Why Romney's Inauthenticity Will Doom Him to Defeat in November

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Fresh off of his Super Tuesday "victories," Mitt Romney was so desperately pleading his case that he was the inevitable winner of the Republican Presidential Primary, yet the results in Mississippi and Alabama reveal that the electorate is not ready to bestow that title upon him. While his wealth and political machinery may provide him the razor sharp edge he needs to pull it off, one thing has become painfully clear during these primaries-no one is enthused about him as a leader and even those who are voting for him are doing while holding their nose.

Even while outspending his opponents nearly 5 to 1 in Alabama and 2 to 1 in Mississippi why is a man who is physically attractive, established, successful, well educated and has a perfect pedigree for presidential politics so disdained by the public? Some pundits point to his flip-flop on key policies (or any policy for that matter), his never-ending string of public gaffes and his stiffness on the stump as the main culprits for his chilly reception. While these are legitimate observations they are the symptoms and not the cause.

The root of the issue for Romney, as it has been for all losing presidential candidates, is the failure to be oneself, which it is the quickest path to electoral defeat.

Predicting electoral success is often seen a cross between deep dives into political data on economic trends, public mood and approval ratings. As one who has studied and taught political leadership for more than 20 years, there is a much easier way to predict success-which candidate is being real? Who can go out day after day and be true to themselves (or at least more so than their opponent) in front of a variety of different audiences in a vast array of situations?

By simply looking at the presidential elections in the 21st Century, we find numerous examples of this phenomenon.

Bush v. Gore: Al Gore had everything going for him that a candidate could wish for, intelligence, experience and a successful double-term as Vice President for an albeit embattled, yet likable President Bill Clinton. The one thing he didn't have was confidence in who he was-no, he wasn't the exuberantly charismatic Clinton, and he was a knowledgeable, steady statesman with a vision of how to make government work more effectively. Unfortunately, Americans didn't see this in presidential candidate Gore. Instead one day he was the earth-tone clad "green" candidate, next he was the "Blackberry on the belt" techno candidate only to hit his lowest moment as the exasperated wonk who couldn't believe a dolt like George W. Bush could even be on stage with him in a debate. Like many Americans who also couldn't believe Gore would be beat by someone so inexperienced, they underestimated Bush's appeal in saying what he meant and meaning what he said. Government is too big, taxes should be lower and I am reformed sinner... while not exactly the qualifications most would list for America's chief executive, being rooted in who he was, was enough to win. (Postscript: for those who want to debate the recount, Supreme Court decision etc.-I agree Gore should have won AND in keeping with the logic of this article, there is no way this race should have come down to 528 votes.)
Bush v. Kerry: Need I say more?
Clinton v. Obama: In what could easily have been a glass-ceiling shattering, crowning achievement for a life-time of excellence in public service, Hillary Clinton had everything going for her to clinch the democratic nomination for president. With a seasoned political machine and the fundraising prowess of a political dynasty at her disposal, her intelligence, her eloquence on the stump and her tireless advocacy on behalf of women and children worldwide were merely icing on the cake. And yet, somehow, an inexperienced, unknown, African-American first-term Senator was able to yank victory right out from under her. Why? Two key decisions kept then-Senator Clinton from the Oval Office. First, while the junior Senator from New York representing the people most devastated by 9-11, she seemed to have no other choice than in voting to go to war in Iraq. That vote ran counter to her core beliefs, and at some level, the public knew it. It was that vote that allowed Obama to garner the attention of those who were mystified by the capitulation to Bush and his fear-mongering cabinet. Next, in a continuing nod to the belief that what America wanted was a "strong, decisive" leader who could take that 3:00 a.m. call, all the qualities that made Hillary Hillary went out the door. As her campaign tried fortify her strength, without recognizing the public knew she was as tough as nails, they failed to support her in being human, which was all the public wanted to see. In her, teary moment after losing the Iowa caucus the frustration overflowed, the public got a glimpsed of the real person and by that time, it was too little too late.
Obama v. McCain: No time in contemporary presidential politics has a candidate so captured the hopes, dreams and inspiration of our nation. From a compelling personal story to his history-making march as the nation's first African-American President Obama was Obama. McCain, however, veered from his maverick, and often bi-partisan style, to please the right-wing. In the end he came across as the much less sincere and fiery candidate than he has been at other times in his career.

