Money and Religion – Obama Campaign in the Red, Romney Ups Donors in July, Obama “Supporters” Question Paul Ryan’s Catholicism – Dems Desperate

Latest Romney Ryan Crowd - Manchester New Hampshire Rally - image iconicsurrealism

The focus on Presidential Campaigns and fundraising prowess as “proof” that a candidate would win a race has been part and parcel of news articles and television news broadcasts for decades. The last Presidential election was a litmus test of sorts, as the constant drumbeat on the millions upon millions of dollars brought in by the Obama Campaign sent the general message that no-one would be able to best the candidate with the most cash. The most money, so the logic follows, equals the most popularity and given the number of individual donations one must receive, not including those corporate, “Hollywood”, Wall-Street or National Union donations, surely then candidate Obama would see success. Now, one finds that the tables have turned on the President. His campaign is running a deficit while the Romney Campaign is bringing in more cash and individual donations. In addition, the Obama Campaign is over-spending on negative advertising and staffing, in what is, in actuality the early stages of the Presidential Campaign. The Romney Campaign brought in $25 million more than the Obama Campaign for the third month, according to USA Today’s report on recent FEC Filings. It is to the point where actor George Clooney has to hustle to Europe to hold fundraisers for the President(USA Today).

Therefore, at the moment, given the sheer fundraising prowess of Mitt Romney, one would think that given 2008 reporting, Romney is a shoe-in – Not so fast – a Reuter’s report suggest that the Romney Campaign is Battling for Cash ignoring hard numbers, the report suggests that somehow Obama is in a stronger position – which is generally the case for an Incumbent regardless of the cash on hand. That said, very few incumbents actually manage to see a second term, recent exceptions being William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush, one must keep in mind, both political parties, as a rule, are subject to the variances in economic conditions, or poor management (Carter (Both), Ford (Neither(Nixon), George H. Bush(Economy) – With a President’s ability to handle the job at hand, coupled with extremely poor economic conditions, one could raise more money than Midas and still find themselves out of a job.

There is also smart campaign management and the laws of governing Presidential candidates, The Romney Campaign has been run like a business, and as Romney is not yet the nominee (officially that takes place at the RNC Convention), he has not yet had the financial support of the RNC available. Knowing when to hold them, and knowing when to fold them is of import, given the fact that most voters aren’t even paying attention to the election now, tuning out rather than tuning in, or simply not all that interested. One should see an increase in Romney advertising after the Republican Convention in late August, a fact that the Obama Campaign is surely aware, and therefore, taking potshots at Romney’s tax returns, and grasping at the straws of desperation when it comes to his running mate, Paul Ryan.

A recent article in US News and World Report headlines:”Why Obama Supporters Question Paul Ryan’s Catholicism” – which goes toward Ryan’s plan to overhaul and save Medicare and Medicaid for those in need. Of course, the Obama supporters (and campaign) suggest otherwise, that the plan will hurt everyone from the elderly to those on disability, however, stretching the truth about the plan apparently did not sway both Ryan’s Bishop nor a Cardinal, both whom have more knowledge of Catholicism than an “Obama Supporter” who is blinded by political partisanship first, their religion second. The fact that Ryan is pro-life is also of issue with those who call themselves Catholic, yet suggest that abortion is perfectly fine. Perhaps, it is convenient to suggest, as a Catholic, that one can hold these views, as one gets to run to confession at the end of the week and restore one’s good standing. However, what this does suggest is that the Obama campaign desperately wants to hold onto the majority of the 70million plus voting bloc of U.S. Catholics. That’s not always an easy task, given that Catholics overwhelmingly supported George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004 – as a group, Catholics are no different than – any other voter. When personal swipes at someone’s religion begin, and that includes questioning President Obama’s Christianity, or Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, it is a ploy by the political strategists to sway voters doubts, or by those so blinded by religious zeal, to negate the worth of a candidate based solely on their religion of choice, no matter how pious or non-pious one is perceived to be. It may or may not work, depending upon a number of factors, including how vested individuals are in their religion, rather than their political party, or if one is able to divest the two, being religious and voting as a citizen as a separate act.

