Saturday, November 3, 2012

The Inmates Are Taking Over The Asylum: What The Republicans Don't Want You To Know About Their Candidates.

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.” – John Wooden

With the presidential election a mere four days away, I wanted to talk a little bit about the two men that the republican party have nominated as their candidates for the white house. Anyone who has read my blog, followed me on Facebook or Twitter, or talked to me for a few minutes, knows where I stand on issues and what I think of the Republican Party. They know how I feel about this election and what it means if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ascend to the white house for, seniors, disabled, veterans, sick, dying, gay, women, minorities, etc. All the things these two assholes are not.

I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life, I have seen republican and democratic governors come and go. I have seen the best and worst in both parties, and I like to think I know character. When I was a child, my grandfather instilled in me a set of core beliefs that I live by today.

“Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”

I didn't know then my grandfather was quoting William Shakespeare, in fact, I didn't even know he knew who the man was, or where the quote even came from. But it didn't matter to me, I was impressionable, and something about what he said meant everything to me. My grandfather was a man of unwavering principles, who truly believed that honesty was the best policy; integrity was worth more than gold, and charity was the true test of a man, how he treated others, and how he presented himself to the world.

Growing up, I never once saw my grandfather tell another man, he couldn't help him. I never once saw my grandfather deny another man anything he had, if he had it to give. It is one thing to say these things; it is truly something different to live by them. My grandfather my was hero growing up, and remains so today, because he was an example of how all of us should live.

Don’t get me wrong, he wasn't perfect; he made plenty of mistakes, and said some terrible things. But he was the kind of man who might call you every name in the book and five minutes later, give you a ride somewhere. Although I don’t think my grandmother knew, my grandfather supported several charities, even though he wasn't rich, he supported himself on an army retirement and social security. I once noticed him filling out one of those cards that come in the mail from the various charities, asking for a donation and he told me that he donated every month. I don’t remember which one it was, but it doesn't matter, because he believed that supporting something he believed in mattered, that giving a little money to a cause that needs it is worth more than that pack of cigarettes, or cup of coffee, or gallon of gas.

When I think of what “good people” is, its people like my grandfather that come to mind.

Throughout my youth, I believed that this ideology must be the way people live, that being good, is better than being bad. Reality, however has taught me something different. There are people out there who say one thing, and do another thing. There are people out there who lie at every opportunity. There are people who believe that it’s okay to steal from those who need it most, and give it to those who need it the least. There are people who believe that greed is good, and charity is bad; or only worth it if it’s tax-deductible. There are people who have too many things, too much money, and have traded the most important principles to have them.

There is value in having character, integrity, and morality: knowing that a man can be trusted to do the right thing, even if it’s unpopular, even when no one is watching him.

“Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”

I have a handful of friends in my life; they all know the kind of person I am. They trust that I do what I say, and always do what I think is right. They know that I will always be there to help them when they ask for it, and give them what I can, even to my own detriment.

I have never denied to anyone help, if it were asked for and truly needed. Although I have been poor all my life, I have always given to charity, and to anyone who needed a helping hand. Throughout my life I have been asked by many to “borrow” money, and have never once denied it to anyone asking, if they truly needed it, and even when I knew I would not get it back. I have never chosen to eat, while others starve around me. I have never woken up a single day in my life and thought to myself; today I only do for myself. I have never asked someone to do something that I am unwilling to do myself.  I have never taken pride in another person’s anguish. I have never profited on or from another person’s loss. I never cheated anyone out of something they deserved. I've never done a favor, expecting something in return. I've never taken money in exchange for a favor.

Over the last few years, I have become sicker as I age, corrupted in body, by the diseases that ail my wounded digestive system. I can see a future for which the prospect is a grim one, and although my future is writhe with some uncertainty, how I have lived thus far is not. I always told myself that I would never let it be said that I sat idly by, while others did not. My body has tried to corrupt my mind, it has made the very simple task of getting out of bed, terribly difficult at times, and thus most of my work now is done writing, and providing support that requires little excursion. I get sick every day; I get tired easy, and require rest more often than I am about. My diet, though I have tried to push through my ailment, consists of randomness, each with a random result. Even water, the essence of life, pains me sometimes, like a twisting dagger.

Mitt Romney wants everyone to believe that he was a wonderful governor that made Massachusetts a better place just for being here. Unfortunately, the truth just doesn't fit with his interpretation of events. So let’s talk about a few things the governor accomplished during his term in Massachusetts.