While President Obama has failed to bring his dynamic vision for America to his governing, he remains a candidate who is comfortable in his own skin. Romney, on the other hand, has the resume and the skills to be useful to the country during this recession. It is unfortunate, that in his relentless pursuit of the office, he has so comprised who he is to assuage the far-right that there is nothing left but a caricature of himself.

So the challenge for Republicans is that they have a front-runner doomed to defeat in November. The current alternative, Rick Santorum is winning the hearts of many because he is so genuine on the stump-the challenge, however, is that who he really is so unpalatable to the mainstream he has no chance in November either. President Obama has to be the luckiest man alive... so perhaps being yourself in Presidential elections does have its rewards.

Kathleen Schafer is at the forefront of leadership development with more than 20 years experience. Grounded in the rough and tumble world of politics, experienced in business, honed in academia and broadened by her own journey to create a balanced life, she brings remarkable insights on how individuals can develop their leadership potential to successfully create productive and fulfilling lives. Kathleen's personal presence in one-on-one coaching, seminars, and keynote presentations transforms people's perspective on what they can accomplish and how to walk it in the real world everyday. Her leadership tools are simple, easy to understand allow you to quickly integrate them into your life, starting now!

If you are interested in creating change in your life, your organization or your community, please visit http://www.leadershipconnection.net/ for additional resources, podcasts, on-line courses, and tools to start your leadership journey today.

View the original article here

Tax Day Approaches - How The Buffett Rule Could Lead To Fundamental Tax Reform

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Tax day is approaching! If you haven't filed your taxes yet, you better do so quickly! In honor of tax day, I wanted to explain why we need fundamental tax reform to happen and what my plan for tax reform would look like.

Last week, I was asked to write an article comparing the Buffett Rule and the Romney Rule on PolicyMic. In that article I explained what the two rules were and why if I had to pick one, I would pick the Buffett Rule. Keep in mind the Buffett Rule is nothing more than Obama saving face trying to make the tax code seem more 'fair'. The Buffett Rule barely raises revenue because the effective tax rate of the top 1% is already close to 30%. All it does is make things look better. Well that is not all it does. In fact, the Buffett Rule does make fundamental changes to our current tax code.

The Buffett Rule does something fundamentally different from how we currently look at taxation. Instead of setting a marginal rate high and then allowing unlimited deductions to reduce your tax rate, the Buffett Rule sets a minimum tax rate regardless of deductions. In addition, the Buffett Rule treats income as income. That means investment income is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. These two changes are a drastic and fundamental change from our current system. The problem is it only affects people making over $1 million dollars a year.

My tax reform proposal builds on these fundamental changes, but applies it across the board. Under this proposal, there would be three tax brackets at 10%, 20%, and 35%. Deductions and tax credits would be reduced substantially, but some would remain. This system would allow deductions up to a maximum of 5% total of your total effective rate. That means at minimum, the effective tax brackets would be set at 5%, 15%, and 30%. No one would pay less than 5% in income taxes and the maximum anyone would pay is 35%. All income would be treated the same, so investment income will be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

The same system would be setup for corporate taxes. The corporate tax rate would be set between 15% and 20% with the same 5% cap for deductions. That would lower corporate taxes from 35% and substantially boost investment in this country. No longer could GE reduce their taxes to zero. They would at minimum pay 10% to 15% depending on where the corporate rate is set.

This overhaul would eliminate most deductions across the board to a degree in which the average amount of deductions most people and businesses would be able to claim would reduce their effective rate around the 2% to 3% range. People and businesses claiming enough deductions to reduce their effective tax rate by the maximum of 5% should be rare.