There is also that nagging document, the Constitution, which gives each and every U.S. citizens the right to practice their religion as they see fit, whatever religion that may be – with safeguards in place that ensure that no one religion will be put in place as a national religion. (The real gist behind Church and State).

Money and Religion – is that truly what this election is about? Hardly, this election is about the State of the Union as it relates to the economy, and how little each individual has at the end of the week, or when one leaves the grocery store. It will be a decision based on whether or not a voter feels that the President is capable of fixing the economy, or if perhaps his challenger Mitt Romney would do a better job. That, and that issue alone, will decide this election – no matter how much the Obama Campaign attempts to distract from the issues that people care about, jobs, taxes, security in finding, and keeping a job and affordable groceries. The distractions are nothing more than obvious desperation and it shows. Which might explain the huge discrepancies in crowd size at rallies.

Occupy Wall Street Protestors – The Reality of Post-1960’s Protests, The Ideologues, The Unions, Obama Supporters, Big Money and a Waste of Time

Then - The 1960's - Woodstock - image Wikipedia


The Occupy Wall Street Protests which have taken place in a variety of U.S. cities since Labor Day in September has seen support from sources one would consider the usual bastions of liberal think: Hollywood celebrities, Billionaire George Soros’ MoveOn.org, and the labor movement, specifically members of the SEIU and United Auto Workers Union(Wall Street Journal),both of the later pivotal in the President’s 2008 campaign. In retrospect, those who were involved in the variety of protests in the 1960’s, were, at the top, the children of the silver spoon, rejecting out of hand, a war in Vietnam, supporting a utopian ideal of Communism and of course, the Weathermen, who were anarchists. The bottom of the support came from those who were from the lower to middle classes, college students, and high school students, who were thrilled with the concept of free love, the grand party and a notion of anti-establishment that would appeal at any time to those who are in the twilight between adolescence and adulthood. The War in Viet Nam, an undeclared boondoggle begun well before the 1960’s and mismanaged by politicians from Kennedy through LBJ, finally ending with Richard Nixon’s presidency in the 1970’s, played heavily to those who attended protests, music events such as Woodstock, and the grand party that was the “Revolution” of the 1960’s, with many of those spouting slogans, having no clear idea of any political implications. It was, then, as it is now, a handful of “players” at the top, well-funded or financed, making the noise, the proverbial “have’s” using the “have not’s” to achieve a goal.

Later day protestors have enjoyed limited appeal by comparison, with those at the upper rung of “society” lending support, (i.e. celebrities, professors, old and wealthy crackpots such as Soros, the media and of course, those who participated in the 1960’s protests and are attempting to relive their youth). This leads to the media reporting on what amounts to, a handful of protestors compared to the hundreds of thousands who poured into the streets during the 1960’s. The Occupy Wall Street project is no exception. Those who are capable of cutting classes, to sit in park, and take aim at the Bankers and the Money Men who, these brains trusts apparently are unaware, are the key to pension funds and retirement accounts of the very same “have not’s”. What is particularly interesting is the sudden interest in “helping the Middle Class”, from large unions such as the SEIU, by supporting those whose parents have the cash to let them sit out in the park, and play 1960’s protestor – minus the good music, the drugs and the free love. Perhaps the Union Leaders are unaware that the very same Wall Street they are protesting holds the keys to their futures, or perhaps they are there to ensure the protestors are on the side of the President. Either way, the traction appears to be slow, with reports of seven hundred protestors on the Brooklyn Bridge to a handful in Boise Idaho, standing out in the rain – “Oh the Sacrifices those Wall Street detractors are making” – but on behalf of whom? To what end?


