also begins on November 3, 2010 – time for Obama to begin to “move to the middle” in order to maintain his current residence. This strategy is in place, according to Keith Koffer, in an op-ed found in Politico. Mr. Koffer cites the fact that White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, is “picking fights “with the left – on purpose. This purpose would be to apparently distant the President from those who are left of center – or the majority of the Democrat Congressional members. Seriously, the author goes so far as to compare Obama’s “strategy” to that of President Clinton’s in 1994. It is, without a doubt, disingenuous to think that a comparison can be made between the two men in the first place, and in the second, conditions in the country (unemployment, etc.) are simply not comparable.

If one were to compare President Obama to a past Democrat office holder, it would have to be Carter – not Clinton. This is not the first article (or salvo) fired off by the press, op-ed or no, that is claiming a “move to the center” by Obama, and quoting one comment found under the Politico article one can sense the hostility towards the press and the President and that fact that it is a “no-sale” theory:

“Oh please, he already pulled this crap once to get elected and as soon as he was elected he took a HARD left and hasn't been back!
I don't think Oblunder will be fooling anyone this time and he still is and always will be as radical as ever!”

Shades of the Who ”Won’t Get Fooled Again” .

It is not the vacations, necessarily; it is more the constant bailouts, the appearance that the President and his Congress in concert are oblivious to needs and wants of the general electorate, which will make it extremely difficult to imagine a second term. Of course, according to every article remotely critiquing the administration, there lurks a line or two about the “GOP” calling out the same for acting irresponsibly. In other words, still stumping for Obama, even though it is apparent this president’s chances of re-election are growing slimmer by the day.

What of Bill Clinton on the campaign trail? It serves two purposes, neither of which are tied to the current President. One, it puts a popular President out front with Democrats (Senate and Congress) who are most likely to face a loss, but will remember and support the Clintons, and does get the old base enthused. (Referring of course, to the old democrat, as opposed to the “progressives”). In addition, with Hillary Clinton perhaps the party’s only hope of maintaining Pennsylvania Avenue for the Democrats, its political capital in the bank- this despite the appearance of “helping” Obama.

All’s fair in love, war and politics, given that old adage, one cannot see a new majority (in both the Congress and the Senate) working against the opportunity to see a Republican in the White House – or a true moderate Democrat (i.e. Hillary Clinton). In addition, it is difficult to see this particular man, go against his personal progressive convictions, those that have been in place in the earliest moments of his political career(see below) – and may make any move, even remotely to the center, either transparently false, or impossible. ( From the New Party (Socialist Party):

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for
Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

)

Therefore, being the “brilliant” man he is, he must be aware of the mood of the populace, and the great lengths he must go through in order to attempt a political “makeover” in time and in concert with a sympathetic media, in a rally for a second term, which, pinning ones political hopes on the short memory of the average “American Idol” voter, may not be the best strategy this time around. The times have changed since Carter’s first and only term.

A Sign of the Time: Near Riots in Atlanta over Section 8 Vouchers – When Will Common Sense and Decency Prevail?

Crowd shown waiting for Section 8 Housing Application: image AJC.com

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: A crowd estimated at 30,000 were on hand to pick up vouchers for Section 8 housing being distributed at a local Housing Authority office. Apparently, after standing for hours in the heat, some “cutting in line” resulted in some pushing and shoving, with the result of “riot police” being called to the scene. There were dozens of individuals requiring medical treatment due to the heat – one can, from the article, sense the heightened desperation of families who feel there is nowhere to turn, with the exception of the state.

With the amount of monies being thrown to institutions deemed “to big to fail”, (which is the normal ebb and flow of business), millions spent on signs touting the Government’s planned projects under the “Stimulus”, etc., one cannot help but wonder what other better uses that money may have been put to, in order to avoid this type of scenario. Perhaps a Franklin D. Roosevelt style of ‘workfare’, modified to include education and housing in order to give individuals a hand up, would have been in order.

