The SoapBoxers

Mitt Romney can’t lose.  President Obama won’t let him.

A person once asked on Facebook “Does the presidential debate make a difference?” At first I thought about Regan’s debates. He didn’t just impress the People, he connected with them. His ideas resonated with the audience. His humor even garnered laughs from his opponent. President Reagan was likable, presidential, and his ideas became our ideas. I think the vast majority agreed the government wasn’t the solution it was the problem. His one and only debate in 1980 possibly won the election for him. What got him reelected was his ideas worked. When Reagan ran for reelection the economy was turning around. People saw their lives improve, the Iranian hostages released, and no more gasoline rationing.

Mitt Romney has ideas not tag lines. The first debate Mitt Romney devastated his opponent. Mitt didn’t do this with general terms like hope or change. Change can mean anything and different people have different hopes. Romney did a wonderful job explaining why cutting taxes works. Romney did an excellent job explaining what reduces violence including gun violence. Romney connected with the People with ideas.

Mitt Romney was very specific. He was specific on the effect of taxes and economic behavior. He was specific on national defense. Romney was very specific on what policies and promises President Obama failed in. Romney’s ideas are measurable. Reducing permanently unemployed and unemployed is measureable. Not cutting spending on national defense is measureable. Reducing taxes and limiting deductions is measureable. All these ideas are attainable and relevant.

People notice the greatest economies are in states with oil and oil exploration like North Dakota and Texas. Romney’s ideas for energy independence are attainable and relevant. Green technology is not there yet. Romney’s ideas are time-bound. Green technology isn’t there yet, clean coal and clean oil production is.

S Specific

M Measurable

A Attainable

R Relevant

T Time-bound

Romney is SMART and smart. President Obama’s hope and change could mean anything to anyone. While this may have helped him get into office it hindered his ability to get reelected. People have wonderful imaginations which lead to great disappointment when their ideas of change are not achieved. Hope is quickly erased with every policy that don’t match their idea of change. Failing to be specific is a failure of leadership.

President Obama did do measurements correctly but when it’s not coupled to specifics it is useless. He promised that if we pass TARP we won’t see 9% unemployment. He wasn’t specific on how this was to be achieved. We know throwing money at a problem doesn’t fix it and it didn’t fix employment it made it worse. He promised green jobs and energy independence. He failed and added billions to the debt in the process. He promised to cut taxes but only provided 18 tax incentives and extensions. Every April I pay more taxes and the President’s so-called “tax-cuts” are not relevant to the working middle class.

The last debate on foreign policy should have been a slam dunk for Romney. The Libyan embassy attack was and continues to blow up in Obama’s face beyond any Lewinski scandal or Watergate cover-up. Romney could have gone on the attack with near impunity but he chose not to and played it safe. With what I consider only a fair performance Romney still gained in the polls.

President Obama is not time-bound and is asking for four more years to somehow find success with the same failed policies. President Obama’s attempts to impress have failed to connect with the People. President Obama has failed in every debate to sound presidential, SMART, and smart. Debates matter and President Obama did everything right to ensure a Romney win on November 6.

It seems that Republicans can’t keep putting their foot in their mouth about rape and abortion these days. The latest on their greatest hits album when it comes to this topic is from Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock. Yesterday during a debate with his Democratic opponent Rep. Joe Donnelly when the topic of abortion in the case of rape or incest Mourdock had this to say. “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Now, unlike Akin, who said his now infamous discussion on legitimate rape and magical lady parts on a local TV show, Mourdock said these comments during a senate race debate. Candidates actually prepare for debates, you knew this topic was bound to come up. So the excuse of not being prepared for the topic to come up and misspeaking is clearly not valid here. So what is the next line of action? Oh but of course, the my comments were taken out of context. No sir, your comments are being quoted fully and accurately and their meaning is quite clear. You said that you have struggled with this for a long time, you said that rape is horrible, but you said that the baby created out of that is God’s intent. So if you want to take what you said about this that even though it was horrible the rape itself must have been God’s intent. That’s just wrong – a fine argument for you to make is that every life is God’s gift, but that is not what you said. You said that your view was it was God’s intent. Just like Akin you got caught speaking your actual beliefs in public. Just fess up to it, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how moronically wrong it may be, but at least stand by what you really meant to say after you said it.

