Post-Election Blues

I never bought into some of the analyses that had Romney beating Obama.  It wasn't going to happen.  If anything, I am surprised the popular vote was that close.  I don't believe a lot of that crap going around about Romney being a liar any more than I believe Obama was born in Kenya.  I do wonder, however, if Romney has that same feeling George Bush Daddy had after losing to Clinton in '92.  It was something like, "It's not losing.  It's losing to someone like him [Clinton]."  (And, those who know me well enough realize I don't mind losing as much as to whom I lose.)

I understand why Obama won.  I still don't understand--and likely never will--why a large percentage of the voting population ever considered voting for him and, in fact, did.  It's as if we preach one thing, but lead completely different lives.  An example:  A couple of fellow teacher retirees', before the election, were jumping all over the Republicans.  (Remember, I am not a Republican!)  They kept harping on, "They taxed my pension!"  I asked each, perhaps not in so many words, but just as clearly, this:  Wait a minute!  You only pay 4% on less than 20% of your pension.  That's not burdensome.  And, people like you who think government is the solution to all the problems should be glad to give more tax money to find those solutions that government will provide.  In fact, I'd think you'd voluntarily pay taxes!  Of course, I got no responses and I expected none.  It's like the Obama voters; they want things, but other people should pay for them.

And someone who knows I don't like Obama sent me a pre-election e-mail with a link to "a list of Obama's achievements."  Two things:  one, he had achieved things, but they aren't desirable things; two, the link was to Obama's election Web site!

I know a lot of people have surmised the Republicans will be obstructionist again.  I know I kept hearing that in the last few weeks of the campaign.  Obama didn't accomplish all he intended because the Republicans didn't play ball.  Gee, isn't that what the opposition party is supposed to do--oppose?  I would say that, over the past several decades, the Republicans have more than compromised, more than reached across the aisle, were more than bi-partisan.  In fact, I could make an argument that they sold out!

Of course, that's me.  As Karen has always said, I could never be a school administrator because I "would never play the games."  That is, I wouldn't sell my soul or cave in on my princples.  If something is wrong, it's wrong.  (But an old dog can learn new tricks.  I read a good article about global warming today.  It wasn't an alarmist screed, but a reasonable argument that I didn't agree with at first, but it is winning me over.)

How interesting that the "reindeer farmer" is now in the US House.  Except, he's no longer the "reindeer farmer."  Now he's portrayed as Santa Claus because he dresses up as Santa for the holidays.  Now there's a bad thing!  I was sent an e-mail by a former teacher and Dem who worked for Santa's opponent; it had a link to an article in which Santa's brother called Santa "conniving and dishonest."  An establishment Republican sent me the same article.  First, where was this brother a few months ago.  This reporter couldn't find him then, but could five days before the election?  Second, what better qualities for a seat in our current Congress than "conniving and dishonest?"  if true, he'll fit right in and, in fact, might have a head start on other freshmen.  I had wavered in voting for Santa, but after these scurrilous e-mails, I voted for him.

I also changed my mind on Proposition 2, although I am, in principle, opposed to changing the state constitution to remedy matters than are legislative in nature.  But the radio ads were so dishonest, even by today's standards, I changed my mind and voted against the principle.  C'mon, if the Prop passed "child molesters will be in your child's classroom?"  If it passed, "adult drug dealers will deal drugs to your children?"  And I sent the group responsible an e-mail noting that their ads changed my mind on voting, just not the way they wanted.  How despicable!

And I voting against my general principle, too, on Prop 5.  This would have required a 2/3 vote of each state house to raise taxes.  Again, I am opposed to this, except today's politicians can't be trusted.  They spend, spend, spend, even if they promise not to spend.  Gee, isn't that "conniving and dishonest?"  Nah, it's like wanting gov't stuff from the other guy. 

Similarly, a Cal guy who makes well over $250,000 a year voted against the Prop there that would have increased state taxes on such high incomes (more than $250,000) from 10% to 13%.  That's fine.  I would have opposed it, too.  Except this guy is one who wants gov't to fix everything.  Of course now it's plain.  He wants gov't to fix it with someone else's money!

Out to get the kids from school....