When the rest of the nation saw a surge in job growth, here is Massachusetts we dropped from 36th to 47th. In his first two years as governor, job wages dropped by 5%. While most states saw middle income growth, Massachusetts saw middle income decline. By the end of his term, Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts had lost more than 40,000 manufacturing jobs. While most governors increased funding to state economic development projects that would increase job growth, Mitt Romney cut more than $100 million dollars from the budget for such projects. Mitt Romney also touts how he wants to save jobs: He outsourced jobs in child support enforcement, food stamps, and unemployment insurance to India. And he vetoed a bill that would have prevented companies from doing just that to jobs in Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney has taken the Grover Norquist pledge of not raising taxes. Of course, he made a similar pledge, promising not to raise taxes on the middle class and small businesses of Massachusetts, when he asked for their vote. * Although it was my original intention to display the taxes and fees Mitt Romney created or increased as a governor, it was more than 70 pages, so instead they can be found in this PDF if you are interested in reading them. In his defense, some taxes I'm okay with, after all taxing cigarettes, alcohol, and polluters who dump waste, get no sympathy from me, but taxing a blind person for getting the blind status added to an ID, seems overly despicable, and utterly unforgivable.

Long-term debt increased by 16% in just four years, and when Mitt Romney left office Massachusetts had the highest debt per person in the nation. Over $2.6 billion in debt was added while Romney was governor.

And my most favorite whopper of them all. Education. Although Mitt Romney likes to tout how he is proud of the state of Massachusetts being number one in education while he was governor, let’s examine why this happened and how he did it.

During the 2002 election cycle, a ballot question was proposed to Massachusetts voters that involved an English immersion program. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, basically students, who are normally taught bilingually, are instead taught primarily or entirely in English. Although this seems like common sense, after all, as English is more dominant in the market place as a standard language, and the requirement to speak it is more lucrative, consider how difficult it must be for someone who speaks little to no English, suddenly forced to only speak it. Worse still, English immersion requires that the student be taught in English, and tested in English. If a person is not able to speak a language, testing them on it, will likely not yield impressive results.

So when Mitt Romney began testing all students across the state to evaluate how well Massachusetts was educating its students, one thing was clear, those who were literate in English would do quite well. Considering that Massachusetts has a well established and fairly large population of Hispanic people, it seems likely that testing all these students in English would not have a good outcome, and that’s just what Romney thought. So students were tested first to see how capable they would be in being tested, and those with an incapability to understand or function in English tests were ignored. Thus the results of such testing allowed only students who could actually read and write in English, tested. It’s pretty easy to score high on examinations when you do not even examine half your students.

So how will Massachusetts vote in this presidential election?

Turns out that as of writing this Mitt Romney is nearly thirty points down to Obama state-wide. So if you are truly interested in knowing how he is regarded in his home state, there’s your indicator.

I’d like to also talk a little about something that bugs me that Mr. Romney likes to assert: he’s a job creator. Now in some regard this isn't completely a lie, he has created jobs: In China. While Romney worked at Bain Capital his company helped create job-outsourcing, that’s right, before Bain Capital did it as a business model, it almost never occurred, for which now it has become a standard. When Mitt Romney stands at the podium and tells people how he was a business man, and knows what it takes to create jobs, he is being less than honest. For one, his job at Bain Capital had nothing to do with job creation, if jobs were created overseas, it was only because it saved money here, and that money went into the pockets of investors in Bain Capital, of which Mitt Romney is one.

Bain Capital is a private equity firm. So you have an idea what that means, in business terms equity means debt. Equity is defined as the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it. When a firm like Bain Capital purchases a business, it’s not with the idea that they will create jobs, and a thriving business, nor help the economy.  Its sole design is to make money, and here is how they do it.

Bain finds a business that is doing ok, maybe not making a tremendous amount of profit, but they are floating by and the company is solvent. Bain then borrows a large sum of money to purchase the business, using only a small percentage of their money. It’s a legal equivalency to how purchasers were able to buy homes with little to no money down, the reason the mortgage system collapsed. And much like the lenders lending money to home buyers, the interest rates are exorbitant. But that doesn't matter to Bain Capital, because upon purchasing the company’s assets, the debt which Bain has created in buying the company immediately becomes that of the company. If the debt gets repaid, or doesn't get repaid and the company becomes insolvent it doesn't matter because Bain still makes money. Bain is granted a fee for administration of debt, for which they created, and to pay investors back and make a huge profit, Bain eliminates all jobs that are not vital to keep the business solvent enough to make their money back.  What that means is that the business makes cuts that eliminate spending, which drive up profits, making money for investors, all while the debt remains, which when the company goes bankrupt becomes included in the bankruptcy filing. Of course, this is after Bain strips all remaining funds from the company, and ships whatever jobs remain overseas for more profit.