Now after the Akin comments were made you had conservative politicians trying to force him out of the race and the party even withdrew its financial backing. However conservative voters stuck with him after that, and that is why I feel that the Republican politicians are going to tread lightly on this, this is especially true for Romney. He is not going to want to outrage the hard conservative base that actually believes this crap on the eve of the election. In such a close race you need your base to turn out in mass effect, and as such it would be devastating if some of them decided to say cast their vote the way of say a Gary Johnson instead. Although I feel their hatred of President Obama would trump just about anything, but that is besides the point.

As I was saying, Romney is not going to want to upset the base at this late stage in the game, but it is a fine line to walk. He also needs to make sure he does not upset independent voters. So here we have Mittens walking on eggs. His campaign has released a statement saying the candidate does not share the views of Mourdock on this issue. Then again how are we to really know what Mitt Romney believes in, it changes so much, it is kind of like Kansas weather, but once again I am getting off topic. On the other hand though you have the campaign standing by the lone campaign ad for a Senate candidate featuring Mitt Romney himself in it that was debuted the day before the comments. Saying that Mourdock and his principles are still the best for the job. So as with everything else in this campaign, Romney is all over the place on what he actually stands for and believes in. Then again all he really cares about is being President and in the end that means that Obama will not have the job anymore and for them that is all that matters, even if their candidate actually believes in what they do after getting the job or not.

Well that is all from me this month. Not much need to do a Bad Nut of the Month as Mourdock clearly takes the prize, but if there was a second place it would be for Ann Coulter and her multiple tweets referring to the President as a retard and her mocking and ridicule of the deaths of Arlen Specter and George McGovern. We now stand just a mere dozen days until election day, so how do you think it is going to go? It is time to play some Fantasy Politics predictions. Now I think Obama will win the popular vote by a slim margin and will win the Electoral College 288-252. I also think that the Democrats will continue to control the Senate.

In some of the high profile races McCaskill will hold on to defeat Akin in Missouri, Mourdock who was in a tight race to begin with is going to lose to Donnelly in Indiana, Murphy will beat McMahon in Connecticut, Nelson is going to defeat Mack in Florida and I also think that Elizabeth Warren will take out Scott Brown in Massachusetts. On the house side things will be likely to look much the same I hate to say, as I see the Democrats getting probably just a net gain of a seat or two, three tops. One race involving one of my favorite people to rant about is going to be mighty close. In Minnesota’s 6th district former Presidential Candidate and three term Congresswoman Michele Bachman is in her tightest race yet and in a district that was fine tuned to her chances this time around to boot. Now while I am not going to come out and say that Bachman is going to lose to Jim Graves there, I am willing to bet that the margin of victory for either candidate will be from one to two percent. Well there you have some of my predictions laid out before you and you can play along to. I don’t have much to give out in the way of prizes, but feel free to post in the comments and we can have a little fantasy political prediction game going into election day

Shortly after the last debate, I starting seeing “Binders full of women” meme’s popping up all over my Facebook news feed. I didn’t understand where that phrase was coming from, and I had even watched the debate. And then, on the news, I saw the phrase that Mitt spoke. Again, I thought ‘So what’? He had a binder full of women who had worked for him.

After thinking about it, I realized, the liberals have got to have something to point and laugh at….distract everyone with. Because we all know Obama (and his supporters) don’t want to talk about his record. Who would? High unemployment, lower credit rating, soaring spending and the gigantic National debt. This is just another distraction from the left.

