Tag: election

Biden’s Age: A Key Factor for Re-election

Biden’s Age: A Key Factor for Re-election

The 2024 presidential election is approaching, and a crucial question emerges: is President Biden too old to run for re-election? Despite his accomplishments and the Democrats’ strong showing in the midterms, concerns about Biden’s age continue to surface. In fact, only 37% of Democrats want the incumbent to run for re-election, according to a recent Associated Press poll.

In focus groups conducted by Republican strategist Sarah Longwell, swing voters who shifted from Trump to Biden expressed their worries about the President’s age. Longwell notes that these concerns arise unprompted. At 80 years old, Biden would be 82 at the start of a second term and 86 at its end.

Biden’s age has long been a target for his political opponents. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential campaign kick-off speech called for “mandatory mental competency tests” for candidates over 75. Nevertheless, the President’s response to these concerns is, “Watch me.” White House communications director Kate Bedingfield believes that Biden’s experience and wisdom bring stability and strong leadership to a volatile world.

While President Biden’s annual physical revealed that he is fit for duty, concerns about his cognitive functioning persist. S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, acknowledges that the age question is “absolutely” a fair one. Risks are high for something going wrong in that age range.

However, Biden’s team views the next election as a choice rather than a referendum. They believe that Biden voters worried about age will be more concerned about the return of Trump or Trumpism than Biden’s advanced years. Even in Sarah Longwell’s focus group, all nine participants raised their hand for Biden when asked who they would support in a potential Biden-Trump rematch.

Despite the President’s healthy physical state and the potential for a stable and experienced leader, the age factor remains a critical consideration for Biden’s re-election campaign. As the 2024 race heats, the question of how old is too old for a president will undoubtedly continue to shape the political landscape. In the end, it will be up to the voters to decide if Biden’s age is a concern that outweighs the alternative.

Congressman Chabot: Do Not Vote To Overturn The Decision By The States

Congressman Chabot: Do Not Vote To Overturn The Decision By The States

An open note to my Congressman Rep. Steve Chabot.

2020 was the first year that I have ever voted for you in your entire career. I didn’t vote for you because I admire you (I don’t), I simply voted for you because your Democratic opponent refused to not vote for Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House. Don’t make me your political enemy in 2022 by trying to overturn the essence of federalism and the power of the individual states in their Constitutional role of checks and balances in the selection of our POTUS.

Efforts to reject the votes of the Electoral College and sow doubt about Joe Biden’s victory (whom I did not vote for and do not think will be a good POTUS) strike at the foundation of our republic. It is difficult to conceive of a more anti-democratic and anti-conservative act than a federal intervention to overturn the results of state-certified elections and disenfranchise millions of Americans. The fact that this effort will fail does not mean it will not do significant damage to American democracy.

I promise that if you vote to not accept the state’s electoral votes, I will actively support your strongest opponent in 2022 and will work to make sure you do not win re-election.

Mr. Biden will be a very poor POTUS, but he won this election. It is now your job to keep him in check using the prescribed Constitutional powers and to recruit and groom a qualified replacement in 2024. It is not your job to be at war with the decision of the various states.

Despite Citizens United fears, you cannot buy success with money

Despite Citizens United fears, you cannot buy success with money

A Bernie Sanders supporter called me last night

A Bernie Sanders supporter called me last night

I live in Ohio, so I wasn’t surprised that last night I received a call asking me to support a Presidential candidate. I was surprised that the candidate was Bernie Sanders.
I almost felt sorry for him but in the end, I did suggest that when he hung up that he should leave the volunteer center and go home and stop trying to ruin America now that he had received a lesson in economics and voting record.

What I was most amazed at was that this young man thought that Bernie Sanders would “fix Wall Street.” I wasn’t surprised that the young man liked Bernie’s call for socialized healthcare and extremely high minimum wages. We discussed these topics for several minutes, and I explained economics to him, but it didn’t surprise me that the young man liked Bernie’s ideas – after all, who doesn’t want something for nothing! However, the uninformed young man didn’t realize that when it came to Wall Street, Bernie is quite simply lying when he says that he will “fix it” simply because the fixes that Bernie already supported CAUSED the financial crisis that has hurt so many people. In fact, I am simply amazed that any low to middle-income person in the US would want to support Mr. Sanders simply because his lack of judgment has hurt so many poor people already.

bernie sanders photoThe caller had no knowledge that Mr. Sanders actually voted FOR the legislation that ultimately caused the “too big to fail” banks and limited the regulation of financial derivatives (the Financial Services Modernization Act) that was passed under Bill Clinton. He was also completely uninformed that this massive bill that dramatically changed banking in the US was primarily supported by Democrats (and Mr. Sanders as an Independent) while the majority of the Republicans voted against it. That is correct, the party of those that will “fix Wall Street” are primarily the ones that “broke Wall Street”. For those that are keeping score, Republicans 58-131, Democrats 182-1, Independent (Sanders) 1-0.