This is what Mitt Romney wants people to believe makes him a job creator.

For those of you who believe that this is not relevant, that Mitt Romney hasn't worked for Bain Capital in a long time, consider the fact that he is a shareholder. Consider the fact that he currently profits from what most people would consider amoral standards. Consider Freeport, Illinois.

Freeport is the home of a company called Sensata. Sensata is the lifeblood of the small town of Freeport bringing over 8 million dollars a year in revenue to that town. Sensata is responsible for manufacturing the sensors that go into automobiles. In 2006 Bain Capital purchased Sensata and began its predatory practices of gutting the company, which caused its company to produce record profits giving Bain shareholders a maximum profit, and now after four straight years of record profits, its jobs are being outsourced to China, and the company is being obliterated. All 170 workers in Freeport have lost their jobs, and were required to train their Chinese replacements.

And all the while, Mr. Romney talks about punishing China, and stopping job outsourcing, he holds shares in Bain Capital, that's right even now as Freeport loses its jobs to Chinese workers, Mitt Romney makes money from it.

Consider for a moment that Mr. Romney truly believes what he says, that the things he talks about are not lies; consider the 47 percent comment for just a moment.

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax; my role is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mr. Romney gave that speech to a room full of millionaires and billionaires, his base, his people, the people who support him with absolute certainty. Some have referred to this merely as political pandering; however I believe this to be an incorrect assertion. For one, pandering usually involves someone indulging those who are not part of their base, for example: Pandering to women or seniors in spite of your policies to the contrary. When Mitt Romney stands on a stage and tells a bunch of women he supports contraception, when his policies contradict that assertion that is political pandering because it is that group he must indulge to gain political votes. Standing on stage with a bunch of factory workers talking about creating jobs and securing a future for them, is pandering because it contradicts his record as an outsourcer of American jobs. Second, a man has no reason to indulge his own base; he has no reason to entice those who have already imbibed the Kool-Aid. Those millionaires and billionaires are already voting for Romney, so although it would seem like a perfect opportunity to simply tell them what they want to hear, doing so has no real value, instead it is more likely that he would be honest, or as honest as a pathological liar can be in these types of situations.

Having said all that, he still lied, although not directly, as I’m sure it’s hard to remember every dishonest thing you have done throughout your life in any given situation.

It has been a long standing tradition that Presidential candidates release their tax returns for at least five years, most release ten years or more. When Mitt Romney was asked to release his tax returns he only released one year of tax returns. When questioned about it, he didn't consider it a big deal. Well normally I would agree, paying taxes seems like an irrelevant thing when you consider everything else in a campaign, however in this case it becomes something relevant.

Last month, an attorney who helped file tax documents for Romney asserted that although Mitt Romney paid 14 percent in federal income taxes, he actually qualified to pay much, much less. In fact, Romney’s advisers made the attorney work the numbers to get them to the 14 percent. Ok not a big deal I guess, except knowing Romney pays less in taxes than a low income family seems a little despicable, but that is a matter that should be dealt with by Congress and the IRS. The argument can be made that if everyone could pay a lower tax burden they would, and I grant you most Americans would. Although I find this is less likely to be reasoned by a wanting to not pay income tax and more likely an inequality in tax burden to income. That means, most Americans would pay more in taxes, if it meant they would make more money and take home more money.

So we cannot fault Mr. Romney for taking advantage of bad tax codes implemented by wealthy people in Congress looking to pay less in taxes, but even wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes, if you consider a fair share the burden the federal government has allowed them to pay.

This of course doesn't excuse the news that Mr. Romney didn't want to come out, and the reason why he has failed to release his tax documents further back than one year. In 1996, Mr. Romney established a trust with the Mormon Church that allows him to “borrow” tax exemption status on some of his income, a legal tax avoidance exemption that churches are granted for being churches. It should also be of no surprise that Mr. Romney has avoided paying taxes by establishing a trust in his children’s names that allows him to escape gift and estate taxes that would normally accrue. When you understand that the bulk of his income is held in the Cayman Islands, of which he pays no taxes on, and then he uses loopholes to escape those taxes he would pay in the United States, a picture begins to emerge of what kind of person Mitt Romney really is. When Mitt Romney didn't think it mattered, i.e. when he thought no one was paying attention, he paid no taxes for 15 years. When he believed it mattered, when he wanted to run for president, he offered up 14 percent of his income to the federal government as proof that he is a tax payer.

