Review of the Mitt Romney Netflix Documentary

Last night I finally had the opportunity to take advantage of some of the insomnia that I've been experiencing as of late by watching the Netflix original documentary, "Mitt," which highlights the ups and downs of the Mitt Romney presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012.

The documentary, which chronicles the personal moments of the Romney circle, attempts to provide audiences with a "rare intimate look" into how Romney and his family balanced their political aspirations with their personal convictions.  We see Mitt and family kneeling together in prayer, thanking God for the blessings they have been given.  We see Mitt and family huddled together in various hotel rooms, critiquing speeches and preparing for debates.  We see Mitt and family dealing with the realities of lost campaigns.  In short, we see Mitt and family face the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

But the main point is this: we see MITT AND FAMILY!

If one thing is clear from this documentary, it is the fact that Mitt Romney is a family man.  For good or for bad, Mitt placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on what his family thought and felt about his running for president, along with their advise during the campaign.  There is a very real and genuine bond between family members that doesn't feel forced or simply for show.  The genuine love and devotion of the Romney family is, without question, the most striking aspect (at least for me) of this documentary.

Second only to his devotion to family, it is the authenticity of Mitt Romney the man that comes across most in this film.  The public image that is Mitt Romney is replete with examples of him as a "flip-flopper" and a "detached white man" who doesn't understand the needs of the masses. Whether or not you believe these stereotypes is irrelevant because what this documentary enforces is the fact that Mitt Romney really is who he says he is.  I was struck by the fact that Mitt's public character was, in many respects, identical to his private persona.  Love him or hate him, Mitt Romney seems to genuinely believe what he said during his campaigns.  To some, this will serve as proof that Romney is a man of good character; for others it is another reason to be glad he lost the election.

And though Mitt Romney seems to genuinely believe and stand by his moral and political opinions, he doesn't do so without a sense of reservation.  The documentary presents a number of occasions in which Mitt and family doubt their chances of winning, and even seem happy at the prospect of returning to "normal life."  On at least two occasions in the film, Mitt refers to himself as a "flawed candidate" who "cannot win."  In addition, Mitt and family seem to lack the killer mentality that is so necessary in a national campaign.  They do not support the "win at all costs" mentality and even seem mortified when they discover the back door dealings of other candidates (when former Florida Governor Charlie Crist breaks his word and endorses John McCain you see the Romney family's collective stomach begin to churn at the alleged betrayal).

The film also highlights the fact that Mitt Romney and family were both impressed and intimidated of Senator/President Barack Obama.  Time and time again, Romney comments on how Obama had "changed the game" and that he was "clearly a step ahead of everyone else."  When John McCain insists that the strategy to beating Obama would be to highlight his inexperience with foreign policy, Romney accurately decried such a strategy as a surefire way to lose.  During the 2012 campaign, Romney and family seem awestruck at the prospect of sharing the debate stage with the President, even though they sincerely believed that Obama's policies were bad for America.  

Through all of the campaigning, speeches, debates, etc., Mitt reveals a man who is torn between two worlds: his desire to serve his country in its highest office v. his desire to serve his family and his God. This introspective tug-o-war creates both confidence and hesitance for the Romney campaign. They detest Obama's politics but cannot help but admire and even be intimidated of the President. They see the problems within the GOP but cannot break free of them.  As a result, Mitt Romney finds himself in the middle of a war he cannot win.

The film concludes with the Romney family, huddled together in a hotel room, once again facing the realities of another lost campaign.  They do so with remarkable poise and even gratitude.  One can only wonder if a part of them was glad they had lost the election.  Mitt and Ann Romney then return home, together, refusing the aid of Secret Service agents.  The final scene also feels as though Mitt and Ann had never campaigned in the first place, as they sit next to one another in their living room, reflecting on what had transpired and on the uncertainty that lies ahead.

In short, the Netflix documentary, Mitt is unlikely to change anyone's opinion of the man.  If you loved him before, you will love him even more.  If you disliked Mitt during the campaign, you will probably find more reasons to continue disliking him.  But what the film does do is prove once and for all that Mitt Romney really is who he says he is.  Love him or hate him, Mitt Romney is not a pretender.  He's a genuine family man who loves his God, his country, his heritage and his posterity.  Mitt Romney was probably right when he called himself a "flawed candidate" but I believe he is also an honorable man, and this is coming from somebody who wasn't a fan of the "flawed candidate."

