How God decided the 2012 election

You can find all kinds of explanations for the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, but here’s one you probably haven't considered...

God.

Or to be more exact, some self-proclaimed Christians’ vision of God and God’s “creation” and “creations.”

And so we ask, is the child of a rapist “God’s gift”? Ask a rape victim. Or just ask a woman.

The second part has to do with God’s somehow endowing women with the miraculous, innate ability to end a pregnancy if they don’t want to bear a child that results from “legitimate” rape (whatever that is).

This sounds vaguely like a reverse variation of the virgin birth.

Here we have a bit of pseudoscience created by blind religious belief. But the fantasy doesn’t stop there.

Let’s move on to origin and nature of the planet (think creationism), science and global warming. The Fundamentalist’s pseudo-science argues that global warming is nothing more than a hoax ginned up by greedy scientists to attract grant money.
 
Hurricane Sandy (and other climate changes) put the lie to that notion. The massive storm couldn’t be explained away as the product of scientific greed (although it might be  related to the greed of millionaire oil industry executives).

But wait. You could argue that none of the above made a whit of political difference. Romney went on to win Missouri and Indiana, where Senate candidates self-destructed over the rape/abortion issue. No loss to Romney. The damage was limited to a couple of Senate seats that didn’t go the GOP’s way.

And Hurricane Sandy pummeled states that were going for Obama anyway. Again, nothing changed except perhaps Chris Christie.

Don’t believe it. The rest of us were paying attention. The glaring ignorance of the Religious Right rubbed off on Romney and the Republican Party. Both continued to happily embrace the support of God-fearing and deluded right-wing Christians.

They still do.

And so folks around the country, significantly in states like Colorado, Ohio and Florida, asked: Are these really the kinds of folks we want calling the shots in Washington?

No way.

The Republicans' problem now is that the electorate's judgement will be the same four years hence.

What if today were election day?

What if this day, this Tuesday, were election day and not next Tuesday?

Would voting be extended in the states affected by Sandy? In states where 7.5 million are without power.

Or would the electoral process just have to “suck it up”? Just the way it sucks up the disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral college vote.

And who might have benefited under the hypothetical scenario that would have laid Sandy's devastation on top of voting day? My guess is that those who typically suffer from stress and live marginally anyway would be all the more stressed and marginalized by the storm. They would be less likely to vote.

Another guess is that they would be primarily Democrats. Would Pennsylvania actually go Republican? What about New York?

I doubt the one percent would be affected at all under this scenario. But, hypothetical situations aside, Mitt Romney, who portrayed 47percent of the population as self-described victims, may now have to recalculate his estimate. The nation suddenly has a whole lot more victims, REAL victims, and is going to have to spend a lot more money helping to get them back on their feet.

My guess is that they will still be victims a week from today...on the real election day.

So is this little hypothetical worth considering? I think so. Contrary to the impression the news media give us, disasters don’t fit neatly into news cycles. They go on for months and even years. How are things in Joplin, Missouri, these days? What about Haiti?

A week from today you can bet things will be a whole lot different along the Sandy’s path of destruction, and those differences will change how people vote...if, that is, they can get to the polls to vote at all.

Mother Nature casts her vote

It’s easy to find the cause of Hurricane Sandy.

It’s two fold.

The first is global warming. This massive storm is yet one more unprecedented catastrophic climate “event” linked to global warming.

And the cause of global warming is no secret. It’s us and our complicity in a political/financial system corrupted by greed.

So much for causes.

Under the present alignment of events, a motive for this hurricane suggests itself. Yes, against all reason, I’m asking you to find a sentient motive in nature. Bear with me....

Here we are entering the last week of a presidential election campaign in which both candidates have shamelessly and blatantly ignored the issue of global warming.

The reason is clear: Both have been bought off by fear-mongering, carbon-emitting, corporate polluters.

Now, from the hyper-warm waters of the South Atlantic arises a monster hurricane that could just wreak havoc on the campaigns, the Nov. 6 election, and, one can hope, our entire corrupt political system.

Power outages, blocked roads, huge evacuations, massive flooding. Try campaigning and voting under those circumstances.