Mitt Romney is content in labeling 47 percent of the country as non-tax paying freeloaders who take no responsibility, but fails to see that he himself fits into this category. Now I don’t have to tell you that hypocrisy is standard practice among republicans, I think even the ignorant few convinced by Mr. Romney’s lies can admit he often etch-a-sketches, although I don’t know how they justify it.

In all fairness everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but when Romney goes on television during the primary season and tells viewers that “he doesn't concern himself with the poor,” and later in a moment when he thinks no one can hear him is heard saying, “I fucking hate the poor,” a pattern emerges. Isn't it the job of an American president to concern himself with the lives of all Americans? If through no fault of their own, someone is unequally condemned, isn't justice a concern a president should have?

What should be very clear is that Mitt Romney’s position is that he takes no position, that his ideology, his campaign, and his morals are plastic. He is content with the position that taking any side, means defining oneself. And Mitt Romney wants everyone to believe that about him, otherwise why would he not stick to a position? The problem is everything that comes from his mouth is rhetoric, and should be treated as such, and if we do that, and ignore the 47 percent comment we are left merely with records. So if we take away all the rhetoric and take his record at face value, we are still left with a problem. Because his record shows that he was an ineffectual governor, and plutocrat who has supported overwhelmingly bad legislation that is harmful to anyone who fails the litmus test of a fellow plutocrat.

What astonishes me about Mitt Romney is his inability to sell even a lousy agenda to the American people, a job for which he seems to have been born. A consummate salesman, it seems like if Mitt Romney would be good at anything it would be in stealing an election much like he stole the jobs of those employed by companies that Bain procured when he was in charge. But much like most sociopaths, he is concerned with the moment and how it will benefit him, and neglects to foresee future endeavors. If Mitt Romney could have foreseen a possibility where he might have to choose doing the right thing over the wrong thing, he might have done so, since ultimately it would have benefited him. But his utter lack of forethought has allowed those with a more genuine approach to rise above him at times, and use his utter lack of conscience against him.

You can always spot the liar. Lies pile up, they get repeated, and there is a cold tone in a bad lie. Genuine people need no practice, they are who they are, and it’s apparent when they speak. And unfortunately for Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan, their words always come off sounding like a prepared response to an inquisitive mind sensing deception.

Unfortunately, these two sociopaths having not practiced enough, knowing they might need to be under spotlight but maybe not such a big one, or never assuming they would be questioned, come off cold, and evasive. It’s hard work being a douchebag: lying, cheating, stealing, and all with a smile.

Paul Ryan is no stranger to demagoguery either. He reminds me of the character of Rumpelstiltskin from the television show Once Upon A Time, who convinces people of things that appear to be in their best interests, which of course secretly sway in favor of the character. I imagine Paul Ryan, like Rumpelstiltskin, cackles away when no one is looking, content in the deals and lies he has told.

Like Romney, Ryan is no stranger to controversy. In 2011, when he thought he was speaking to a base of voters at a town hall meeting, he was startled when a 71 year-old man rose and asked Mr. Ryan how he would be able to afford his medication if Ryan’s plans went into effect. As if at the ready for any encroachment, the man is promptly removed, tossed to the ground, subdued and arrested. To this Paul Ryan retorts, “I hope he’s taken his blood pressure medication,” with a snide little laugh.

In September 2011, during a parade in his own hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, Paul Ryan was approached by an unemployed constituent.

“So what should I have to work for to get a job? Should I have to work for the same wages as in China? Should I have to work for one dollar an hour?” The man asks.

Ryan in his gleefully snide way, with a little chuckle remarks:  “Have a nice day, alright? Would you like some candy?”

So, in a moment of pure candidness, Paul Ryan shows the kind of human being he is when asked about jobs from an unemployed constituent. He laughs in the man's face.

Remember these incidents folks. Raul Ryan wasn't running for vice-president, he wasn't in need of pandering; he was being candid because there was no value in not doing so.

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when (he thinks) no one is watching.”

It may seem that Mitt Romney is worse than Paul Ryan, but don’t be fooled. Although Mitt Romney’s record as governor has been less than stellar, he has no other voting record to fall back on, and so attacks against his character are mainly through what he says, and what he did when he operated Bain Capital, and the decisions he has made in his personal life. This is in stark contrast to Paul Ryan, who has made douchebaggery a public policy. His voting record as a member of Congress has been one of despotism. And now that he stands before a podium looking for your vote in this election, he wants you to ignore his record.