Yet the trend continues, and as the administration passes spending bill after spending bill, there is a diminished tax base to support the bailouts of business as well as states who have shown the same lack of restraint when it comes to spending. A recent article in USA today, ranks government employees as earning twice the amount as someone doing the same job in the private sector.

While the “elite” are sustained, those who are considered the “masses” are being driven into the depths of poverty (Progressive think) – and those left to support them both (the middle class) must either pay increased taxes, (pushing them into poverty), or stop, by way of the ballot, the spending that is neither necessary or relevant, and which causes situations such as the one in Atlanta to occur. The time has come to put the ordinary citizen to the test, perhaps a candidate who has little experience, lacks a Harvard degree, but has worked in the private sector, or has been self-employed, might have more common sense than those who are expected to have the knowledge, “experience” and common sense, but obviously do not. In almost every district, in every state, from the individual statehouse to the Congress and Senate, there are challengers who fit this description and these men and women, may be the answer. To stay the current course, is obviously, not working and historically, has a record of failure.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: A crowd estimated at 30,000 were on hand to pick up vouchers for Section 8 housing being distributed at a local Housing Authority office. Apparently, after standing for hours in the heat, some “cutting in line” resulted in some pushing and shoving, with the result of “riot police” being called to the scene. There were dozens of individuals requiring medical treatment due to the heat – one can, from the article, sense the heightened desperation of families who feel there is nowhere to turn, with the exception of the state. With the amount of monies being thrown to institutions deemed “to big to fail”, (which is the normal ebb and flow of business), millions spent on signs touting the Government’s planned projects under the “Stimulus”, etc., one cannot help but wonder what other better uses that money may have been put to, in order to avoid this type of scenario. Perhaps a Franklin D. Roosevelt style of ‘workfare’, modified to include education and housing in order to give individuals a hand up, would have been in order. Yet, the trend continues, as the administration passes spending bill, after spending bill, with a diminished tax base to support the bailouts of business as well as states who have shown the same lack of restraint when it comes to spending. A recent article in USA today, ranks government employees as earning twice the amount as someone doing the same job in the private sector. While the “elite” are sustained, those who are considered the “masses” are being driven into the depths of poverty – and those left to support them both (the middle class) must either pay increased taxes, (pushing them into poverty), or stop, by way of the ballot, the spending that is neither necessary or relevant, and which causes situations such as the one in Atlanta to occur. The time has come to put the ordinary citizen to the test, perhaps a candidate who has little experience, lacks a Harvard degree, but has worked in the private sector, or has been self-employed, might have more common sense than those who are expected to have the knowledge, “experience” and common sense, but obviously do not. In almost every district, in every state, from the individual statehouse to the Congress and Senate, there are challengers who fit this description and these men and women, may be the answer. To stay the current course, is obviously, not working and historically, has a record of failure.

Sholley Beilat Mass. 4th District Republican Debate August 11, 2010 Audio

The following Audio Clips are the debate between Republican Candidates for the Massachusetts 4th District Congressional seat, Mr. Sean Bielat and Mr. Earl Sholley. They met this morning on the Jeff Katz Show, Rush Radio Boston. This is the only debate prior to the primary on September 14th, 2010. The winner of this primary will go on to face Barney Frank in November.


Part I



To listen to the second half of this interview go to: Rush Radio Boston.

Barney Frank Reelection 2010 - Debate: Sean Bielat Earl Sholley, Rush Radio 1200 – Barney Frank Challengers Face off

The Podcast of the only debate between Barney Frank’s 2010 Republican Challengers will be available for podcast here: Jeff Katz, Rush Radio today.

Abridge version of the final moments of the debate follows: *With Commentary

Both candidates towards the end of the debate were asked a series of questions by Jeff Katz, both Bielat and Sholley shared the same or similar opinions on the issues.

Beilats answers were short without delving too deeply into any specific issues, while Sholley answered in depth, with historic and constitutional references.