My final grade for Netflix's Mitt: B+.  It is worth the time to watch it.

Final Predictions for Tuesday's Election

After months of campaigning and speculation, after millions of dollars spent, after all the debates, commercials and bickering of pundits on both ends, the Presidential Election of 2012 is about to come to an end (thankfully!).  It has been a close race.  At times, Obama looked like he would sail easily into a second term.  But just when the race looked over before it started, Mitt Romney made a game of it and began to contend (and even lead) in a number of important states.  Bottom line: this has been a close and entertaining race for quite some time.  Both candidates have a decent shot of walking away with this thing.

With that being said, all good things must come to an end.  Come Tuesday, America will either have a new President-Elect, or will be looking forward to another four years with Barack Obama at the helm.  So, without further delay, here is my FINAL PREDICTION for Tuesday's presidential election:

***This is an hour-by-hour breakdown of how I believe the night will go.  All times are Eastern Standard Time***

-------------------------------------------------

7:00 p.m.:
Polls close in six states (Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont, and the first battleground state of the night: Virginia).  Five of the six states will be declared almost immediately, giving Romney the early lead.  Virginia will take a while before a winner is declared.  It will also be our earliest indication as to how the night might go.  In the end, I think Romney will win the state, but if he wins by more than a few percentage points it might be an indication that he could have a big night.  If, however, Obama wins Virginia, I think it might foreshadow bad news for the GOP. 

After the first hour, I have Romney leading 44-3, with Virginia still yet to be decided.  Too close to call.

7:30 p.m:
Polls close in three states (North Carolina, West Virginia, and the ALL IMPORTANT Ohio). West Virginia will be the only state to be called right after the polls close (for Romney).  North Carolina and Ohio will still be too close to call.  It will take a while before a winner is decided.

By 7:30, I still have Romney leading 49-3.  Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina still too close to call.

8:00 p.m.:
This is the hour when we will finally get a good idea of what things are going to look like.  Polls close in sixteen states, including the important swing states of Florida and New Hampshire, thereby giving us at least 1/3 of all the Electoral College map.  Romney will easily grab Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, while Obama finally takes his first "real" bite of the map, grabbing Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and (perhaps a bit late) Michigan.  Obviously, Florida and New Hampshire will be too close to call at this point.

At the close of the second hour, Romney still leads 130-107, with Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Ohio all too close to call.   

8:30 p.m.:
Polls close in Arkansas, adding to Romney's lead.  136-107 Romney at this point.

9:00 p.m.:
Polls close in 14 more states, including swing states Colorado and Wisconsin.  Romney snags Kansas, North and South Dakota, Arizona, Louisiana, and Wyoming, while Obama closes the gap by winning Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin (which may be a bit late). Colorado is still too close to call. 

At the end of hour three we have a virtual tie, Romney leading 170-169. (Or Romney 170-159 if Wisconsin is still too close to call -- but will eventually go for Obama in my opinion).

10:00 p.m.:
Polls close in six more states, including swing states Iowa and Nevada.  Romney easily takes Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, and Montana, while the President wins (albeit a little late) Nevada and Iowa (which also may be too close to call for at least a while). 

In addition, I believe that by 10:00 we will have Virginia and North Carolina declared for Mitt Romney, while Obama will claim New Hampshire.

We are late into the evening and Mitt Romney still leads 216-203.

11:00 p.m.:
The final states of the west close their polls, all going for Barack Obama.  California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii aren't even contests, and Barack Obama takes his first lead of the night, jumping ahead 263-216.

Key swing states: Florida, Ohio and Colorado are still too close to call, but it is getting close!

12:00 a.m.:
The final state (Alaska) closes its polls, giving Romney 3 more votes.  Obama still leads 263-219.

And finally, late into the evening, the three remaining and all-important swing states (Colorado, Florida and Ohio) are declared. Mitt Romney claims Florida, while Barack Obama takes Ohio and Colorado.  The night is over, and Barack Obama wins reelection, 290-248.

