Updated -- Mid-Term Elections -- Not Just for Seniors Anymore!

Updated 10/18/2009

Should there be health care reform?

All parties agree that the answer is -- yes.
The health care reform will be “deficit neutral” and won’t bite into the profits of the health care industry. This last statement sounds fishy but if it can be done then more power to you.

The Democrats say Americans have been waiting too long for health care reform.
the Republicans say that law makers should slow down and do it, health care reform, right.
The dems accuse the Reps of just stalling to ruin any chances of reform and the Reps accuse the dems of willing to bankrupt the nation for the sake of a political victory.
Each political side on this issue have their extremists.

If a public option is not included in the final health care bill the democrats will feel they’ve lost. That is until the economy begins to turn around as a result of this new health care bill. If that happens the president is vendicated because that is what he has said would happen all along. When people get into new jobs or get their old jobs back and are spending their dollars on Chinese goods Americans will forget what all the fuss was about.

But what if the public option is not in the final bill and the economy does not create the jobs? The ghost of “public option” will haunt the 2010 midterm elections. The dems will point out that but for the exclusion of the public option the economy would have performed much better. The democrats will ask the country to send more democrats to the capital in order to get work down easier.

The Republicans will point to a rushed health care bill as the cause of a slow, jobless economy and ask the public to send more Republicans to Washington to reverse the damage caused by a democratically controlled congress.

No matter how you slice it folks, unless there are jobs, that pay well and make Americans happy, the 2010 elections will be an up hill climb for the democrats. Any politician who is thinking of keeping their job should concentrate on creating as many jobs as possible. Nothing new in that statement. right?

Well if Americans are currently saving their money there is nobody to buy Chinese goods.
So, the midterm elections are going to be very contentious and both parties are going to target young voters like never before in a mid-term election. The contest to win over Seniors will be just as ferocious.

For the Democrats:

A. voters will have to feel an economic difference in their lives, that is, by January of 2010
B. People will have to respond to the “new health care reform” positively.
C. The general public will have to have a positive outlook on the countries fiscal crisis by 2010.

For the Republicans:

A. The democrats must fail.
B. The failure must appear as if a result of the Democrats not listing to their advice.

If you think health care reform is an issue on the news these days, just wait until the mid-term fight for control of congress. If the Republicans can shake the appearance of the party of “No and I don’t have a better solution” they will pick up more seats than the democratic strategist predict.

The Democrats can avoid this problem but they are betting on the idea that ;

A. once health care reform is passed, people will relax and the issue will be in the past.

B. Once people appreciate their new health care, people with new health care will vote to keep the democrats in power.

So, use reconciliation! Why just threaten? The democrats have argued that those apposed to the public option are crazy and that their numbers are “artificial.” If that is the case then the Democrats should stop wasting time and use this option. If the Democrats insist that their health care reform bill will function as beautifully as they insist it will then they should pass the bill using reconciliation.

However, if by the 2010 election the effects of their health care bill is having a negative effect on the country then run the democrats out of Washington.

So, if we pass the health care reform using reconciliation, how can we measure it’s effects on the economy by the 2010 mid-term elections?

UPDATE --

What happens to democrats if by the 2012 elections soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What happens to the democrats if by 2012 the DOW is well above 10,000 and still no jobs?

What happens to the democrats by 2012 if health care reform does not appear to have delivered its promise of more bang for your buck?

Obama insisted that reforming health care would turn the economy, it was the first thing that needed to change before anything else was worked out, so, what happens to the democrats if by 2010 or 2012 health care reform appears to be a tax payor burden?

With any luck, by the 2012 election the benefits of a reformed health care will inspire voters to support the democratic ticket. A healthy economy and a healthy people will emerge by 2012 to vindicate the parties current political struggles. An easier victory for Obama than his first run for the White House.

It all hinges on jobs, good old fashioned or new fashioned jobs.

Good luck democrats

Rafael Buelna

President Obama, Governor Paterson and disability discrimination

President Obama is not a racist, he is just another able bodied man that exaggerates about how much they can stand looking at the disabled or their comfort level. My knowledge on this subject comes from personal experience and a little research. Consider that if Paterson does not run for governor the parties chances of winning will diminish despite what the current polling says. Paterson should drop the race argument, don't even bring it up anymore but pick up the disability argument, but quickly.

I know the able bodied readers are just about now getting mad but read me out for a moment.

Candidate Obama was fond of reminding America that just because he looked different, when compared to our pasts leaders, it didn’t mean he was not qualified to lead the country. Candidate Obama wanted Americans to see past physical difference, just like MLK Jr had asked years ago. Many political commentators wondered if Americans were ready for a “black president.” Candidate Obama insisted on running regardless of whether his decision could have hurt the parties chances of winning the election in 2008. The party and then America took a chance and voted Obama into the White House.