On the Birth Question:

Sholley – This is a Red Herring, some people think this is a good way to get rid of this President, I think there are other areas where he has abused the constitution, I would call for his impeachment on other areas. I want to be the Freedom Czar when I get down to Washington.

Bielat – I would not call for impeachment – I don’t think impeachment is appropriate, I think it’s a silly issue – I don’t understand why the White House doesn’t release his birth certificate. I do think all candidates should be required to produce a certificate.

On Electability:

Sean: you have talked about Earl’s arrest or time in jail – would it make it impossible for you to support him? – I’m doing everything to do to win in the primary – avoids direct answer and is pushed by Katz to respond

Sean – I’d have some serious questions I’d need to be answered

Earl: On his arrests: We live in the most corrupt state in America, and I stood up to the system, as a parent - I stood up to the state, I disciplined my daughter, which, by the way, I did not go to jail for – I’ve been an activist and a fighter for the past 50 years.

Katz: I’m hearing the ads in my head, any questions which would be put towards Barney Frank – and a photo of your arrest record,

Earl: Barany Frank has a lot of issues as well, and those are important issues, and those are abuses of his involvement in politics. My problems pale in comparison to Mr. Franks.

If Bielat is successful in the primary would you support him?

Sholley: Absolutely, I am a team player, and remember this incident happened 15 years ago; these issues have been gone over many times.

Katz: Sean you’ve been charged with being a moderate and a Rhino

Bielat: We see that on the left all the time one of the games on the far right, we’ll you’re not a conservative – I think people can draw there own conclusions – on myself, this guy communities the issues.

Closing Statements:

Sholley: I would ask for everyone’s votes and thanks for listening, I have many common sense solutions, I have the experience, courage and integrity to get the job done in Washington, please go to our website, www.sholleyforcongress.us I don’t’ want to retire Frank, I want to defeat, investigate, indict and incarcerate him.

Bielat: I’ve got thousand of volunteers, go to Sean Bielat.com this is the year we are going to send Barney home.

In conclusion, Mr. Sholley appeared most knowledgeable and willing to discuss the issues; he met the allegations about his “issues” head on, and delivered a debate that was based on then issues. He also has a keen wit and sense of humor. When asked if he would support Mr. Beilat should he win, he was most gracious in his answer. Sholley has grown as a candidate and would be a solid opponent to defeat Barney Frank in the district.

Mr. Biel at also answers the questions, but with less authority than Mr. Sholley – The basic answers were short, but to the point. It may be a question of style, or a lack of experience in the debate arena, something that would be crucial to winning this particular district.

In addition, Mr. Beilat was not as gracious as Mr. Sholley when asked if he would support Mr. Sholley should Sholley best him in the primary – that comes down to individual choices, I found that particular remark to be someone disingenuous, since it was Mr. Beilats campaign that put out videos outlining all of Mr. Shelley’s legal documents, and allegations that we not necessarily true, then hastily pulled from his website and moved to one page blogs.


The full debate will be posted here as soon as available. It is imperative that individuals choose a candidate, going into the September 14th primary and form that point, regardless of which of these candidates win the primary – work to ensure that they have every advantage available to change the course of the 4th District and the nation by defeating Barney Frank. The 4th District is in play and one of these candidates needs to be supported, both financially and through volunteerism. In each debate, every individual distaining draws their conclusions as to who may have won, or who may not have performed as well. This blogs follows:

It goes without saying that, that as one writer put it, this blog feels that, despite any issues and or baggage, Mr. Sholley would be the best “old codger” to run a strong race against Barney Frank. He is strong in debates, his baggage is as old as Frank’s and frankly, not as egregious, he has extensive knowledge of both the district and the Constitution, and although he has run and lost before, it does by no wise disqualify him from seeking office and winning a public office. Best example: Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican Standard bearer. As to Mr. Beliat his performance as adequate, however, he may lack the necessary experience necessary to run a solid campaign against Barney Frank – Let the Old War Horses fight this one out.