Interestingly enough, if we gave Mitt Romney Ohio, Barack Obama would still win (272-266).  In other words, if Mitt Romney is going to win, he better take some additional states earlier on in the evening (perhaps Wisconsin, Iowa or New Hampshire?).

There you have it.  It takes the whole night, but I am predicting that Barack Obama wins a second term in the White House.  He edges out Romney by 42 electoral votes (and an even closer popular vote).  It will be a close night, but unfortunately for Mitt, I don't see him coming out on top.  Maybe I will be wrong, but I think he has a tough road to the White House.  Close isn't enough.  But if he does win, it will be because Romney picks up a couple of additional key states.  Those key states, in order of importance (bold states I am predicting for Romney), are:

1.) Ohio
2.) Florida
3.) Colorado
4.) Virginia
5.) Wisconsin
6.) Iowa
7.) New Hampshire

Romney MUST pick up at least a couple of the states (not bolded) on this list. If he doesn't, Obama is virtually guaranteed the White House.  The easiest scenario: Romney wins Ohio and New Hampshire.  That would give him 270 exactly. 

In addition, I believe there are two states to watch that could serve as a "barometer" of sorts for how the night might go: Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  N.C. is likely to go for Romney (it is the most conservative of the swing states), but Obama carried it in 2008.  If Obama wins N.C., it could indicate that the night is likely to go his way big time.  Pennsylvania, on the other hand, could be a good indicator for Romney.  The state hasn't gone red in almost 25 years, but Romney has made things competitive there over the past couple of weeks.  If he were to somehow win (though unlikely) that would be a huge (death) blow to Obama.  But if he is even relatively close (within a couple of percentage points) it could mean that Romney will be a bigger competitor than previously thought.  Keep your eyes on those two states for sure.

So, with all of that said, enjoy election night!  There really is nothing like watching history unfold before your eyes!  And make no mistake, that is what Tuesday is all about.  Take it all in and enjoy it!   
And now...finally...NO MORE CAMPAIGN ADS!!!!!

At least for a little while.

50 days until CHRISTMAS!!!

A 269-269 Electoral Tie?!?

So ONCE AGAIN I have fallen off the blogging wagon and allowed yet another month to pass without posting any material.  To my millions (or perhaps 3-4) of readers I apologize.  Sometimes life gets a little busy.

With September's twilight and the dawn of Fall upon us, Americans all across this nation prepare for yet another election season that is sure to bring all of the drama, suspense and intrigue of elections past.  As predicted, we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and even my beloved homes state of Colorado are all still very much in the cross hairs of both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, who are making their final pleas to those few remaining undecided voters.  And since each of these states carry with them the few remaining and very precious Electoral College votes that may send their respective campaigns over the top, it is no wonder why both candidates are spending so much time and resources to win those votes.  Both parties know that each and every electoral vote counts, hence the haste in trying to acquire as many as possible in order to attain the magic number of 270.  The first one to the top of that mountain gets the White House!

But what happens if the election ends in an Electoral College tie? What happens if neither candidate reaches 270 but instead we have a 269-269 Electoral College tie?

Most Americans incorrectly assume that the popular vote would somehow determine the outcome, or that a second election would be held.  Makes sense, right?

WRONG!

The reality is that a 269-269 Electoral College tie could end up causing one helluva mess. 

It is the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides us with much of the script to this drama.  But instead of regurgitating the words of this amendment (which are somewhat confusing), let us instead take a look at the 2012 election and how a 269-269 tie might play out.

If on November 6th, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney end in an Electoral College stalemate, the first course of action will be to ensure the votes of the various state electorates.  This is a bit confusing so let me explain.  In the Electoral College system, each state is assigned a certain number of "electors" based on the state's population (Colorado, for example, has 9).  Each elector is essentially one vote out of a total possible 538.  In order to become president, a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes (the majority).  In most states, the winner of the popular vote wins the state's assigned electors.  So, if on November 6th Mitt Romney were to win Colorado's popular vote, he would be assigned all of Colorado's 9 Electoral College votes.  Seems simple enough, right?