Now that President Obama is concerned about his own political destiny taking chances on “change” is no longer in fashion. After all how many disabled African-Americans are governors in the United States? Obama chose now Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor because he sought someone qualified that had empathy. President Obama wanted to give the spot to a group that has been traditionally under represented. Haven’t the disabled been traditionally under represented? An article in TIME “The Limits of Empathy for Sonia Sotomayor” discusses this point clearly.

I am now going to say something, nay, write something again that not many people across the country want to announce.

President Obama and the Democrats do not want N.Y Gov. David Paterson to run for governor because people, the general public, do not like looking at the disabled and the Obama administration is no different.

Here is my argument.

It’s not about race or poll numbers, Gov. Paterson is blind and people love to exaggerate their comfort with looking at him or at any disabled person for that matter. If you can view the sky, hear a bird, walk, talk, jump and do simple math at the same time your considered an “able-bodied” person. If your one of the few hero “able-bodied” people that can hang around people regardless of their disability then god-bless you but most people can not stand looking at or being near the disabled. Especially when high stake games like a governors office is concerned and the balance of congress.

Please continue to humor me, just consider how popular the SNL parody of Gov. Paterson is with the audience. In one particular skit the audience laughed because the “governor” can’t tell that a graph he is holding is actually up-side-down. In this skit the governor is being made fun of simply because he’s blind. Would SNL portray President Obama to appear incompetent because he was Africa-American? A continuous SNL barrage of skits aimed at laughing at disability for the sake at laughing at disability. The disabled can be made fun of but SNL crosses lines the Democrats would never accept if the President was being lampooned but just for being African-American. Defending against the SNL barrage has cost the Governor resources and weakened his poll numbers.

The Poll numbers Speak for themselves.

Read an article published in the NY Daily titled “New Yorkers prefer disgraced ex. Gov. Eliot Spitzer to David Paterson, Marist poll finds for the breakdown on how the pollsters are sizing up the 2010 election and to find out what people currently feel about Gov. Paterson’s chances at winning the election. It appears that in a little over a year the people of New York and the democratic leadership can properly evaluated their governor but not their president. Apparently we are suppose to believe that the people of New York and that states democrats can get inspired by Mario Cuomo to beat Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2010 but not for Gov. Paterson.

OK, so Mario Cuomo is also a well qualified candidate and a minority (Italian-America) but how is voting him into office anything but the status quo the President is asking us all not to accept these days? Maybe if the democratic leadership in Washington and the democrats of NY would have backed their governor a fraction of the amount of times they’ve backed the President the Poll numbers would be better for Gov. Paterson? The NY Democrats rather punish Gov. Paterson for not appointing Caroline Kennedy to the senate this last year. So the democrats and their money supply, insider knowledge and sympathetic news networks abandoned Gov. Paterson and are now surprised to see his poll numbers down even concerned that he may not win a 2010 election.

This punishment came down on the Gov. because he did not appoint to office a famous person with no prior experience to a public office. The democratic party punished Gov. Paterson regardless of what the effects of that punishment might have on the office of a fellow democrat. They did not take into consideration the good of the party when they decided to collectively shun the governor and start a wink campaign against any of his future attempts to run for the office. Where was the Presidents concerns for the party months ago when NY democrats began to slice away at Gov. Paterson? Instead of supporting him through fiscal and administrative issues they chastise their governor for not out performing President Obama.

No, Governor Paterson the president doesn’t want you to run but its not because your black nor your poll numbers its because your disabled and you frightened the good voters of NY; no offense Governor. Wasn’t there a “Seinfeld” episode about this issue with disability and in “Frasier” and one in “Curb Your Enthusiasm?” Those good democrats or informed progressives of NY that would support Mario Cuomo can not vote for Paterson. Why? Those democrats that would be disappointed because Gov. Paterson was on the ticket would rather give their vote to Rudolph W. Giuliani? Paterson is so bad, only after a year and a half, that Giuliani is a better person to run the state?

Is this the argument which the democratic leadership is really making?

Has the president come to the conclusion that, after reading reports and listening to advice, he feels that citizens of NY (because of ignorance or shallow souls) would prefer a Gov. Giuliani over a governor Paterson? This judgment made only after a short while because, after all, Paterson inherited the Bush economy while President Obama still has a two years leeway left. Can somebody explain that one please? How can New Yorkers hold the Governor responsible for not turning their economy around before the rest of the country?