This proposal would simplify the tax code tremendously and lead to a boom in the economy. The system would be more transparent, easier to implement, and would appear more 'fair'. The simplification would lead to widespread investment in the economy and help us start to get out of the debt fiasco we are currently experiencing. This is what we need to happen to get us on the right track! We need fundamental tax reform now!

What do you think about this tax reform proposal? What about this proposal do you think will work and what do you think will not work?

David W Gray invites you to join The Political Zealot's community at http://thepoliticalzealot.com/ where we bring independent analysis of politics from a Millennial's point of view. Our goal at The Political Zealot is to strive to find ways to bridge the gaps of both sides of the political aisle and bring solutions to the table to solve the problems facing the nation today. Come join the community and post your comments at http://thepoliticalzealot.com/

View the original article here

Brokered Conventions: A Primer

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The 2012 presidential race, especially for the Republican Party, is looking unpredictable at almost every turn. Every primary and caucus is deciding a different winner, making people wonder who is the front runner to oppose Barack Obama for the presidency in November. Because of this, the question is asked: What will happen if none of the GOP candidates get enough votes for the nomination once the Republican National Convention happens? Will that mean a brokered convention, and what does that mean? Here's a quick explanation.

What are Brokered Conventions?

Brokered conventions are national conventions where all the delegates that have been won during the primary and caucus season for the various candidates haven't added up to a majority for a single candidate. In other words, during the first vote of the convention (called the first ballot), if a single candidate doesn't have the majority of delegates, then the convention is considered "brokered." What happens next is that the nomination will be decided through the delegates discussing changing their votes (often called a "smoke-filled room"), then casting re-votes. During this process, delegates who were once pledged to one candidate are free to re-cast their vote for another candidate in order to create a majority to vote for a nomination.

Recent Close Calls

With the emergence of new political influences in the past few decades - namely the 24 news cycle as well as the influence of movements like the Tea Party and Occupy - the idea of a deadlocked primary is still a strong possibility. In fact, in 2008, both the Republicans and Democrats almost saw their own brokered conventions happen. In the GOP, John McCain and Mitt Romney both won major primaries. If Romney had not dropped out of the race, the Republican Convention would have had to be brokered. For the Democrats, they were headed for a brokered show down between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama when Clinton conceded about 2 months before their convention.

Could a Brokered Convention Happen in 2012?

This year, while Barack Obama is clearly running for re-election, the Republican primary season looks to be setting itself up for a possibly brokered convention. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum have all won primaries so far, and none of them seem willing to step down quite yet. While the mainstream media does have an influence on the primaries - mainly in that the coverage may cause voters to jump on popular candidates' bandwagons - it is becoming more and more difficult to predict who may take the majority of the delegates' votes during their convention this summer.

The idea of a brokered convention seems almost like a foreign concept to American voters, mainly because one hasn't happened in recent memory. But with the influence of the media as well as a wider variety of candidates, it's entirely possible that a brokered convention could happen, even in 2012.

Manda L. Jamsey is a freelance writer who specializes in politics, political ads and the way the media and politics intertwines to act together. She believes that we all have the power to change democracy for the better.

View the original article here

The Health Nazis - "No Soup Kitchens for You!"

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

A few odd stories have surfaced in the news recently which caught my attention, all involving the feeding of the homeless. Evidently there is a movement underway by local governments to curb donations of food supplies to soup kitchens. At first I dismissed it as an obscure story, but when I saw it recur in different places including New York, Philadelphia, Dallas, Nashville, and elsewhere, I knew something was underfoot.

Local departments of health have become concerned about the dietary requirements of the homeless and want to control their salt, sugar, fat and fiber intake. Their analysis of the soup kitchens contends the homeless are not getting the proper nutrition and, consequently, the Health Nazis have passed legislation prohibiting food donations thereby forcing a lot of kitchens to close their doors and turn the homeless away from their establishments.