Not quite.  The problem is that some states have laws that allow their electors to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of the popular vote.  Most states have created laws that prohibit an elector from changing his//her vote from the will of the people, but not all states.  In 1968, for example, one North Carolinian elector changed his vote from Richard Nixon to George Wallace, though the change had zero outcome on that election.  But if an election were to end in a tie (like we are assuming here with Obama and Romney) it is at least possible that one single electorate (one person) from a state without these laws could determine the presidency.  Crazy: yes.  Unlikely: yes.  Impossible: Nope.

With that said, it is highly doubtful that one elector would determine the outcome of the entire election.  What is more likely is that the 12th Amendment would come into play.  What the 12th Amendment states, in the event of an Electoral College tie, is that the new House of Representatives would convene on January 6th to cast their votes for the next President, while the Senate would determine the next vice President.  Now, most political analysts believe that the Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2012, while the Democrats will maintain the Senate.  For the sake of argument I am going to assume that both of these outcomes will take place on election day.  In consequence, it is therefore likely for us to assume that the House of Representatives would elect Mitt Romney as the next President, while the Senate would elect Joe Biden as vice President.  Simple partisan politics would determine the election, and we would be left with a Romney/Biden White House.

Except there is one small wrench in this whole equation.  In a normal situation, voting in the House of Representatives is done by giving each state representative one vote.  In the event of a 269-269 Electoral College tie, however, the voting is not representative-based but state-based.  In other words, California (which has 55 electoral votes, meaning 53 seats in the House) would not have 53 votes for the next president but rather 1 vote.  Let's put this into a practical example so it makes more sense:

If Obama and Romney end in a tie and the House ends up voting for the new president, all of California's 53 representatives would vote on who the state of California would support for President.  And since most of California's representatives are Democrats, it is logical to conclude that California would go for Obama.  With that said, Wyoming, which only has 1 representative in the House (a Republican), would also vote (likely Republican) and would have just as much say as California.  The size and representation of a state means nothing in this process.  One state: one vote. 

But here's the REALLY messy part:

Let us assume that Iowa goes for Mitt Romney in the General Election.  Iowa's representation in the House consists of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.  If Iowa's representatives had to vote in this scenario, would they go with the will of their people who had elected Romney?  Or would they stay loyal to their party and elect Obama, since they have the majority (3 Democrats)?  This type of scenario is present in at least 6 other states.

In addition, it is important to note here that if a state has an equal number of representatives, and their voting results in a tie, that state forfeits its vote on the next president.   

One more tidbit: if the vote in the House of Representatives ends in a tie (or gridlock), the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an interim, two-year president from their V.P. selection.  And since it is likely that the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate, we can logically say that in this scenario, Joe Biden would become the two-year interim President. 

But what if the Senate vote ended in a tie?  Well, as we all remember from Civics, 101, there is only one person who can cast the deciding vote in the event of a Senatorial tie: the vice President.  In other words, Joe Biden himself (the current V.P.) could, theoretically, vote for himself to become the next V.P. or (if it came to that) the next (and first) interim President of the United States.  That's right; Joe Biden (and an outside possibility of Paul Ryan) could, theoretically, become President of the United States if we have an Electoral College tie.  Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment, people.  Read it and weep. 

So how did we end up with a ridiculous system like this in the first place? We have our beloved Founding Fathers to thank for this nightmare. 

In the Presidential Election of 1800, incumbent John Adams squared off against his one-time friend turned foe, Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate receiving the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was able to barely edge out John Adams by winning 73 electoral votes to Adams' 65.  The problem, however, was that electors in those days had 2 votes instead of one.  As a result, the 73 electors for Jefferson also casted a second vote for party ally Aaron Burr, who also received 73 votes.  Originally Burr was propped up to become Jefferson's V.P. selection, and one of the electors was to withhold his vote from Burr, thereby giving Jefferson the win.  This did not happen, and Jefferson was forced into an unforeseen and uncomfortable standoff with his would-be vice President, Aaron Burr. 