Honestly, I’d rather be in Mitt’s binder of women who work for/with him than in Obama’s binder of those on welfare list.

Women aren’t stupid, we get it. We make less than men (including in Obama’s administration). We’ve seen Obama’s idea/insult to women with his “Life of Julia” where a woman is dependent on the Government for everything and every stage in her life.

Thanks, Obama, but no thanks. I can take care of myself. I’m not distracted by the free birth control, the slamming the Conservatives claiming they’re the ones waging the “War on Woman” …I could go on and on.

To me it seems the only actual “War on Women” are those who are not yet born. What about those binders full of babies who were never given the chance to live?

Think about it. Don’t buy into their distractions. Let’s talk about the issues instead of birth control pills or binders.

The NRA, the National Rifle Association. It was formed in 1871 out of Union Civil War veterans in New York state, partly because Union small arms accuracy had been so atrocious during the war – it was rumored that for every 1000 shots fired, a Union soldier would hit once. According to their charter, they advocate for “the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States.”

The NRA has a widespread reputation for being a lobbying group as well, with members of Congress ranking it the most powerful lobbying organization in American politics. In 1980 the organization made their first endorsement of a presidential candidate, endorsing Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. I have zero problem with this, as one of Carter’s cabinet members was a very strong proponent of gun control, and this group seeks to uphold the second amendment – I.E. the organization was endorsing the candidate which had clearly demonstrated in the past to have values most similar with the NRA. In addition, the NRA has publicly stated that they will endorse an incumbent candidate every time in an area where both candidates are similar on their gun control and second amendment philosophies.

Recently in four “battleground” states, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, the NRA has starting airing an advertisement urging voters to defeat Barack Obama. President Obama, the incumbent (and remember how the NRA feels about incumbents) has generally left gun laws alone, and in fact is in favor more on the side of state and municipality rights over federal rights on gun control.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, actually signed into law an assault rifle ban while governor of Massachusetts. Not surprisingly, Mr. Romney has moved away from his tough stance on gun control – see my previous article for many more examples of issues where Mitt Romney has done a 180. In addition, Mr. Romney has previously said he was a full supporter of Massachusetts’ tough laws on gun control and said, “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”

So I’m curious, if President Obama has largely left existing gun laws intact, and in addition he legalized carrying concealed weapons in national parks and in checked luggage on Amtrak trains, why is the NRA endorsing Romney?   Even if they were identical in history, (because with Romney you can’t count what he’s done or said in the past, he’ll just contradict it) wouldn’t the NRA – according to their own policy – support President Obama in this case because he’s the incumbent? Paul Ryan – Romney’s own VP pick – said, “I don’t even think President Obama is proposing more gun laws.”

It’s sad to see that the NRA has moved beyond their historical and charter issues to become a purely political organization. If you’re really paying attention to the facts and you wanted to vote on 2nd amendment and gun control issues alone, Obama would be the choice in this case. President Obama has had plenty of chances to use public sentiment to push anti-gun control law: Gabby Giffords, the mass shooting in Aurora, and the Illinois mosque shooting, sadly just to name a few. He hasn’t, though. That leaves two reasons why they’ve endorsed Mitt Romney, either they’re buying into the right-wing hype with despite a lack of facts and are scared Obama is going to do something, or they’ve decided they’d rather disregard their purpose and just become a purely political organization.

Media bias has a long, sordid history.

I’ll never forget the famous black and white video of South Vietnamese Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a Vietcong militiaman. It was a silent movie but when NBC acquired it they added the sound of a gunshot for drama. Does anyone remember that that Vietcong murdered Loan’s whole family? Hmmm.

I’ll never forget CNN’s report on the AK47 years ago. The AK47 uses the 7.62×39 round. The weight and velocity of the bullet is very similar to the old .30-30. If you fire one 124 grain bullet at about 2,000 feet per second it has a fixed amount of energy (mass x velocity = energy). If you fire a second 124 grain at about 2,000 feet per second it will have the same energy. CNN however denied the laws of physics. Their report stated that the fully automatic version of the AK47 was more effective with more penetration. That is a lie.