The so-called “battleground” states of New Hampshire, Virginia and Ohio could look exactly like battlegrounds in the aftermath of this mega-storm.

Moreover, like the meltdown of the financial markets four years ago, this storm could dictate end-game political events.

The president will have to go back to being presidential — whatever that means. (Who knows, he might even utter the words “global” and “warming.”)

Mitt Romney may have to cede in response to the devastation that government has a role beyond building battleships, axing taxes, cutting regulations and subsidizing the rich.
 
Okay, so Mother Nature may not have a motive for sending this storm, but we might consider that we are being punished (or are unwittingly punishing ourselves) for our collective dirty deeds.

I suggest that another vote is trumping all others in this election — the ballot  of grievances Mother Nature is now casting along the Atlantic Coast.

Debate a 'People's Choice' pledge

Here’s something that should be a topic during the final two presidential debates but won’t.

Call it “The pledge to abide by the will of the people.”

It doesn’t matter which candidate makes the proposal. I’ll leave it to you to decide who might be most likely to make it and what the effect might be on his strategy.

Imagine Mitt Romney or Barack Obama saying the following: “I challenge my opponent to join me in serving the best interests of this nation and the will of the people by agreeing that the only candidate to assume the office of the presidency should be the one winning the plurality of votes cast nationally.

“In short, the winner would not be chosen by the electoral college, but by the American people.”

“We each recognize that individually we could ‘lose’ under this pledge, but we also know the people would win.”

“So I am willing to pledge that unless I win the plurality of the votes, I will not accept the presidency. Accordingly, I will direct ‘my’ Electoral College electors to vote for you.”

“Will you do likewise?”

I’m certain this would produce a collective gasp and send media analysts scurrying to their computers and calculators.

The best authority on the impact of such a proposal is master poll aggregator and data cruncher, Nate Silver of the web site five thirty eight. If you go to the site, you will see his projections for the likelihood of the electoral college being at odds with the popular vote.

Here’s where we are at this point in the campaign, according to Silver’s “now-cast”:

Electoral College tie (269 electoral votes for each candidate) 1.8%
Recount (one or more decisive states within 0.5 percentage points) 14.1%
Obama wins popular vote but loses electoral college 4.9%
Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college 4.6%

The last two percentages are directly relevant although the other two are a concern. Just think: "hanging chad."

If Silver is correct, there  is a 9.5 percent chance (or one chance in 10.5) that the majority of the electoral college will be bound to vote for the candidate with fewer votes than his opponent.

Silver’s forecast for election day is that there is a 7 percent chance of a the electoral college voting into office the loser of the national vote.

That, of course, is what happened in the 2000 election. Under this proposal, George W. Bush would have forfeited the presidency to Al Gore.

If, by some remote chance, Romney or Obama does propose the “people’s choice” pledge and the other accepts, the campaigns suddenly would be forced to engage every single registered voter in the country, not just those in so-called swing states.

Would it be more expensive? Yes, but campaign financing and cost is already an issue.

Would it be the right thing to do? Absolutely!

Why the Tea Party tolerates Etch-a-Sketch

Missing so far in October’s political commentary is an obvious question about Mitt Romney’s latest Etch-a-Sketch redrafting of his positions. (Just yesterday Romney “softened” his position on opposing abortions and repealing homeowner and charities tax deductions.)

Question: At what point will the Tea Party see Romney as just another RINO (Republican in Name Only)? At what point will the latest sketch drive out the hard Right wing of the Republican Party?

Romney’s campaign has obviously asked the same question ... and answered it. Indeed they probably answered it months ago. After all we first heard the Etch-a-Sketch analogy from the Romney campaign on the day Romney won enough primaries to ensure his nomination.

Might the Tea Party abandon Mitt?

Not to worry.

They’ve likely been clued in that this is the essential means to the end of taking over the White House. Rest assured, Tea Party, after the November victory, the sketch will change again and you will like what your see.

Meanwhile, the rest of us want in on the secret. What will we see if Mitt wins?

We know where to look for clues. Follow the money.

What was once said about the piper can now be said about the sketch artist. Whoever is paying the artist guides the pencil.