Harry Reid Plays the Race Card - Campaign Rhetoric Expected but Reid Crosses Line - Insulting Hispanics - Opinion

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has finally crossed the sanity line – in a recent press conference, Reid decided it was time to court the Hispanic Vote doing the only thing that somehow made sense to Harry – play the race card and “own” an ethnic group – Quote: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican!”

Apparently, if one is of Hispanic decent (such as this author), then one must be a Democrat! – In much the same way as women must be Democrats (or they are not feminists) or African-American’s must be Democrats (or they are “Uncle Toms”) – there are limits to claiming “ownership” of one “group” or another – and, although Hispanics voters trended towards Obama in 2008, they trended towards George Bush in 2004 – in other words, Hispanics are capable of making their own choices, as are women or African American’s without being told by Harry Reid, (or the union bosses, or teachers owned by union bosses, or the media) that if one is a certain color, or of a certain ethnic heritage, one must get in line with a particular political party – shades of “The Gangs of New York” – Rent the movie – brief synopsis, How the political ward bosses used Irish Immigrants as cannon fodder during the Civil War, signing them up to vote for a particular party, then sending them off to war – in other words, taking advantage of a specific “immigrant” group, “claiming ownership”, “consolidating power”, and well, taking advantage of an individuals heritage. (The movie is available on Amazon or EBay; however, it is extremely violent.)

Here’s a fact: Republicans and Democrats are political parties that are open to members from all backgrounds regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. Martin Luther King, Jr. for example, chose to be a Republican, (although his family his split on this bit of history along “partisan lines”), the first African American elected to the U.S. Senate by popular vote was a Massachusetts Republican, Edward Brooke. Up through the 1960’s, the party that decried racism from its roots in the Civil War – the Republican Party – which opposed the racist and pro-slavery, then pro-segregation party – The Democrats. Apparently, little has changed when Mr. Reid declares that a “group” basically belongs to his party.

The labor movement changed the public perspective by “progressively” fighting for Civil Rights and associating the same action with a particular political party. That said, the one man who did more for Civil Rights than any other sitting in the Oval office, who worked tirelessly with Republican’s to get it pushed through a hostile Congress was one, much maligned, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat from Texas. Therefore, both political parties can lay claim to “notables” who fought for the basic rights of American’s regardless of race or ethnic heritage.

For more information on African American’s and the Republican Party visit the National Black Republican Association here . For a different take from Mr. Reid’s on Hispanics and which political party some might prefer visit the California chapter of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly here read Linda Sanchez article on why Hispanics are not patronized by Republicans.

It is time that “ownership” (or truly exploitation) of any particular group, for political purposes, be ended – there are African American’s, Italian’s, Irish, Hispanics, Asians – all United States Citizens, who chose the political party that most closely aligns with their own personal political beliefs. To answer Harry's question regarding Hispanics in particular: Hispanics are deeply religious, holding family values, pro-life, and pro-business, they are politicians, doctors, lawyers, housewives, teachers, small business owners who are not defined by being “Hispanic” rather, defined by their own personal goals. They are also Libertarians, and Democrats, by personal choice. As a group, Mr. Reid, Hispanics are not “sheep” to follow blindly and tow a prescribed and contrived Political Party Line that since one is Hispanic, one must be a Democrat. It is an insult and one deserving of an apology.

Harry Reid juega el programa de carreras - retórico de la campaña esperado pero cruces de Reid alineen - los hispanico que insultan – opinión

Senador Harry Reid (D-NV) finalmente ha cruzado la línea de la cordura - en una rueda de prensa reciente, Reid decidía que era tiempo a la corte el voto hispánico que hacía la única cosa que sentido de alguna manera tenido a Harry - juega el programa de carreras y “para poseer” un grupo étnico - cita: “No sé cualquier persona de la herencia hispánica podría ser un republicano!”