Long story short, Jefferson's election to the presidency was eventually determined in the House but not without a long fight from Burr, who tried to take advantage of his accidental nomination.  It was only after months of  political negotiation that Jefferson supporters, championed by one Alexander Hamilton (who, strangely enough, disliked Jefferson but detested Burr even more), were able to garner enough votes to secure the nomination for Jefferson.  And to prevent such catastrophes from happening again, our wise Founding Fathers gave is the very messed up smorgasbord that is the 12th Amendment.  Hamilton and Burr went on to add further fuel to their already hot feud, which eventually culminated in their now infamous and, for Hamilton, deadly duel.  Jefferson went on to comple two terms and became immortalized as one of this nation's greatest presidents and statesmen. 

But none of that solves the current potential predicament that we face with each future presidential election.  The looming possibility of a 269-269 Electoral College tie brings with it the horrors of what would undoubtedly be the most bitter, divisive and ugly political dialogue since the Civil War.  Why we aren't proactive and choose to find a better solution is beyond me.  But, as a fan of uber-ridiculous political drama, I also must concede that a 269-269 tie would make for some great must see T.V.  The 12th Amendment helped to calm the political tensions of the late 18th/early 19th century.  Only time will tell if it ends up creating a new mess for us in the 21st century. 

My Take on Mitt Romney Choosing Paul Ryan for V.P.

This seemed like as good a time as any to get back into the blogging swing of things...

Today it appears that Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney will proclaim to the world that Paul Ryan is his choice for vice President. Let me first say that I'm not the political junkie I once was. For me, American politics has lost a lot of its former luster and interest. I've simply grown tired of the predictable script that both Democrats and Republicans (and even Independents) act out, and the unavoidable doomsday rhetoric that both pundits and the populace seem to embrace without even attempting to engage in the smallest measure of communal discourse. This now boring apocalyptic tug-o-war has worn me out to the point that I am forced to agree with the words of Winston Churchill, who aptly stated:

The best argument against a democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Amen. To be honest, I don't care who wins the 2012 election. Honestly. It means very little to me. Of course, you may think to yourself that my view is jaded or downright cynical and that's fine. I have no need to explain myself. I feel the way I feel and I am comfortable with it. With that said, I do offer up the following critique of Mr. Romney's selection, if for nothing more than to get back into the blogging flow, spark a meaningful discussion and illustrate that my disgust with American politics isn't based in ignorance, but rather on a healthy aversion to the lazy, boring and oftentimes stupid manner in which Americans (both on the left and the right) conduct their political affairs.

So, without further delay, here are my Paul Ryan pro’s and con’s:

Pros:

1.) “It’s the economy, stupid.” Romney’s decision to pick Paul Ryan reveals the fact that he has chosen to go all in with the message of austerity and deficit reduction. This is a strong message that does have large appeal with many voters, especially in the wake of America’s financial struggles. Ryan has been a passionate advocate for a dramatic reduction in spending, and his nomination to the V.P. signals that the Romney campaign intends to go full speed ahead with its message that President Obama’s economic policies have failed. This will be their singular message, and I believe they intend to ride this horse all the way to November.  All the eggs are officially in one basket.

2.) Paul Ryan will energize the conservative base. There is no doubt that the Tea Party crowd loves this guy. He’s a skilled hunter, a conservative “number cruncher,” a vocal opponent to all things Obama, a fitness buff and a die-hard Green Bay Paker’s fan. =)

3.) Paul Ryan could deliver some battleground states in the Great Lakes region. Aside from possibly swinging Wisconsin to the red, Romney’s decision to pick Paul Ryan reveals that he has decided bank on the Great Lakes region as a plausible road to the White House.  Can Ryan help to deliver Michigan? How might this pick help to influence neighboring battleground states like Iowa and Ohio? Hard to say, but it is clear that this is the region of the country that will become most important to the Romney/Ryan ticket.

4.) Youth and Energy.  Paul Ryan’s youth and energy will reinvigorate a race that has been sinking. Let’s face it; the Romney campaign has been losing steam and taking on water all summer. Romney simply isn’t the most appealing guy to average American voters. The same cannot be said for his younger and more energetic running mate...at least not yet. Paul Ryan has been known for his competitive streak, his high level of energy and his lack of fear when squaring off with more seasoned political opponents. Ryan is a fitness buff.  He's a P90X, Crossfit junkie. His energy level alone will invigorate this campaign.  Might this be the shot in the arm that the Romney camp needs?