I’ll never forget CNN’s report just the other year showing a Tea Party protestor who was legally caring a rifle in public. The image was zoomed in on the nicely dressed man to show clearly that the rifle was an AR15 variant. They reported that this person is a white supremacy supporter. When the same picture was shown not zoomed in, it was actually and nicely dressed black man and Tea Party supporter.

I’ll never forget CBS’s Dan Rather and the Killian documents. Who could forget that one? I can see why liberals want to pretend it never happened. Dan was certain President Bush, while serving in the Texas Air National Guard in the ‘60s, disobeyed orders but was given special treatment. The forgery was quickly identified by bloggers and experts. Dan and others lost their job and credibility.

There is a serious pattern of abuse by media. It is one thing to give commentary, like my articles, and another to present lies and half truths as facts. The Press has been described as the fourth pillar of the government which keeps the other three in check. The description has never been accurate but don’t tell that to Chris Matthews. The Media Research Center’s study shows that Governor Romney gets 13 times more coverage for his gaffes compared to President Obama. Aikin was nearly crucified for his legitimate rape comment but it’s not any different from Whoopi Goldberg’s comment of ‘it wasn’t rape rape’. I know Whoopi isn’t running for office but it reveals the double standard that exists. Aikin should have received the same grace as Whoopi.

Don’t you love it when the national news does a piece on Romney which shows his portrait for a second then plays 30sec of video of Obama! Familiarity earns trust and loyalty and they know it. My local news would report on the coming Obama events but only report on Romney after his events were over. Apparently they were called on it and for at least one day at each newscast they stated they will disclose Romney events also.

A couple of years ago on a local AM radio station Rush Limbaugh show would cut out at the most unusual times. The technical difficulty never happened during commercials or the less spectacular moments of the Rush Limbaugh show (every moment is spectacular but some are more so) always when Rush was about to make his point. I ran into an old friend after that and we started talking about it. He had made some phone calls that day of the technical difficulties. He was convinced the operator at the radio station did it intentionally. After my friend called and confronted them it stopped.

When was the last time you read legislation? I read the first 100 pages of Obamacare and wondered if the Democrats were channeling Karl Marx. Have you ever read the transcript of an Obama speech? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Do not trust CNN or CBS to deliver news. I don’t even give Foxnews enough credence to take them for their word. Always look for the full video, read the transcripts, read the legislation, and get the first hand information. Be a skeptic of everything. Shape your perspective and understanding of the world we live in with facts and not commentary. Don’t let anyone appeal to your emotions but be stoic, wise, and vote Republican this November. Trust me.

Every election cycle, we hear about swing states.  The majority of states are already decided long before election day – a heavy majority of voters on one side or the other makes it almost impossible for the opposing candidate to win that state’s electoral votes.  A handful of states can swuing either way, and ultimately determine the presidential election.

This time around, there is a lot of focus on “swing counties” – tightly contested counties within battleground states.  In some cases, the counties have voted for the winners in the vast majority of presidential elections for several decades.  The logic seems to be that focuses a lot of resources on these counties will ensure a candidate’s success in November.

This logic, of course, is utter crap.

Let’s use a sports example (just because I love sports).  Let’s take a person with average golf ability.  Not overly talented, but not an embarrassment, either.  I get this golfer a swing coach and have him practice for hours every day.  At the end of the year, the golfer has improved his score considerably.

Let’s spell out the analogy:

Is everyone still with us?