¡Al parecer, si uno está de decente hispánico (tal como este autor), después uno debe ser un Demócrata! - De la misma forma que las mujeres deben ser Demócratas (o no son feministas) o Africano-Americanos deben ser Demócratas (o son “tío Toms ") - allí son límites “a la propiedad de reivindicación” de un “grupo” u otro - y, aunque los votantes los hispanico tendieran hacia Obama en 2008, tendieron hacia George Bush en 2004 - es decir los hispanico son capaces de tomar sus propias decisiones, al igual que mujeres o el afroamericano sin ser dicho por Harry Reid, (o los jefes de la unión, o los profesores poseídos por los jefes de la unión, o los medios) que si uno es cierto color, o de cierta herencia étnica, una debe conseguir conforme a a el partido político particular - sombras “de las cuadrillas de Nueva York” - alquilen la película - breve sinopsis, cómo la sala política dirige a inmigrantes irlandeses usados como carne de cañón durante la guerra civil, firmándolos hasta el voto para un partido particular, entonces enviándolos a la guerra - es decir aprovechándose de un grupo “inmigrante” específico, de “propiedad reivindicación”, “consolidando poder”, y bien, aprovechándose de una herencia de los individuos. (La película está disponible en el Amazonas o Ebay; sin embargo, es extremadamente violenta.)

Aquí está un hecho: Los republicanos y Demócratas son los partidos políticos que están abiertos a los miembros de todos los fondos sin importar la raza, la pertenencia étnica o el sexo. Martin Luther King, Jr. por ejemplo, eligió ser un republicano, (aunque su familia su fractura en este pedazo de la historia a lo largo de “líneas parciales "), el primer afroamericano elegido al senado de los E.E.U.U. por voto popular era un republicano de Massachusetts, Edward Brooke. Encima con de los años 60, el partido que denigró racismo de sus raíces en la guerra civil - el Partido Republicano - que se opuso al racista y esclavista, entonces partido de la favorable-segregación - Demócratas. Al parecer, poco ha cambiado cuando Sr. Reid declara que un “grupo” pertenece básicamente a su partido.

Encima con de los años 60, el partido que denigró racismo de sus raíces en la guerra civil - el Partido Republicano - que se opuso al racista y esclavista, entonces partido de la favorable-segregación - Demócratas. Al parecer, poco ha cambiado cuando Sr. Reid declara que un “grupo” pertenece básicamente a su partido.
Para más información sobre el afroamericano y el Partido Republicano visiten el republicano negro nacional aquí de la asociación. Para una diversa toma de Sr. Reid en hispanico y que el partido político algunos pudo preferir visita el capítulo de California del El hispánico nacional republicano aquí de la asamblea leyó el artículo de Linda Sánchez en porqué los hispanico no son patronizados por los republicanos.

Es tiempo que la “propiedad” (o verdad la explotación) de cualquier grupo particular, para los propósitos políticos, esté terminada - hay afroamericano, italiano, irlandés, hispanico, asiáticos - todos los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos, que eligieron el partido político que alinea lo más de cerca posible con sus propias creencias políticas personales. Para contestar a la pregunta de Harry con respecto a hispanico particularmente: Los hispanico son profundamente religiosos, celebrando los valores familiares, antiabortistas, y pro-empresa, son políticos, doctores, abogados, amas de casa, profesores, los pequeños propietarios de negocio que no son definidos siendo “hispanico” bastante, definidos por sus propias metas personales. Son también libertarios, y Demócratas, por la opción personal. Pues un grupo, Sr. Reid, hispanico no es “oveja” a seguir ciego y para remolcar una línea del partido política prescrita e ideada que puesto que uno es hispánico, una deba ser un Demócrata. Es un insulto y un mérito de una disculpa.