Cons:

1.) Goodbye Florida. Choosing Paul Ryan has made it increasingly unlikely that Mitt Romney will carry arguably the most important swing state of the past 40 years. Though Ryan’s message of deficit reduction is quite popular with conservative voters, his quest to transform and cut Medicare is going to anger older voters. This may very well be the single biggest negative that Paul Ryan will bring to the Romney ticket. How they will convince a large and very important voting block (especially in Florida) is going to be one hell of a challenge.

2.) Women Voters. One of Romney’s biggest hurdles has been the gender gap. Simply put, Obama is destroying him when it comes to the ladies. And though picking Paul Ryan is going to please most conservative men, this doesn’t help him in any way with the growing divide he has with women.  Most "experts" were expecting Romney to pick somebody that would help in this area.  Paul Ryan doesn't seem to fit that bill.

3.) Lack of Experience. This almost always seems to be an issue with at least one of the vice Presidential candidates.  It is certainly true that Paul Ryan has emerged as a shining star for fiscal conservatives, but this is pretty much all Ryan can list on his resume. Paul Ryan has no experience outside of representing his district and has received few accolades for anything outside of the financial arena (and on this he is not popular with moderates and liberals). While Romney and Ryan will likely be very strong on issues relating to the economy, it is also just as likely that Obama and Biden will be dominant on any issues relating to foreign policy, defense, social issues, etc.

4.) A Mormon, a Catholic and Image Issues. Maybe I am making more of this than I should, but are Evangelical voters really going to get excited about a Mormon/Catholic ticket? I realize that Evangelical voters loved Rick Santorum (a Catholic as well) but there is a different feel when it comes to Ryan. Of course, Ryan isn't the religious zealot that Santorum is, and maybe this is a positive for Romney.  But are people going to worry about Roman popes and Utah prophets secretly getting involved with Washington politics? It’s not that crazy of a suggestion, as many voters have posed these concerns in the past. I’m not saying I share them, only that some voters do. In addition, I think that the Romney/Ryan ticket may have some image problems. Are voters really going to respond to a couple of private sector, business-loving White guys in expensive suits talking about money all day? Only time will tell.

Either way this plays out, I am intrigued by Romney’s choice. Paul Ryan is a bold selection, and for a man who has been anything but bold throughout his campaign, maybe the change will be good medicine for the Romney ticket. Most were expecting Romney to pick an “established” candidate; somebody who could possibly deliver Ohio (Rob Portman) or Florida (Marco Rubio), or even help bridge the gender gap (Condoleezza Rice), but Romney went another direction. As a result, this election is going to be about one big thing: THE ECONOMY!  The political battle lines have been very clearly drawn.  Romney/Ryan will be a ticket that presents itself as the embodiment of fiscal conservatism and smaller deficit spending that opposes all things Obama. Will the message resonate? Can Romney win without Florida? Can he overcome the gender gap?  I don’t know but I do think that 2012 will be closer than 2008.

As far as a V.P. pick goes, I have to tip my hat to Mitt Romney.  I think this was a smart political move. Sure, he could have picked a woman or somebody who could help with an important battleground state, but when you think of what you want from a vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan delivers.  Energize the base: check.  Capacity to deliver strong speeches on key divisive issues: check.  Ability to stand up against political opponents: check.  Help to make clear distinctions and alternatives to those of your opponent: check.  This was a smart move politically for Mitt Romney.  Paul Ryan is not the high risk, high reward pick...er...DEBACLE that Sarah Palin was for John McCain.  Does he have what it takes to step into the big, national arena? We're all about to find out.  Ryan is a smart and very politically savvy individual who has shown in the past that he has no fear of going toe-to-toe with Obama.  Paul Ryan is also a self-made, hard working figure with blue collar roots, who will help to alleviate at least some of the attention directed at Mitt Romney for being just another out of touch rich guy.   

But in the end, I still have to give the edge to President Barack Obama. Mitt Romney's general lack of appeal, coupled with his reputation as a flip-flopper, are major hurdles facing his campaign.  And a V.P. candidate, no matter how solid, can only do so much.  Romney still faces an uphill road.  Incumbents are, historically, hard to beat.  My prediction: Obama wins reelection by an Electoral College score of 298-240.