OK, the golfer used to be average.  That is, representative of a broader sample.  Now that the golfer is considerably better, one of two things can be true:

1. The population as a whole has improved to match our golfer
2. The golfer is no longer representative of the broader population

I’d bet that the second case is far more likely.  Want to bet against me?  I don’t blame you.  Why, then, do political strategists think that dumping lots of money into Swing county is going to make Swing State vote for the candidate?  What you’ve really accomplished is throwing off the natural dynamics of the county.  Where it once was evenly balanced and would ride the prevalent tide the state, it’s now in the middle of an active tug-of-war.  The result is that the “swing county” is going to become a worse predictor of the state as a whole – because it’s being exposed to stimuli that the entire state isn’t.  Basically, the control sample is being turned into the experimental sample.

There’s a lot of danger in placing too much emphasis on a small portion of the state.  While the presidential election is winner-take-all at the state level, that’s not the case at the local level.  There are no bonus points for winning a county.  If you win 49 states + DC by one vote each and get beaten by 5 million votes in one state, you’ll win an electoral landslide.  However, if you win 50 counties by one vote each and lose a single county by 500 votes, you lose the state.  Campaigns need to focus their efforts on the states where they can swing the outcome into their favor – not wasting money one states that are in the bag or ones that have no shot at.  But once a campaign is actively trying to win a state, every single vote counts the same.  Firing up an extra one hundred supporters in your stronghold or getting one hundred to crawl out of the woodwork in your opponent’s stomping ground – the votes count equal. 

We’re about six weeks away from election day, and the debates are just around the corner.  While the national polls show the race fairly tight, these polls are completely irrelevant.  A candidate gets the same number of electoral votes if he wins a state by one vote or by ten million.  Large margins may help the national polling numbers, but they don’t actually change the chance that the candidate will win.

For years. my go-to site has been Electoral-Vote.com.  The site operator is very clear about the fact that he’s liberal, but I like the way the data is presented.  The site correctly predicted 48 of the 50 states in 2008, missing only Indiana and Missouri.

At this point, Electoral-Vote.com shows Obama with 328 electoral votes, Romney with 206, and New Hampshire tied.  Romney is expected to lose Massachusetts (where he was governor) convincingly.  That’s not surprising, considering how liberal the state is.  He’s also polling well behind in Michigan, where his father was governor.  While I haven’t researched this in great detail, I’d have to think that winning a presidential election while losing two states where you have deep personal ties would be a historic achievement.  Generally, a candidate can count on his home state to cast their votes for him.

One of my favorite features of the site is the tipping point state chart.  Essentially, this ranks the state from the ones where Obama is doing best (DC and Hawaii) to the states where he is doing worst (Utah and Wyoming).  If you’re a Romney fan, you can read from the bottom up.  The chart lets you see how far down (or up) a candidate must go in order to win.  In order for Romney to win, he’d have to pick up the tied state of New Hampshire, as well as Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, and Ohio – all states where Obama leads.  While it’s true that some of Obama’s leads are within the margin of error, this doesn’t mean that the poll results are wrong – it just means there is a greater likelihood that they are wrong.  Unless there is a systemic error affecting polling in multiple states, a candidate leading by less than the margin or error in large number of states is very likely to win a majority of those states.

How can Romney win?

1. Explain Paul Ryan’s voucher system to senior citizens.  If seniors think that the Republicans are trying to take Medicare away, they could switch their votes or simply not vote at all.  Traditionally, this is a group that leans heavily Republican; it’s hard to imaging a Romney win that doesn’t include winning a majority of the senior vote.
2. Capitalize on Obama gaffes in the debates.  However, it’s important to strike a chord with independent voters, and not simply preach to the choir.  This minds finding cases where the broader population disagrees with an Obama sentiment and hammering away.
3. Getting out the vote.  A great way to overcoming a polling deficit is to simply get more of your party’s voters to the poll. 

Other news:

Senate

Tomorrow is the deadline for Todd Akin to petition a judge to remove his name from the ballot in the Missouri senate race.  If he does this (and the judge agrees) he would have to pay for ballots to be reprinted (possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars), but the Republicans would be able to put a different candidate on the ballot.  Claire McCaskill is comfortable head (although it’s not a blowout), and an Akin pullout would basically start with a clean slate.  I do wonder is McCaskill has been holding back a bit, in order to make Akin think he has a chance (rather than having him drop out and facing a stronger candidate).  Will McCaskill release the hounds on the 26th?