Now - Michael Moore, semi-celeb, with handful of "Occupy Wall Street" Protestors, cell phones ablaze to get a pic of the celebrity! Priorities - image truenewsforchangenyc.blogspot.com


The main thrust appears to be the socialist dogma of redistribution of wealth, a theme prevalent throughout the last four years with the emergence of then Candidate and now President Barak Obama. One can surmise that the theme, which is being played out once again in his 2012 “campaign”, pitting the rich against the poor, using race, or any available tool at the campaigns disposal is somewhat transparent. Wealth redistribution – taking from those who have (those that create wealth, either by owning a company, or managing funds for those who hope to retire at some point in their lives) and giving it to those who “have not”. Perhaps these protestors have failed to notice the past three years of the administration’s ability to push through legislation that is simpatico to their cause.

When one looks at the continual extension of unemployment benefits, (which is principal in the President’s “Jobs” bill), one understands that those who are without employment, collect benefits from a government entity that is supported by those very same individuals and corporations whom they are now targeting.

Is Wall Street perfect, in its function? No more so than any organization, be it a corporation, a campaign, a think tank or a union. The basic fact is that these are organizations that are primarily run by men, who have an ideal at the onset, yet, somehow, things go astray, corruption sets in, and the few who are corrupt, bring a focus to the entire group. It is what those in middle American, those that vote, are seeing play out now in New York and elsewhere – the silly children who would see their student loans picked up by the Taxpayers, backed by Unions who would see a President reelected that has given them increased status, as well as an auto company (see GM and the Autoworkers), all the while most concerned that the fortunes of Wall Street enjoy a recovery so they are not reduced to penury in old age.

It is not without some disconnect that these ideologues have no clue that the government itself, produces nothing in order to make the money which it spends. The government jobs, from those in Washington to the local classroom, all are paid for by those who are targeted, from the very ordinary middle class individual still fortunate enough to have a job, and those who are paying the majority of the taxes: i.e. those making more than $250,000 and especially those making over $1,000,000 annually. It is the lack of common sense on the part of the youth, (and granted the dummying down of education from the cradle to the cap and gown), that does not allow them to see the forest through the trees.
Without self-reliant, individuals, those that work, create, and capitalized on the system (i.e. capitalist), that allows on to make a fortune, build a business or several businesses, there would be no reason for those protestors to be taking a mini-vacation in the park, alongside their union supporters who, would also be wondering where their next meal was coming from. Once the entrepreneurs to the millionaires are taxed to the breaking point, businesses close, and others (as has been the increasingly common theme these past three years) pick up and leave the country, creating jobs in tax friendly countries. To continue to point fingers, instead of get off one’s duff and actually work for a living, apparently is beyond the scope of those who prefer to get something for nothing, but at what price.

Once the businesses are gone, and the government no longer has a revenue stream, there simply will be no wealth to redistribute, or to put it bluntly no government checks, from Social Security, to private pensions, to Medicaid, to Food Stamp. In cases being played out now across the country, one will find construction projects begun and now abandoned, due to state and federal funding woes. It is not a stretch of the imagination to understand that without the only source of income the government has: taxpayers, there simply is no wealth to spread around.

One does not need to be an economist to figure that out, nor does one need a calculator. It is those have’s (those that have a job) who watch their paycheck dwindle on a weekly basis, due to rising costs of fuel and food, watching the decline of the 401K’s and private pensions (for anyone who plans on Social Security, is taking the larger gamble), and watching the evening news to find the same old Hollywood celebs, pampered children of the rich and aimless, the unions and moveon.org, and see them not as helpful in any way, but as the duped and useless drags on society – without the benefits of free love, great music, and the like. Even if they managed 100,000 protestors (including Moveon.org and the SEIU’s membership) to march on Wall Street, does that even compare to the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers attending events under the banner of the Gadsden Flag? There is a reason for that: The variance in the protestors shows the difference between the Haves (those that have the capitol funding to protest to being with) and those that “Have not” (a lack of commonsense and the knowledge of how pensions are funded, the governments’ only source of income, and how the worker (not a union worker mind you) fits into a society based on capitalism. The is also the certain knowledge, backed by historical and current events, that socialism, although idealistic, is just that, and is a failure as a working model. (Unless of course, the nation is top heavy with the wealthy with a population and landmass the size of Rhode Island).

They’ll make some noise, and then go home.