The young man was also uninformed as to the second major contributor to the financial crisis of 2008. That was The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This act forced home loans to people that were very unlikely to pay back the loan. This created the bad loans which then the banks wanted to sell to get them off their books which caused the problems because of lack of control in the Sanders’ supported Financial Services Modernization Act. Mr. Sanders also voted for The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. In fact, so did 95% of the Democrat Congressman. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not as clean on this as 75% also supported this ill-fated bill.

In true transparency, Mr. Kasich was also serving at that time, and he voted for The Housing and Community Development Act and voted against the Financial Services Modernization Act. Mr. Cruz was too young to hold federal office. Mr. Rubio was too young to hold national office. Mr. Trump was not in public office and was probably dealing with his first of several bankruptcies which occurred at about this time. Ms. Clinton did not hold public office at that point, but was the First Lady and likely supported both bills as they were both signed by her husband, President Bill Clinton.

What is the lesson to be learned here? There are two. The first is that Bernie Sanders had a helping hand in creating the situation that caused the 2008 financial crisis so saying he can now fix it is a stretch of the imagination. The second lesson is that if you are going to call me to have me support your candidate, be prepared to have to defend the candidate with solid facts and reasoning otherwise it won’t be an enjoyable phone call for you (even though I will probably enjoy it immensely).

Photo by origamidon

First thoughts on the day after election

First thoughts on the day after election

The massive mid-term election of 2010 is now over. My phone won’t ring 25 times today with some computer imploring me to vote for one candidate over another. The signs that are all along the streets in my town can come down (hopefully the candidates come out and clean up their mess). Life can now go back to some sort of normal.

The Republicans evidently picked up approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives. They also made major increases in the Senate and that house appears to be split nearly 50/50 (the exact count probably won’t be known for a couple days as Alaska will probably take a while to count due to the write-in candidate).

What does this election mean? Does it mean that the 2-year era of liberalism is over? Does it mean that conservatism is the rule of the day? Does it mean that Barack Hussein Obama will lose in 2 years? Does it mean that the Republicans have a mandate to go ultra-conservative? Does it mean that the poor and down-trodden will need to look for their medicine in the trash cans of the homes of the wealthy? Does it mean that I have to give up drinking coffee and now drink tea?

What I am 100% confident in is that it doesn’t mean any of the above! It doesn’t mean that BHO is done. It doesn’t mean that all of healthcare should just go to the wealthiest. It doesn’t mean that we should now savage the environment.

I don’t think that the newly elected Republicans have a mandate at all except for the mandate to do a good job and figure out the best way to solve each individual problem regardless of party direction.

I think it means that Americans want a government that works. We want it to work rather slowly and deliberately. We want politicians that don’t act like politicians but rather act like leaders. We want compromise to be the rule of the day. We want our leaders to read, understand, and thoughtfully debate the bills that are before them. We don’t want to find out about what is in the bill after it is turned into law – we want our leaders to know what is in the bill before they make it a law.

We don’t want stagnation. If Boehner drives the government to a stall the way that Gingrich did, that would be a mistake.

Most of all, I think Americans don’t want to deal with the federal government. We don’t want our lives to be tied up with governing. Life is hard enough with births, jobs, bills, lousy bosses, teenagers, sickness, and death – we don’t want to worry about the feds as well. I think most Americans would be perfectly happy if government would just get out of our lives with the exception of keeping us safe, making sure the infrastructure works, and helping out with the truly disadvantaged. We will pay a reasonable tax for that as long as we think it is well managed.

I raise my coffee cup in a salute to the Tea Party activists for energizing America in making their point. That point, I believe, is that we want our legislators to pay attention to us, don’t tax us to death, and spend what you need but make sure what you buy is needed. 2 years ago, pundits were saying that the Republican party was dead, now the pundits need to say, “Listen to your constituents if you want to keep your job.” 

There is no such thing as a mandate to do radical things. Extremism is a bad position no matter which side of the scale you are on.

If the grown men and women in the federal government can’t get along better than a bunch of nursery school kids, then we will take away their ball and send a new bunch of children to Washington in 2 years.