The problem for us outsider citizens is this:  while we know where to look to find out how much money (hundreds of millions) is going into the campaign, we don’t know who is giving it.

We have our Supreme Court to thank for our ignorance.

In fairness, the same “Citizens United” secrecy applies to the Obama campaign and its financial backing, but at least the president is consistent. Compared to Romney, the president paints in vivid, lasting oils, albeit they are smudged by the Republican opposition. To be sure, much of Obama’s artwork is bad.  Regarding war he paints in blood red and black boxes. His portrait of the environment is decidedly ungreen and is increasingly pitch black and oily surrounded by blank space.

A sobering concern is that the very same people may be paying both candidates. “Hedging” is the by-word for our times. PACs are really nothing more than arcane policy/financial hedge funds managed by political consultants.

So, to change images, will the Tea Party fall off the wildly swerving Romney wagon as the candidate lurches to the middle?

I doubt it. I think that Paul Ryan and friends have clued in their fellow travelers. So far the polls show that the Right has received the message and is holding on.

Finally, there’s this nasty part of Tea Party thinking that has nothing to do with Left, Right or Center. For reasons that reside in the conspiracy-obsessed heart of “birther” darkness, large portions of the Tea Party hate Barack Obama. He is “the other”  — and Romney isn’t. The visuals of television debates, far from hiding differences, only make them more apparent. They are visceral — beyond discussion and debate.

Debate question: Who wants to be President?

Suppose Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer were in the front of a fifth grade classroom and had asked, “Okay, students, who wants to be President of the United States for the next four years?”

The Romney kid in the front row is instantly on his feet jumping up and down, waving his arms in the air yelling “I do, I do!”

It’s been a long time since we’ve seen the Energizer Bunny on TV, but last night he was back in the form of Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile there’s Barack Obama, sitting next to the flailing Energizer kid. The president gives one of his knowing, ingratiating smiles. You get the vague sense that he’s not so sure the presidency is his first order of business.

In any case, he's not on his feet. He doesn't do flailing.

Instead there’s all this “sweetie” talk about his 20th wedding anniversary. Besides, he’s already president. He knows it’s not something to jump up and down about.

This mixing of classroom fantasy with reality is not so far-fetched because we had a good deal of fantasy in Wednesday’s presidential debate. Most of it was provided by Romney. 

But who knew? (Somebody in the Obama campaign certainly should have.)

Here’s another analogy. Mitt brought his Mr. Moderation A game to the debate. The man plays all kinds of games. As we know, he uses a quite different one when "playing" behind closed doors to wealthy donors. And there's another for the primary race in, say, South Carolina.

Last night, not surprisingly, he was out to woo middling, undecided independents.

Meanwhile the president was decidedly in his “no drama”-Obama, B-game mode.

Coasting.

It didn't cut it.

Back to Romney. How about that curious self-assured timbre to his voice? We haven’t heard that kind of cocky self-confidence since, well, Ronald Reagan. Did you catch it? Romney's treatment of Obama was oddly reminiscent of the Gipper’s “there you go again” scolding of Jimmy Carter.

Could Romney have been coached to “do a Reagan”? If so (and it seems likely), it was a smart move.

But there was more. Obama was in trouble out of the gate when, as the first to speak, he launched into his now familiar overview of the past four years. One’s eyes glaze over....

The well-prepped Romney responded with personal anecdotes about two people he and his wife had encountered while working the hustings.

Here’s Romney:

I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, I’ve been out of work since May. Can you help me? Ann yesterday was a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He’s lost his most recent job, and we’ve now just lost our home. Can you help us?

Okay, undecided voter, what do you remember today? The Obama recitation or the two women and their plight? Oh, and the aggrieved women just so happened to be in Ohio and Colorado, two critical states in this election.

And could you, independent voter, have been thinking: This is Washington insider versus the man (and wife) of the people.

Earth to the president! Hello? Time to wake up.

Who are those guys?

You could feel this one coming. The Romney bit about the 47 percent delivered to fellow multimillionaires.

Here’s a man who:

• admits he enjoys firing people.

• mysteriously refuses to make public more than two years of tax returns even as he accuses nearly half of us of not paying taxes.

• builds a mansion with elevators...for his cars.