Election 2010 - Survey Suggests Senate in Play as Well as House GOP – Reality Check

Will Hillary Clinton be the Last Democrat Standing in 2012? (image Seve Colton blog)

Politico: A new survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies suggests that the GOP may pick off the Senate as well as the House in 2010. Poll questions were based on a similar poll commissioned by NPR from Greenberg Quinlin Rosner Research (survey here) in which it was revealed that in 70 of the top Congressional Races, the GOP candidate had an 8 point advantage. The Senate Poll is similar in all respects, from the questions posed to respondents to the outcome – conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (survey here) on behalf of American Crossroads, as one can see, it mirrors the NPR poll.

That said, the polls (conducted by, according to Politico, partisan research groups, one from each major Political party, both used the same methodology – basing each individual state/district survey on a sample of only 100 voters, and combining the individual state surveys in order to achieve a responsible margin of error. The latest poll based their targeted states on the the Cook Political Report (visit here) which offers insight into competitive races using “political intelligence” and is seen by Beltway strategists as exceptionally accurate when it comes to projecting political races. The latest, public release on House Races is available here from Cook and show the Democrats with 66 seats in play opposed to the GOP with 7.

What is of interest is that the Senate Poll almost mirrors the findings of the Congressional Poll – giving the impression that, all Hades is going to break loose that first Tuesday in November. Now, for the first time, Politico, as a mainstream media outlet, is acknowledging that the possibility exists for the GOP to pick up both houses in 2010:

It’s a hope so audacious that few Republicans will even acknowledge it out loud: the possibility that the balance of power in the Senate might be up for grabs in November. The GOP would have to take 10 seats, knocking off virtually every targeted Democratic incumbent and sweeping the open seats held by both parties.

Apparently, the GOP’s "audacious hope", so audacious according to Politico, that few will even voice it “out loud”, of a GOP controlled House and Senate, may be possible. However, it is probable? Absolutely, when one considers the general angst of the public, and the major party Brands being viewed by the populace in a polar opposite to the 2006 and 2008 elections. In the case of the 2006 and 2008 elections, the general populace viewed the Republican Brand as tarnished, by association with President George Bush and a dislike of Administration policy, as well as several ethics issues played out in the media (those having to do with personal infidelity, rather than criminal charges). What is amazing is the speed in which the Democrats virtually destroyed their brand whereby it is now in a worse position than the Republican Brand in 2006 and 2008.

The key to the overall decline in popularity of the brand is twofold: One, the administration led by Barack Obama, appears incompetent at times, and at others, willing to push legislation through against the will of a majority. This is coupled with continual attacks on former President George Bush, otherwise known as the “blame game”, a tactic that would have worked well in the first three to six months of the administration, however, over time, has worn old. (See Jimmy Carter, blaming Gerald Ford throughout his one-term presidency.)

It is mentioned that Independents are breaking for the GOP by a margin of 2 to 1 (Politico) according to the surveys; however, no mention is made of those Democrats who have either moved to an unenrolleds or Republican voter designation.

A shout-out from the Red-Headed Stepchild otherwise known as Massachusetts: All is not well in the land of the Democrat. When the State of Massachusetts has, at the least, 3, possibly 4, Congressional Seats in jeopardy, (this is being studiously avoided by both political parties and every single pollster and pundit outside of the state) to the point where Democrat Big Guns are coming in to plug for incumbents is indicative that there is “trouble in River City”. (See article this blog here which cites the Boston Globe.) If seats held by Incumbents for ten plus terms, be in enough peril for past Presidents to hit the Bay State, logic follows those polls taking place in specific districts are internal and the results are far from encouraging for the Democrats. If Massachusetts is showing signs of a revolt, it follows that those “swing states”, or states where a split in offices held by Party affiliation (see California) are also in play.

How late is it? It’s too late to stop this freight train of voter driven angst which is running across party lines. Nothing short of a miracle (another crisis won’t do), can help the Democrats brand in 2010 and, one can also now predict 2012 will be no better. The public perception has shifted to the extreme, fueled by a deep division in the “have’s and he have not’s” mentality pushed on the unemployed and overtaxed public by obvious public relation gaffes coming from the Administration. The recent spate of vacations taken by the “First Family”, specifically the First Lady’s trip to Spain characterized in the UK press as ”extravagant” did untold damage to the administration.