Yes folks, Obama and the rest of the democratic leadership believes that when it comes to disability the status quo works. The party can not take a chance, like they did for Obama to experiment with supporting a disabled man for governor when a very important election seat is at stake.

The party will suffer if Paterson runs for governor and then the democrats decide to stand behind him with whole hearts. The Time to support him is now because any person that runs for Governor will ask why the democrats threw one of their own under the proverbial bus. Why did the democrats grade Paterson using a whole different set of criteria?


On September 21 the NY Times reported that the African-American leadership is trying to persuade Governor Paterson not to run because of the lack of excitement from the Obama administration towards a Candidate Paterson. Recently, in a 4-3 vote the court upheld Gov. Paterson's decision to appoicnt appoint a Lieutenant Governor which he had been criticized for attempting.

It seems that Democrats where wrong on that issue. Is there anything else they've been wrong about?
　
P.S
　
　
"There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford."

Nowadays people say “there for the grace of god go I.” In the United States the severely disabled (like the blind) receive welfare and are not expected to work. In fact in the minds of many people the disabled are excluded from any expectations of being active participants in society. Participating in society is an option for the disabled not a mandate. So, when a disabled person like, Gov. Paterson decides to step into a leadership role the general public has a problem manipulating their ideologies. For example:

A. If blind people get free money because they’re blind and don’t have to work how the hell is this guy going to sympathize with my able-bodied needs?

B. What the hell does this blind guy know about running a city that able-bodied people built?

C. Elections are important and experimenting with minority issues (disability issues) only threatens our parties results.

The polls are down for Gov. Paterson but that is true about other democrat governors around the country. What is not true about other governor races is that they are not all happening in New York and do not include a blind candidate. What is the real story behind Gov. Paterson’s low poll numbers? Are the poll numbers down because the performance of the governor has been hampered by New York’s sluggish democrats? Democrats that move as slow as molasses in the winter time to help their governor.

In a survey put together January 6, 2009 by the Public Policy Polling, Kennedy did not appear to be the strongest potential candidate in 2010. The results showed state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was leading Rep. Peter King, who still is the most likely Republican candidate, 48 percent to 29 percent while Kennedy’s numbers were 46 percent to King's 44 percent.
　
CNN reported that in August the White House was concerned about the polls and Gov. Paterson’s ability to win an election against Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2010. In July the poll numbers started to go down for Gov. Paterson.

The NY Times offered an article titled “Conceding Errors, Paterson Vows to Regain Trust” By DANNY HAKIM and CONFESSORE Published: February 22, 2009. In that article Gov. Paterson is critiqued but take a close look at the problems people have with Paterson. Issues with forming an administration, the state economy, which all sound like GOP critiques against President Obama. While the Democrats and other talking heads remind America that the Obama administration inherited a Bush economy the same reasoning does not work to shelter Gov. Paterson from Democratic criticism. That Obama is having difficulty filling key positions is reasoned away by the administration as part of the process but when Gov. Paterson has this problem its because of his ineptitude.

Gov. Paterson stated to the NY Times

“…the governor, who was abruptly elevated last March after Mr. Spitzer resigned in a prostitution scandal, also said he had taken the job in an unusually difficult period, and expressed confidence he could gain the trust of New Yorkers if he managed the state’s finances well.”

In other words, just like Obama, Paterson inherited a bad economy and people should be patient because it will take a while to turn around and improve. So, why do Democrats accept that President Obama can have nine months in office and not own the economy while Gov. Paterson must turn the economy of New York around?

Well folks, the disabled are a minority of sorts and they, like other minorities, must out perform all counterparts. Otherwise, why hire a disabled person for any job. This complaint, of having to out perform others or do twice the work, is common among Chicanos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other people. Read some of the information a cursory search on the web can pull out on this issue. At one particular web page called “Blogtalkradio” one particular blog post says it clearly titled “The Feminization of the African American Male.” Here is another article titled The Only One: Being Black in the White Working World By Camille Jackson, New Haven Advocate. Posted March 20, 2002.

Here is the voice of a Latina, Stephanie Valencia had to say from Las Cruces, NM at the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs, The White House CHCI Fellowship 2004-2005: Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee. Each one of these Americans have a common complaint that other minorities can relate to but somehow can not apply the reasoning to the disabled.

So keep convening yourselves that the reason that Governor Paterson is behind in the polls has to do with his ineptitude but your only fallowing for warped reasoning that will lead you into a warped future. Just because the democrats have supported a hand full of disabled candidates in the past doesn’t mean they’re above being shallow minded and short sighted.

Rafael Buelna