• unblinkingly and in full public view offers $10,000 bets with fellow politicians. (Mormons like Mr. Romney, by the way, are forbidden to gamble, but never mind....)

• portrays his wife’s owning “a couple of Caddies” as a sign of patriotism and modesty. At least she doesn’t own a half dozen Roll Royces....that we know of.

If nothing else, this campaign has given the voters insight into the perspective and values of the isolated and insulated rich who so heartily back Romney and share his views.

Just who are these people? We are finding out, thanks to Romney and his candor.

But there’s more. We have another 50 days of campaigning and three debates to learn about this cozy culture of one per-centers who think so little of us and so much of themselves.

Pay attention, and don’t forget to vote.

Four more years....

I’m looking into the future, to August 2016 to be exact.

It is not a pretty picture.

Sure the unexpected can happen (and likely will) but assuming the “normal” course of events given what we know, the government will either be hamstrung or following ruinous right-wing policies.

The hamstrung scenario has Barack Obama as president and the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Yes, governing will be even more difficult than it has been for the last four years. At best, the nation and the government will be on hold. The question in August 2016 is, who will the Democrats choose to run for the presidency and will they be able to take back Congress? The answer to the first part is most likely Hillary Clinton. And, no, the Democrats will not be able to take back Congress, whose major function will have become to blame everyone, including fellow members of Congress.

The economy will be even worst than it is today and the Republicans will still be in their Grover Norquist, drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub mode. The Republicans will no doubt choose, yes, Paul Ryan to head their ticket. He’s such a nice, “refreshingly thoughtful” man. At some point the GOP might change its name to the “Tea Party.” Perhaps a real Republican “party of Lincoln (and, Oregonians please note, Hatfield and McCall)” might re-emerge.

On to scenario #2. The country is run by the Romney/Ryan administration with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress (Okay, they might lose one or both in the 2014 mid-term elections, but you get the idea.) The rich get even richer (anyone want a sixth Caddy and a seventh home?) and everybody else tanks. Under this scenario, Bernie Sanders decides to run for president (as a Republican Socialist?) and the Democratic nominee is...hmmmm. Your choice. Could it be that no one wants the job?

Pulling the levers on all the above will be the very, very rich and the very, very secretive. Casino owners, TV wrestling magnates, defense contractors and corporate carbon-belching global warmers. (Did I mention that the drought and weather extremes will worsen over the next four years?)

Meanwhile, in the streets, expect food riots, Romney-ville or Obama-ville homeless camps. The Occupy movement of 2011 will look like a picnic in the park compared to what’s coming.

If reviving the economy means declaring yet another war, we may finally see veterans take to the street to demand an end to the madness. It is a madness that is literally leading them to take their lives in appalling numbers. This too will not abate.

Back in the world of electoral politics (if it can be called that), the options are grave. Of course someone will chime in to say that at least scenario #1 is likely to produce a more moderate Supreme Court. When the choice boils down to the future of the Supreme Court, you know we are in trouble.

The best way to spend the next four years is to do some serious blank-slate rethinking about the state of the nation, its constitution, its values and its role in the world. What say devolve into very small, autonomous manageable states? Switzerlands come to mind. Split Oregon down the middle, East and West.

Ecotopia anyone?

At the very least, the thinking might provide political talking points as the election campaign gets serious in late summer of 2016.

The New Law of Nature

The truth is palpable, overwhelming, scorching, toxic and virulent.

In the 2006 documentary, Al Gore, in a calculated understatement, called it “inconvenient.”

Today is it undeniable to the vast majority. Tomorrow it will be undeniable even to today’s deniers.

Chief among the deniers are our two major presidential candidates, both of whom depend on contributors addicted to carbon-fuel-derived profit and greed. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, coupled with Congress and the majority of congressional candidates, lack any political incentive to act. They are focused on November and money.

They need to be focused on NOW and muster the will to speak and act now. Imagine them standing together on the same podium, united in word and action.

It would take courage; it won’t happen.

The political problem goes beyond money and greed. To bring about needed change, the political establishments (here AND abroad) must demand that each of us change radically. The laws required would be draconian. Forget “personal freedom,” at least as we know it.