Charitable organizations who have historically provided free food to kitchens are stumped by the legislation, including churches, synagogues, scouting, and other groups. Government do-gooders think they know better and want to expand the Nanny state by dictating the food to be distributed. This of course represents another instance of government expanding into our lives. Inevitably, a new layer of bureaucracy will be created to oversee soup kitchen operations and provide the necessary food, all at the expense of the taxpayers. Frankly, the general public is perplexed why the government is getting involved in this matter as it was funded by donations by people who see it as their civic duty to help those less fortunate than themselves. Instead of thanking them for their contributions though, the government appears bent on complicating their lives by mandating how they will help. In other words, the homeless have become pawns in government expansion.

This caused me to wonder, if I go to a restaurant and offer a friend a bite of my sandwich, would I be in violation of the law? Probably as I didn't first check his socio-economic status and the nutritional content of the sandwich which undoubtedly will not be up to government code.

Frankly, this is another fine example of Parkinson's law in government whereby, "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." In other words, they are expanding their duties and responsibilities simply to look busy and responsible. In reality, they should just butt-out. The homeless probably eat better at the soup kitchens than before they were homeless.

All of this is just as ridiculous as another report I read from the United Kingdom whereby grade schools there have adopted programs prohibiting children from having best friends. Instead, they must all play together as a group. The intent is to prohibit the emotional distress of losing a friend in the event a child moves away or goes to another class. I understand a lot of English parents are becoming "emotionally distressed" themselves over the knuckleheads running the schools over there.

Don't you just love government sanctioned Socialism?

Tim Bryce is a writer and management consultant located in Palm Harbor, Florida.
http://www.timbryce.com/

He can be contacted at: timb001@phmainstreet.com
Copyright © 2012 Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

I Want a President for the People, The American Majority, The Average American

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

I want a president for the people, the American majority, and the average American. I want a president that will mandate clean non-polluted air, clean non-polluted water, and clean non-polluted soil. I want a president that will punish all who harm our mother earth and her inhabitants. I want a president that will allow all Americans to have quality, affordable health care, dental care, vision care, and long-term care controlled through local elected management through each county/township in each state, subject to bi-annual state audits and elected terms not to exceed 4 years. I want a president that will prosecute corporate thieves, and the corporations that steal from Americans, the employees and the retirees through slashing their health care, benefits, wages, work safety, and pension plans.

The American majority, the average American, employees, and retirees built America. I want a president that will prosecute any corporation and their management for outsourcing our American jobs. I want a president that will require all business, corporations including the wealthy to pay their share of taxes. I want a president that will assess monetary fines on all businesses and their management for evading job creation and tax evasion through outsourcing America. I want a president that will force jobs and not buckle under corporate greedy whiners that will spend more that it will cost for jobs to keep the American majority from a descent wage or even a job. I want a president that will work for working America, not corporations. I want a president that will mandate job creation with wages that can monetarily support the American family without strain. I want a president that will mandate safety in the workplace.

I want a president that will mandate a 40-hour workweek. I want a president that will support a healthier lifestyle by mandating the stressful work, physically or mentally to be averaged over many employees. I want a president that will mandate punishment of violent criminals. I want a president that will mandate that federal, state, local, judicial, and related municipalities not waste taxpayer's money on needless trials, and incarceration through non-violent citizens. I want a president that will mandate that no jurisdiction, federal, state, or local, can profit through any form of arrested citizens. I want a president that will uphold the American citizen's rights. I want a president that will mandate that federal, state, and local authority will have a voice in any decisive investigation through every federal, state, and local agency. I want a president that will mandate accountability for every politician, corporation, corporate executive, state agency, federal agency, local agencies, and municipalities. I want a president that will mandate that politicians, elected and appointed officials be held to the same drug and background checks that employers impose on their employees.

For every employee whose employer forbids them to "like", "not like" "state their political belief" or stand up for their rights: Find the courage to make sure you vote and encourage all of your family and friends to vote. Ask them to share the courage and encourage their friends, friends of friends, and family of those friends to do the same. There is strength in numbers. Please, help the numbers grow so we can make a difference!