It appears that the Senate will add another independent to its ranks.  Former governor Angus King has a big lead over the Republican candidate.  Since King is expected to caucus with Democrats (although he has not publicly stated this), the Democrats are not supporting their party’s candidate, Cynthia Dill, for fear of splitting the vote between Dill and King and allowing the Republican to win.  Republican PACS have actually run ads in favor of Dill – trying to achieve just such a split.

Sandra Fluke speaks at the convention

Two weeks ago the Democrats held their Convention. The focus seemed to be auto bailouts, pandering to Unions, making fun of Republicans and, of course, free birth control. Please.

The issues that they should be focusing on important ones…our debt that is spiraling out of control, the unemployed and underemployed…you know, the REALLY important things.

I watched the Princess of the Democrat party, Sandra Fluke, discussing how her birth control should be paid for. I really wish she wouldn’t have used the collective “we” when referring to women because she didn’t represent me or my values.

Living in Iowa, I’ve seen all of the ads. The most pathetic one of all starts out, “It’s a scary time to be a woman.” Really? Because no one can find work? Oh, wait, you mean because Mitt Romney doesn’t believe that our tax dollars should go to a private “women’s health” business.

Look, ladies. Let’s think about this. It’s not scary just because you may have to pay a $9 co-pay on your birth control. I know that now, compared to 4 years ago, I spend more than $9 a month on the same amount of gas that I’d put in my minivan. I know that my grocery bill has increased more than $9 each trip for the same items.

Maybe it is a scary time to be a woman. I’m scared that some women are actually buying into this. But what makes my head spin is hearing the women on the left scream “My body, my choice” and yet, we’re expected to subsidize it? You can’t have it both ways. Either it is your body and you take care of it yourself, or it is not and you get free stuff.

I don’t want “free stuff” from the Government, because it’s not really free. Someone has paid for it. And I’d rather not be indebted to the Government for anything.

I prefer FREEDOM over free stuff.

Mitt Romney

Willard “Mitt” Romney came to be in Massachusetts in the late 70’s as an adviser to an intermediate level president in the LDS (Mormon) Church. Eventually he lead the Boston Stake, which included some 4000 members of the LDS. In the early 90’s he decided to give a try at politics, having been successful at business -with just a tiny bit of help from an extremely large sum of wealth left to him by his father. He changed his political affiliation from Independent in 1994 to Republican to run against Democrat Ted Kennedy, who while normally was extremely popular had recently endured some family embarrassment stemming from a court case.  In fact, Romney had voted in the Democratic Presidential Primary in 1992, the election year that would eventually see Bill Clinton become president. So in a two year span he went from voting for a Democrat in a Presidential Primary to registering as a Republican to run against a Kennedy. So strong were his convictions in his personal beliefs he told his brother, “I never want to run for something again unless I can win.”   Because front-runners always stick with their convictions.

While head of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics, Mr. Romney aggressively lobbied Congress for federal contribution of somewhere between $400 million and $600 million, plus an additional 1 billion dollars in infrastructure projects. While some have said this money was needed to “save” the Olympic Winter Games that year as it was having fiscal trouble, other reports have said the much of the funding was already set and Romney played the hero simply to propel himself into the public spotlight as a savior.  Regardless of his motives, I find it funny that a man who so aggressively asked for over a billion dollars of federal money in 2002 now wants to run the government under the guise of limiting federal spending and allowing private business to function without federal oversight. Every filthy rich business man wants government’s nose out of their business, but many seem to want government’s wallet in their business.