Here in America, we don’t do draconian, at least not on ourselves. We do draconian in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Africa — any place the oil or coal or uranium is. Sometimes— because the resources are hidden away — our draconian measures are done here at home, in the aquifers of the Great Plains or the watersheds of Appalachia or the Gulf Coast or the Alaska wilderness.

The victims are the poor and nature.

The Climate Change we are coming to know results from another, countervailing draconian law — a New Law of Nature. It can’t be ruled unconstitutional. It can't be amended. There will be no filibusters or cloture.

It will force change on us whether we or our leaders like it or not.

Many are already thirsty and starving. Soon the effects will hit and further shrink the middle class. Eventually it will strike even the plutocrats and oligarchs. It will burst their bubbles of isolation and privilege.  It will breach their security gates and go undetected by their surveillance cameras. There will be no new mansions to flee to. The greedy will be stranded on a dying planet of dust, drought and desolation.

Is there nothing we can do? Elections won’t help (see above.) There are changes that each of us can make as individuals, and many are. Most of us aren’t doing enough, not nearly enough. And the hour is late.

We have in our Quaker congregation a group that calls itself “The Global Coolers.” Others rightly can call themselves by that name, but the large majority of us are “Global Warmers,” or, worse, “Global Kool-Aiders.”

The Coolers, and others, try to raise our awareness. Some ride bikes. Some eat less. Their food  comes from nearby. They switch off lights and appliances. They install solar panels.

They are too few in number. But they may be the saved among the human species, for the survivors will be those willing and able to live with the least.

It all sounds vaguely, and profoundly, biblical.

NEXT: Cracking the political nut....

A Mormon candidate welcomes gambling money

There's no end to examples of hypocrisy when it comes to religion and politics. You could start with the biblical injunction "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and apply it to Christian and Jewish elected officials who routinely preside over killing in the name of "defense."

Exhibit A is the current occupant of the White House and his predecessor.

Here's another. Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon, and Mormons vehemently oppose gambling in all forms.

Yet in today's New York Times, we find that the largest single contributor to Romney's drive to become the next president is none other than billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson and his wife. The couple is into Romney's effort to the tune of $10 million.  (Note in passing to multi-millionaire Romney: Christian Scripture has a few things to say about the sins of of mammon. At the very least one's spouse ought not drive two Cadillacs when one will do.)

When it comes to Mormonism and gambling,  how does the devout Romney justify being supported by money gleaned at Las Vegas gambling casinos?

Seems like a fair enough question to ask in this presidential campaign.

Sadly, it is just one on a long list that underscores how politicians sell out principle for the money needed to attain power.

The practice obviously corrupts both political parties and our government. The Supreme Court has only made matters worse through its notorious Citizens United decision.

The problem is endemic in a political system ripe for demolition and massive reconstruction.

Self-evident truths?

This nation may have been founded on a false assumption. Namely that certain truths are self-evident.

Recently a friend asserted that no truths are self-evident. My jury is out on that one, but I did counter that Jefferson and the founders begged to differ. Of course they famously proclaimed that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are “inalienable rights” and are clearly “self-evident” truths.

Could Mr. Jefferson and his colleagues have been wrong?

Frankly, it would seem so.

One of the problems with sanctifying historical text is that we stop reading it critically. When the body rests on its knees, the mind turns to mush.

Consider, Mitt Romney, hardly an equal creation. Mr. Romney was created unequal. Consider his “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” It would seem that one's creation is how one get a clear shot two Harvard degrees, how one’s spouse gets not one but two Cadillacs and one’s garage houses so many vehicles they are stacked in tiers by car elevators.

And just how many houses does Mr. Romney own in this time of rampant homelessness and foreclosures? The last Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, had so many houses he literally lost count.

Inequality is how a Mr. Romney and a Senator McCain (and, to be bi-partisan, a John Kerry and a JFK) have  excellent shots at becoming president in post-revolutionary America.