Carla J Mattingly, President
EPP Corporation
PO Box 53
Decatur, IN. 46733
260-220-0071

View the original article here

When Is Our Next Treat - Domesticated Humans and Populist Presidents In America

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Well, once a socialist president gets into power regardless of the country, the chances of getting rid of him are quite difficult. Worse, in the case of the US, whoever his vice president is also has a chance of becoming president, simply by following the promises of his predecessor. Any time a socialist populist left leaning podium pushing politician wishes to get reelected, all he or she has to do is offer a treat to the domesticated human voter that he or she has created. Okay so, let's talk about this for second shall we?

If you want your dog to behave or follow your wishes, you can always provide them with a treat. What's the difference? I would submit to you that philosophically there is no difference, and politicians have learned to use doggie treats to keep themselves in power. Also the mindless masses are happy to get lazy and fat eating all those three treats which have been offered. In fact, the American voter seems to be willing to roll over and do tricks, and look the other way any time the politician makes a mistake.

After all, as long as they get free stuff, free treats, they are likely to continue to vote for said politician, as everyone wants a free stimulus package, just like domesticated animals like attention, and love to be petted. So, a socialist leader first promises the people that he or she will give them whatever they want. Once elected they try to figure out a way to deliver at least some of what they promised, explaining to the people that more will come later, as long as you keep me in power.

While doing this the politician continually blames the other party, and their political adversaries from preventing them from giving the people what they promised, and therefore it's not their fault. It's an interesting game, and it's been played over and over again, what I don't understand is why humans are so ignorant not to see that Santa Claus doesn't really exist. Nevertheless, it is amazing how easy it is to domesticat animals by giving them food, or food stamps, and other various treats.

It is also fascinating how helpless they become so quickly once they no longer have to think for themselves, and realize that all of their needs will be taken care of by merely wagging her tail, and voting for their master who promises to continue the flow of those treats. Congratulations America you've been domesticated by a socialist populist president, and you have bought it hook, line, and sinker. How does that make you feel? Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Philosophical Political Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

No Lokpal - Well, Boo Ourselves

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Yesterday, an utterly disgraceful event in the Rajya Sabha demonstrated how our politicians behave when there is no deterrent like Anna to fear for.

Anna's Mumbai fiasco has been a booster for the politicians, and they have started justifying their misdeeds fearlessly.

It was not an isolated event that took place yesterday. We have seen time and again how easily a few unruly members of parliament can create disruption and subvert the whole idea of democracy. The fact that a few men can cause havoc in the parliament and disrupt the proceedings makes us believe that parliamentary democracy is nothing, but a big farce. The most worrying thing is that this is not going to be just a one-off event. This has set a very bad precedent, and this is going to happen very often in the future.

The Congress Party, which is in minority in the Rajya Sabha failed to take into confidence its own allies on the Lokayukta issue and hence completely fixed the last hour proceeding by creating a ruckus along with RJD.

A television channel exposed this dramatic event much before it actually happened. Therefore instead of going for voting, they just organized a scripted drama and hushed up the proceedings thereafter.

Yesterday's event in the Rajya Sabha certainly forces us to think why we need people like Anna in our democratic setup.

On the flip side, Team Anna failed to mobilize people for their agitation in Mumbai, and the whole event was a damp squib. Why there was so much apathy towards the agitation is beyond my understanding.

Now the questions we need to ask ourselves are, firstly, do we need Anna to fight against corruption? Secondly, if this movement dies, what would be the nature of politics that we will see going forward?

The answers are YES, we need Anna and we should not let the movement die, as it would be catastrophic.

But in the meantime, do not feel bad or sad if any big scam comes to light in the future. Do not get frustrated to see Lalu Prasad Yadav judging Anna Hazare.

Those who feel Anna's campaign lacks popular support should also remember the famous quote of Albert Einstein, "What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right."

This issue of corruption is too big to get sidelined for a long time. Going forward, this issue is going to hog the limelight for many days to come.

Hello, my name is Rajendra Sureshchandra Kulkarni. I like to write about politics and current affairs. I wish to write on various interesting, serious or controversial issues that demand debate and analysis. Being apolitical, I strive to be unbiased and honest about what I write. Please pay visit to my website: rajendrak-hottopic.blogspot

View the original article here