On issues of Abortion:

  • He’s said: Private & public life inseparable on faith & life issues. (Oct 2012)
  • He’s said: Judges shouldn't decide abortion; Congress should. (Oct 2012)
  • Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
  • Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
  • Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
  • Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
  • Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
  • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
  • Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
  • Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
  • Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
  • Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
  • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
  • Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
  • He’s wants: Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
  • He’s wants: Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
  • He’s wants: Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
  • He’s wants: Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)

On issues of economy:

  • Voted YES on terminating the Home Affordable mortgage Program. (Mar 2011)
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
  • Voted NO on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (Mar 2009)
  • Voted NO on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted NO on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
  • Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted NO on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
  • Voted NO on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
  • Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
  • He’s said: Road Map for America's Future: cut entitlement spending. (Jul 2009)

On issues of Civil Rights:

  • He’s said: Keep DADT; no gay adoption; no need for gay hate crime laws. (Aug 2012)
  • He’s said: Let each state separately define DOMA and marriage. (Jul 2004)
  • Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
  • Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
  • Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
  • Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
  • He’s said: Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
  • Rated 13% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
  • Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
  • Rated 36% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. (Dec 2006)

On issues of Education:

  • He’s said: Stop pushing God from the public realm & public schools. (Aug 2012)
  • Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program. (Mar 2011)
  • Voted NO on $40B for green public schools. (May 2009)
  • Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
  • Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
  • Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
  • Rated 8% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

On issues of Oil and Energy:

  • Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
  • Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
  • Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
  • Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
  • Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
  • Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
  • Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
  • Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
  • Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
  • Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
  • Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
  • Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)

On issues of Health Care:

  • Voted YES on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted YES on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008)
  • Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
  • Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
  • Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
  • Voted YES on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
  • Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
  • Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
  • Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
  • Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
  • Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
  • Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
  • Rated 11% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

From his record it should be easy to discern his character on the issues.

I. He’s anti-abortion, and believes government should impose laws prohibiting the right for a woman to make decisions about her own body.

II. On the economy he believes that banks should be deregulated, and protections for consumers should be obliterated.

III. He’s opposed to allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals, and believes that legislation that protects people from hate crimes is unnecessary. He also believes that states should have a right to decide if people who love one another be given the right to marry and granted all the protections guaranteed in doing so.

IV. He is okay with making the patriot act permanent  forever taking away some of your civil liberties, in favor of security, for which Ben Franklin warned: Those who would do such a thing, deserve neither.

V. He believes that religion and government are inseparable, in complete contradiction to the founder’s separation of church and state mandate.

VI. He believes teachers should be preaching in classrooms as much they educate, as if the two things are mutually inclusive. Prayer is not education. Religion is not education. Teaching alternative theory to reality in classrooms help to build a workforce of scientifically ignorant children who will always be behind the rest of the world.

VII. He believes that oil companies should be free of regulation, and that the EPA should be dismantled. He believes tax breaks and incentives for oil companies are ok, but not ok for renewable energy sources.

VIII. He believes Medicare, social security, and Medicaid budgets must be slashed. He has voted to obliterate programs that people depend on to survive. Let’s be serious, when you do remove the funding that supports a person’s ability to live, you effectively sentence them to death.

IX. Voted to protect big tobacco, by not regulating it as a drug, which even those addicted to it, know that it is.

X. He believes that people who suffer mental malady do not suffer equally to those with physical conditions.

XI. He has voted repeatedly to harmful legislation that affects the elderly, by voting to cuts in medicare, and prescription drug programs.

XII. Voted against the Affordable Care Act that now protects millions of people from being turned down by insurance companies for preexisting conditions, takes money away from insurance companies that is wastefully spent, and insures millions of children who might otherwise not be covered. 

He is pretty much part and parcel with the republican agenda, and his record showcases that quite well.

Now he wants to stand there and tell people that he cares about them, as if he is the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” But we know better, the man behind the curtain is his record, and the policies he has voted for.

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when (he thinks) no one is watching.”

Truer words might never be spoken. A politician isn't often challenged on his record, after all for members of congress; there are a lot of votes, and a lot of different bills to vote on. If no one is paying attention, it might be easy to take a position and stick to it, and no one might ever be the wiser for it. But when you run for President or Vice-President, everything you have ever done, said, or voted on is up for debate. Your life and how you have conducted yourself becomes as much a part of how a voter decides as much as any stump speech you may give.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” ― Mark Twain

Pages - Menu