But hey, I’m still holding out hope for that elusive 269-269 tie, which would be an AWESOME mess! Oh, and it’s a future blog post that is coming up in a few weeks. What would happen in the event of a 269-269 tie?

Stay tuned.

Dear GOP: Thomas Paine Wouldn't Like You

Over at his excellent blog, historian J.L. Bell takes Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to task for a recent (and fake) quote he used during his Nevada Caucus speech. Here is the video:



This is a stirring quote and Romney supporters gobbled it up like there was no tomorrow. Only one problem: it's bogus. As J.L. Bell points out via Buzzfeed:

The quote is widely attributed to Paine online, but searching through his works [also easily done online] revealed that the quote doesn't appear in any of them. Fred Shapiro, editor of the authoritative Yale Book of Quotations published by Yale University Press, told BuzzFeed that "the notion that Thomas Paine said this is extremely ridiculous."

Apparently Mitt Romney got the message...kinda...sorta. A couple days after making the historical faux pas, Romney abandoned referencing Thomas Paine but not the quote:


Sorry, Governor. Thanks for trying. You still failed.

But in fairness to Governor Romney (and I personally have no problem with the man or his candidacy), this is not the first time that a GOP figure has misused Thomas Paine. I am reminded of a few years ago when radio nut-job Glenn Beck kept invoking the legacy of Thomas Paine to support his conservative talking points. Heck, Beck even went so far as to write a book entitled "Common Sense" (just like Paine's), which he claimed was written in part to honor one of his favorite revolutionary characters. Beck also invoked Thomas Paine on his television and radio programs on numerous occasions. For example:


Yes, it is fair to say that Glenn Beck once had a deep love affair with one Thomas Paine, and GOP activists surely gobbled up this bogus actor's intense portrayal of a modern day, Tea Party-loving Thomas Paine, who not only just happened to agree with everything they believe, but also presents himself as a creepy Dracula figure.

But, sadly, Glenn Beck has given up on Thomas Paine in recent years. Why is that, you ask? Because Beck eventually learned the painful truth that Thomas Paine had almost nothing in common with modern day conservatism. I guess this is what happens when you try to preach history at the same time that you are learning it. Things can get a bit messy, a lesson Glenn Beck has learned first-hand as he came to the realization that the REAL Thomas Paine stood for almost everything Beck hates. For example:

1.) Beck believes that America is a "Christian Nation" and that religion in America is under attack. Thomas Paine believed that religion was a fraud and a plague in society. As Paine stated, "The Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any” and " “We must be compelled to hold this doctrine to be false, and the old and new law called the Old and New Testament, to be impositions, fables and forgeries.”

2.) Beck believes that progressive taxation is unconstitutional and destructive of American society. Thomas Paine believed strongly in progressive taxation. Paine wanted estate taxes, land taxes, revenue taxes, taxes on the rich, etc.

3.) Beck believes that America was never meant to be a welfare nation. Thomas Paine believed that it was one of the duties of the new republic to provide welfare for the needy.

Thomas Paine also favored feminism, large government, government programs, animal rights, restrictions on religion, and a number of other things that Glenn Beck believes are "evil." In short, Thomas Paine and Glenn Beck are about as far apart from one another as you can get. Perhaps this is why Glenn Beck has moved on to hijacking and pretending to be a different founder these days?

So what is the deal with modern day conservatives invoking the legacy of arguably our most liberal founding father? Are they just stupid?

I believe it is because Thomas Paine is such a quotable founder and his rhetoric appeals to virtually everyone these days (as it did back in his day). Paine was a FANTASTIC writer. His words cut as deep to the 21st century reader as they did to the 18th century citizen. For this reason, Paine is a desirable man to have in your corner. But the fact remains that Thomas Paine was not supportive of the type of government/politics that Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck and most of today's GOP proclaim as gospel. And I am not criticizing those political views. There is much in modern day conservatism that I find valuable. With that said, this bizarre GOP love affair with all things Thomas Paine needs to stop. Thomas Paine was NOT a conservative, and I believe he would detest today's Republican candidates, windbag talk radio hosts and Tea Party protesters.

Sorry folks, Paine was an evil "progressive."