In 2002 Mitt’s “home” state of Massachusetts had an unpopular Republican governor plagued by personal scandals, and even those in the White House wanted the incumbent gone and Mitt Romney in.  After a bit of a see-saw campaign, Romney won the vote 50%-45% over State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien, and although he claims that he immediately faced a deficit of $3 billion, he conveniently overlooks the fact that the state was getting $1.3 billion from capital gains and an additional $500 million in federal grants. Once again, the current small-government Mitt used half a billion federal dollars in 2002/2003 to help fix problems in his state, and then act like he saved the day.  Things weren’t all bad for Massachusetts when Mitt was governor, Ted Kennedy’s dream of near-universal health care came true when in 2006 Romney signed into law “Romneycare.” One of the centerpieces of this law was the individual mandate – that all residents must have health insurance if financially able or face escalating tax increases. He was so proud of the individual mandate that he wrote in his book that it should be the centerpiece of national health care.  Yet on the campaign trail this year he’s called Obamacare’s mandate a tax, and has said the first thing he would do as President is grant waivers to ignore it.

I do not begrudge Mr. Romney his money, all current indications are that he made it legally, but we have a man who has continually changed his political stance to expedite his political career, and that’s simply not the person I want leading the country, despite all of the shortcomings of Barrack Obama. Please also note that what I wrote about here are just a few of the things Mitt has flip-flopped on, watch the last link in this article – it’s a very well-crafted video that pretty clearly shows – with context – how many issues Romney has done a 180 on.

The Irrelevancy of the Presidency to the People

In the beginning God created…………an imperfect union of the many states. Soon the confederacy of the United States of America gave way to a more perfect union. A republic was born with the intent to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” [sic] unto the People of the many states.

This republic did not alter or infringe on the states much. A common currency was introduced. A common defense was created. Treaties were negotiated by the Executive Branch and ratified by the Legislative Branch rather than individual treaties by the many states.

Today many people question the importance and purpose of the Electoral College. Obviously the States created the republic we refer to as the Federal Government or the United States of America. The States pick our ambassador to the world, the President of the Executive Branch of the United States of America. How States decide who their electoral votes go to is completely up to the States as laid out in their laws and constitutions. President General George Washington was elected with a majority of electoral votes but many states didn’t have a general election. Many states instead cast their electoral votes for General George Washington by consent of their state’s legislature.

As revealed in previous articles, the Legislative Branch is the predominant branch and the Executive Branch is tasked with executing law. What does the President of the Executive Branch of the United States have to do with individual Americans? Many observes, including the author of this article, say the president is irrelevant to the common US Citizen.

Article I of the US Constitution defines the role of the Legislative Branch. Spending and government programs are created by the Congress. Taxes, fees, and other monetary confiscations are levied or authorized by Congress. War, or authorization of hostilities as it has come to be called, is declared by Congress. Does the president have any powers over individuals that wasn’t first authorized by Congress? Article II of the US Constitution gives only executive power to the president. No authority in domestic matters is given to the president except by law first enacted by the Congress. What relevance does the president really have with the common US Citizen? Provided the president does follow and enforce laws, he/she has little relevance to the People. True power rests in the Congress.

Why should we care if the president grew up poor? Why should I care if Romney has servants? Does he have servants? If so, he’s probably created more jobs than President Obama! Do I care if he favors the rich, he can’t write law anyway. Do I care if the president favors the poor what more can he do that Congress hasn’t authorized? Nothing.

Some people say the president’s veto power is important. It didn’t mean much in 2007 when President Bush vetoed Democrat pork barrel spending. True power rests in Congress. A true republic would keep the presidency irrelevant as it was in the beginning our nation. A true republic would keep the predominant power in the Legislative Branch. Do we still have a republic? President Obama repeatedly stated, contrary to the US Constitution, that if the Congress doesn’t act he must act. President Obama is the most powerful and most relevant president ever. Is he still president or a dictator? We must elect a candidate that will follow law and begin the restoration of the proper irrelevancy to the presidency.