What to do to save Obama’s job? Answer: Moving from blame from Bush to Biden. A recent Wall Street Journal article suggests that a strong case is being made to move Hillary Clinton into the position as Vice President in 2012. This would serve two purposes for Obama, he would have a Vice President that was less gaffe prone than Biden (understatement), and he would have eliminated the biggest threat to himself and his Presidency from within his own party. Clinton, at this juncture, could run against Obama and handily take the nomination. In fact, depending upon who the Republican’s field, Hillary might be the only chance the Democrats have of maintaining one branch of the government. For Clinton to accept the position would be a disservice to her party, rather than, as noted, the calls for her “loyalty” by Obama associates. Time will tell (January at the latest), if Hillary Clinton will run for the Presidency outright.

Although it is most certainly amusing to predict outcomes or more to the point speculate on the same, the 2010 and 2012 elections will be by the will of the people, and with a diminished, but still influential press (includes both print and television media), it may end up being less of a route than anticipated by the pollsters and pundits, but, again, at this late date, not by much. In most cases, it will come down to retail politics, and the candidate who has the ability to meet and greet and cross a district as well as a state, will ultimately prevail, as long as they are not selling goods the voters have warned would be rejected.

Milwaukee - Teachers Union fights for Viagra! Time to Offer Teachers the Option to Opt out Of Unions without the Threat of Harassment.

The Milwaukee Teachers Unionis fighting on the side of its teachers – for coverage of the prescription drug - Viagra. Apparently, Erectile Dysfunction is causing some Milwaukee Teachers some sort of hardship – in these hard economic times, is what is seen as a recreational drug, more important to the Milwaukee Public School Teachers and their Union than say – a job? The unions have bargained our auto industry into penury (and now owns part of one, along with the Federal Government), and our schools do not necessarily “excel” and are staffed, in many locals, with less than stellar teachers.

Frankly, there are certain industries where unions might be useful, say meatpacking or any other area where life and limb is at risk – however, when an individual must have a bachelor and or in some cases a masters degree in order to perform a 6 to 8 month annual job, on the government payroll to boot - what function can the union possibly have? - Obviously none, thus the suit for Viagra.
It is, by no means, the intent to demean the teacher – teachers, or those wishing to teach, are forced to join unions across the nation. They are given the option of joining one or both of the teachers unions and or paying a hefty “fee” not to join, and ongoing harassment by union “thugs” who “protect” the rights of teachers. They are often told that it is mandatory that they fork a good chuck of change not to one union but two – when they should be given the option of opting out from the get go. The dues collected from your local science or English or “social studies” teachers then go to the union for bloated management salaries, attorneys on retainer and of course, the Democrat Party.

In a recent battle with New Jersey Govenor, Chris Christie (R), the union which was praying for him to outright “die”, and ran an estimated $20 Million dollars in ads against the Governor’s plan to cut fat from the budget in order to save New Jersey -they lost. Therefore, in order to stop budget cuts that may have affected some teachers in New Jersey, the union spends 20 million dollars of money collected by teachers for dues (practically against their will), and who gets vilified?

Ask Gallop: Public education is tracking in the 30 percentile in trust according to a recent poll on confidence in institutions. Instead of a teacher seen as battling for better text books, more authority to discipline students disrupting classes, and or bigger and better blackboards, anything, the Milwaukee Teachers Union is asking for coverage for a drug that is used by older and younger individuals recreationally. One cannot make this stuff up – sadly.