Indeed the “self-evident” truth we live with today is that all of us are NOT created equal and we are NOT endowed by our Creator (or by anyone else) with certain inalienable rights...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All you need to do is compare infant mortality in Sweden to infant mortality in Zimbabwe. Or compare the same statistics in Darien, Connecticut, with those in Yazoo City, Mississippi. And how does skin color correlate with imprisonment and the death penalty? How is the equality of genders doing in Saudi Arabia or dozens of other countries? It took nearly 150 years after Jefferson penned his words for women to win their struggle for the right to vote in this country.

Perhaps the founders, many of whom owned slaves, were being aspirational. If so, we have a long, long way to go to fulfill their aspirations. The government they instituted hardly treated slaves and Native-Americans as if they were “created equal.”

If you take a longer view, I suppose you could argue that we have made some progress, but of late our government has been backsliding badly. If you want to be created equally, try not to be created under the flight path of a US drone in Afghanistan, Somalia or Pakistan.

And, closer to home, the Supreme Court isn’t exactly treating us as equals under its Citizens’ United decision. Money, not people, rules our democracy.

So we need to turn to a real self-evident truth proclaimed by Mr. Jefferson and his revolutionary cohorts.

...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

It’s time, folks.

The "Them-Us" Republican Primary Campaigns

The political Right in this country has always had a Them-Us mentality. It relies heavily on “enemy making.”

Not surprisingly, this doesn’t sit well with “Them.”

As it turns out, “Them” just happens to be in a large majority in this country.

In contrast to the Right, that same majority knows in its heart of hearts that we are all in this together, folks (all beliefs, all races, all nationalities, all parties).

“Them-Us” is a zero-sum game.

What’s happening now in the Right wing-dominated Republican Party is that Mitt Romney is vulnerable to being portrayed as some demonized, alien “Them.” (Harvard, rich, privileged, problem-free, spineless, moderate, non-Fundamentalist Christian.)

In contrast, Rick Santorum matches the Right’s view of itself. Santorum fits the Right-wing Republican “us” simply by being everything that Romney isn’t.

Newt Gingrich, by the way, is so far off the charts that he’s neither “them” nor “us.”

The irony is that all the candidates of both parties are being bankrolled by the very rich, who are about as unlike any of us as they can be. Think: “one percent” without demonizing.

No matter who wins in November, some segment of the super-rich will call the shots.

The good news is that a few of hyper-rich understand that issues like ensuring economic justice, working for peace, and saving the environment will determine the health of their investment in the future.

Whether the view of these few prevails is another question. Financed by short-sighted, self-aggrandizing billionaires and corporations, a congressional coalition of Blue-Dog Democrats and Tea Party Republicans may hold the power. Power and personal riches seem to be the exclusive, shared goals of these politicians and their billionaire backers.

For now, these same Right-wing billionaires and corporate interests are bankrolling the televised rhetoric of the Republican presidential primaries. The commercial campaigns have nothing to do with issues that confront the nation...and the planet.

Instead, the television blitz of sound bites and spooky “visuals” is all about “Them-Us.” The effort is to define who is "Them" and who is "Us."

The approach will only produce a Republican nominee confronted by enemies of his own making.

Be assured that “Them” will be voting in November.

Tax inequity, thy name is Mitt Romney

The Occupy Movement can take political credit for Mitt Romney’s unpopularity with large numbers of voting Republicans.

Romney, whose worth is put at some $250 million, not only is, but acts like, a One Per-center.

No need to list his “Let them land in the safety net” gaffes, starting with his proffering a $10,000 bet (ironically to Rick Santorum, now his resurgent challenger.)

Most recently Romney shared that he’s not worried about the poor because the “safety net” is working. The evidence that the net is full of holes stands at every freeway on-ramp where the homeless beg for handouts.

The lumpen on the Republican Right are understandably not amused. They are no longer besotted by the glories of capitalism. Imagine a conservative Republican attacking “vulture capitalism." The term comes from Santorum, Now he too is reliant on big money donors whose wealth resides in stock market dealing. One in particular is Foster Friess, who also mixes Christian "prosperity" evangelism in with his political support.

Curiously, the term "vulture capitalism" might have come right out of the Occupy lexicon.

Populist Republicans may also be catching on that there’s a connection between over-the-top wealth and controlling the government. What we have, it has been noted, is socialism by and for the rich.

(Many of us maintain that’s true no matter which party is in power.)

The political press has woefully failed to scratch the surface with Romney regarding his views on taxation. The press seems happy to transcribe Romney's self-righteously saying, “I paid what I owed and not a cent more.” He paid at a federal tax rate of 13.9 percent last year.

Has he ever been asked whether what he paid was fair? Never mind its legality. As president would he push to change the tax code to get rid of the inequities that have served him so well and the rest of us unfairly?

And if not, why not?

Those are questions Left and Right can agree need to be asked — and answered.

Romney needs to be reminded that for every cent of taxes he doesn’t pay under the current “legal” system, someone else (you? me? The average voter?) legally must.

No wonder this guy is in trouble politically. If anything he owes us. The gall of asking for our votes!

And who is supporting him? The “establishment” Republican One Percent through their secret mega-campaign PACs. Wonder why....

Before the next primary, and certainly before the Republican convention, reporters must put the tax reform question to Romney. The largest possible audience should hear his answer.

Voters of all persuasions are getting to know this issue well, thanks to the Occupy movement.

Now it has become personified. Its name is Mitt Romney.

Republican Riddle

Help me out here.

Republicans want to cut taxes.

Now we learn that multi-millionaire Mitt Romney pays a paltry 15 percent in taxes.

You’d think this would be cause for celebration among Republicans. Nice going, Mitt!

But oh, no, his opponents in the Republican presidential nomination mud bath are lobbing clods at him for not “paying his fair share.”

Isn’t that what the Occupy Movement has been saying for months? The rich aren’t paying their fair share. (Mitt, by the way, has an estimated net worth of $250 million.)

Could GOP candidates Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul be closet Occupiers?

The answer, of course, is — only if it is to their political advantage as they exploit the latest one-day scandal in this bizarre contest.

Has anyone asked Romney what he thinks of his low tax rate? Does he think it’s fair?

Why aren't all the GOP presidential candidates driven to the edge of GOP blasphemy with the question: Should Romney and other exceedingly rich Americans pay more?

Congressional Republicans have been rock-solid, vocal opponents to raising taxes on the rich.

This much is certain: Romney can rightly say his tax rate is “perfectly legal” — thanks to the likes to legislators and ex-legislators like, you guessed it, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul.

So, Mitt, point your finger at the real culprits, your opponents, and say, “You made me and my tax accountants do it!”

For more on this subject, read “Perfectly Legal” by David Cay Johnston. It will make you weep.

Christian candidates?

I hope that at some point the Republican presidential candidates will realize that millions of Christians as well as those of other faiths deeply resent the verbal pillorying of those good and moral people who have chosen to have no religious belief.

The candidates, who loudly proclaim their Christianity, need to be reminded that Christ was very clear that love should be unconditional.

Indeed, we might well question whether candidates who ostracize and marginalize the non-religious are Christians at all.

I don’t say that to criticize them as much as to state a fact for them to consider.

They obviously don’t believe they are being hypocritical, but many of us believe they are — and we vote.

Voters should demand that these candidates, given their avowed adherence to Christ’s teachings, speak and act on them.

If doing so costs them the Republican presidential nomination, so be it.

Orwell, Laotse and Mitt Romney

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney began his speech on religion Thursday with these words: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

Let me see if I have this right. I get the last part. We need religious freedom.

But the first part of this Orwellian slogan doesn’t compute. You can’t be free if you are required to have religion as a condition of freedom. Moreover, religions have a long and painful history of quashing freedom. One could make a strong case that, if anything, religion, carried to the extreme, is enemy number one of freedom.

Romney’s statement “Freedom requires religion” is just another example of religion’s intolerance, and the intolerance of the religious.

American freedom – indeed the definition of all freedom — includes the freedom to NOT be religious.

Later in his speech Thursday, Romney told the American public that to be secular and non-religious is to establish “a new religion in America — the religion of secularism.”

But the term “religion of secularism” is clearly self-contradictory. It is literally non-sense. The non-religious, by definition, don’t establish religions — not a “religion of secularism” or any other kind or religion.

Mitt Romney would have better served his cause by remaining silent on religion and by pondering the words of Laotse: “The Way that can be spoken, is not the true Way.”