Teachers, new and old, should be given the option, once a year, of either join gin the union and/or actually working for their students and the municipality which hires them. Outside of the “protection” of the union, they would realize an immediate increase in pay, and also be allowed compensation based on merit. In this wise, one would be able to sort out the chaff from the wheat – and who would protect the teacher against frivolous law suits brought by nutty parents? The City or town, which could offer, at that point, the option for those parents to take their children and whatever problems are interfering with their classroom elsewhere – perhaps a parochial school, or other private education. Of course, that puts those parents who feel their children are above the rules (regardless of what the rules are) in the position of having to choose between a rock and a hard place – one does not want to mess with a Catholic school (or other private institution which does not fear a lawsuit) – they’d be forced to discipline or at the very least say “no” to junior.

That would allow the teachers, who are wrongfully, by the way, taking the heat, and are portrayed as the protagonists in most newspaper accounts of battles between cities and staff. In fact, the title of the article this opinion piece is based on is: Milwakee Teachers Fight for Viagra Drug Coverage, one has to get into the article to find, that it is not the teachers, rather the union that is to blame.

Teachers face a daily grind in some parts of the nation, hindered by what they can and cannot say to students (discipline), forced to teach under threat of bodily harm by students who understand they can get away with anything or their parents will bring suit, the classrooms (due to some notion that all students must be treated the same and given the same opportunities regardless of the circumstance – i.e. inclusion) are filled with mini-felons, or those who are medicated to control everything from violent behavior to “name a condition”, making teaching the balance of the student population suffer along with the teacher. Teachers deserve “combat pay” more than anything else, and it is a direct result of the irresponsible unions and school administrators who treat those who educate our students as nothing more than political cash cows.

Therefore, when reading the next newspaper article where the “teachers” are asking for something ludicrous, make sure one reads further to find out the true culprit – and then write a note of thanks and support to the educator who was intentionally forced to join a union, and must suffer the daily caprices of a population that includes weak administrators, crazy parents, and students who have learned from both that they can get away with anything.

Bring education back to the 1950’s where money was better spent on institutions known as “reform schools”, the threat of which, kept the majority of students in line, studying to excel, students with “special needs” went to separate classrooms, allowing them to receive the type of education best suited, while allowing the general population to learn. Teachers also had the ability to discipline; a trip to the Principals office was something to fear, along with parents who would be called in (depending upon the “crime” to met out punishment. Teachers were respected, as it should be, and the nation’s schools were the envy of the world.

In the present state of the economy where Democrats passed a bill, after pressure and lobbying from the Teacher’s union for 26 Billion to save teachers jobs, it must be realized that with unemployment standing steady at 9.5% and the threat of further economic gloom, that one wonders what percentage of the salary paid to teachers (funded by the taxpayer) that went to the unions, that spent the millions to lobby the Senate (or the town, or the city) would be better spent on maintaining the teachers’ salaries in the first place? If the teachers were allowed to compete for benefits and salaries like the private sector, one might just see an increase in the graduation rate , a decrease in the costs of educating a student (the myriad web of administrators who have high salaries are also included under the unions), would actually decrease.

The average cost of educating a high school student in Vermont is $13,000 per year (2010) (Vermont has one of the highest gradudation rates) and in Massachusetts (which has improved if one does not count those who drop out and get a GED) had a graduation rate in 2008 of 82% - which is an average: some municipalities had a 60% graduation rate. The average cost to educate a studen in Massachustts is approximately $12,000 annually. (varies by municpality)

By way of contrast to the public sector, the cost to educate a student in a private 4 year school (Massachusetts – parochial) is approximately $8000 (includes tuition and books), with a graduation rate of 100, with 100% going onto a two or four year college.
Why the disparity? Perhaps the teachers who are non-union are able to teach – granted their salaries are lower, compared to public school teachers, but they have, at the very least, the option to compete for higher salaries.

Additionally, would the public schools be divested of the “union label” it would have the net effect of dropping the costs of education in the public sector, making the public schools competitive with private institutions, and the benefits to educators would be across the board, as schools and teachers were compensated based on performnace.

The solutions are obvious, “school choice” based on “vouchers”, and the elimination of the millstone (Union) hanging over competent, degreed, individuals would improve the public schools and allow them to compete with private institutions – bringing standards up across the board.