Month: December 2011

Federal budget made simple . . .

by asmwizard

This came to me on the internet.  Therefore, it is fair game, and I plagiarized it (stole it, for the word-challenged).  The numbers seem to be approximately those for late 2011.

True for Europe and US.

Lesson #1:

Why the U.S. was downgraded:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

* New debt added $ 1,650,000,000,000 

* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700

* Money the family spent: $38,200

* New debt on the credit card: $16,500

* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

* Total budget cuts: $385

Got It ?????

OK now Lesson # 2:

Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling: Let’s say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do …… Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap? Your choice is coming Nov. 2012

Newt, Freddie Mac, and the Pundit war

by asmwizard

A lead in the polls is a fragile thing, as many presidential primary candidates have discovered.  The public is easily diverted.  Take Howard Dean, for example, who led in polls for the Democrat primary for the 2004 election, when John Kerry and John Edwards unexpectedly finished ahead of him in the Iowa Caucuses.  He attended a post-caucus rally for his volunteers at the Val-Air Ballroom in West Des Moines, Iowa and delivered his concession speech, aimed at cheering up those in attendance when he uttered his famous scream.  The video was picked up by the networks and comedians, and endlessly repeated just after winning the Iowa Caucuses.  Making him appear very unpresidential, it effectively ended his candidacy.

There was a perfectly valid explanation that few people heard:  Dean was suffering with the flu, which gave him a feverish and flushed appearance.  Feeling warm, he took off his coat and rolled up his sleeves.  (from wikipedia) Dean was shouting over the cheers of his enthusiastic audience, but the crowd noise was being filtered out by his unidirectional microphone, leaving only his full-throated exhortations audible to the television viewers. To those at home, he seemed to raise his voice out of sheer emotion. 

Michael Dukakis was another candidate whose status was seriously damaged by a small thing.  In 1988, he was the Democrat candidate for president, running against George H. W. Bush.  Accused of being soft on defense, he staged a photo of himself, sitting atop an Abrams tank, wearing a tank commander’s helmet.  This backfired, and the picture was used to mock him as silly and again, unpresidential.  There were other damaging factors that were brought up to hurt Dukakis, but this may have been the most telling.   Bush won in a landslide.

The issue that may sink Newt Gingrich’s candidacy is that he worked for Freddie Mac as a “consultant” over a six to eight year period after leaving the House, and while he was a private citizen.  Michelle Bachmann, in the December 15 debate, accused him of “peddling influence” and hypocrisy, in that he helped the (evil) Freddie Mac management scam the American public by pushing subprime mortgages, but he now wants to bring them down.  I’m paraphrasing Michelle’s comments.  A TV attack ad by Mitt Romney accuses Newt of being a lobbyist, using the “If it walks like a duck . . .” saying.  

Newt has attempted to explain his work with Freddy Mac.  (Quoted from Sam Youngman, Reuters):   “I just want to set the record straight,” Gingrich said. “We had a company. The company had three different offices. We were paid annually for six years, so the numbers you see are six years of work.  Most of that money went to pay for overhead, for staff, for other things that didn’t go directly to me.”  

Newt has explained his Freddy Mac involvement in a long interview with Greta van Susteren on Fox News.  He provides a briefer explanation on his website at Newt’s answers.  The complete Greta van Susteren interview can be accessed from there.   Newt said his Gingrich Group had three offices and 30 employees, had many customers,  and was paid by Freddy Mac for “strategic advice.”  He said he never lobbied or used his influence. 

Newt was interviewed by Mark Levin on his radio show, and gave him an even more cogent justification of his consulting activities with Freddy Mac.  Mark Levin.

Michelle, Mitt, and many pundits from TV, blogs, and publications are piling on Newt, refusing to accept his explanations.  Among these are Wall Street Journalists, many columnists, and Fox News contributors and journalists such as Charles Krauthammer and Ann Coulter.  George Will is very negative to Newt, as is a frequent contributor to the Kansas City Star whom I happen to like a lot, E. Thomas McClanahan. 

Newt has his defenders as well, but there aren’t many.  Jonah Goldberg, Andrew C. McCarthy, and Rush Limbaugh are almost alone.  McCarthy has a long and well-reasoned defense at McCarthy’s defense.  Goldberg’s article “A Gingrich presidency?  GOP says ‘inconceivable’” appeared in the Kansas City Star: Gingrich inconceivable.

Rush Limbaugh suggested a day or two ago that establishment conservatives don’t want to nominate a “true conservative” and that explains the assault on Newt.  I concur. 

I happen to believe and accept Newt’s explanations of his Freddy Mac activities, but this issue might bring him down.  I hope not.  I believe he is the best candidate.

 

Final debate before Iowa

by asmwizard

Fox News held the final debate before the Iowa Caucus in Sioux City, Iowa on December 15, 2011.  Brett Baier moderated.  Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly, and Neal Cavuto were questioners.   Candidates present were Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman.  Donald Trump has withdrawn from his proposed debate, which has not been officially cancelled.

A good review of the debate can be found at Rich Lowry’s review.  Rich doesn’t like Gingrich much, see his editorial bashing Newt at Winnowing the field.  I don’t yet know how to respond to his charge that Newt was kicked out of the House by his colleagues in 1998.  I do know that Newt was voted out as Speaker, and then resigned rather than continuing as an ordinary member.  This was after Newt was censured for alleged ethics violations by a violently reacting Democrat majority – pushed by Nancy Pelosi.  I don’t know Lowry’s politics.  I continue to support Newt as the best candidate.

Video snippets from the debate can be found at Fox News debate.

The first question to each candidate challenged them with bad things currently said about them: Gingrich on how conservative he is; Paul that he is unelectable; Bachmann that she doesn’t appeal to moderates and is too conservative; Perry, a weak debater who might have to debate Obama;  Huntsman, in that he is praised by moderates but isn’t very conservative; Santorum, with all the effort in Iowa, why has he failed to catch fire?  The candidates had a chance to refute those assertions.  Most did fairly well.

The next question: If you are president, and like the current situation have a House or Senate in the other party and face a government shutdown, what would you do to break the impasse?  Santorum said he would lead, motivate, and go to the public; Perry said he would apply his governing experience; Romney stressed his leadership ability, said in Massachusetts he had a legislature that was 85% Democrat; Gingrich pointed to his experience in working with Bill Clinton; Paul went off on a tangent and talked about cutting spending; Bachmann said she would speak before entire Congress and set ground rules – no new taxes, balance the budget, and follow the Constitution; Huntsman said leadership is action, not words. 

The next round consisted of questions giving each candidate a chance to refute criticisms against them.  Romney, about Newt’s criticism of his Bain experience, that Obama would level the same attacks.  Gingrich, that he worked for Freddie Mac, said that government sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) like Freddy Mac are sometimes good and effective, but he would bring down Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, that he worked with them as a private citizen, never tried to influence any politician, while Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were at fault in the housing crisis.  Paul was asked about his negative ads on Gingrich, responded that big business and big government are bad.  Bachmann accused Gingrich of peddling influence with Freddy Mac, when Newt responded she wasn’t factual, she came back and accused him of taking paychecks from them.  In general, Bachmann struck me as a vicious little bitch, but Krauthammer said after the debate she was strong and on point.  Gingrich was asked about his endorsement yesterday of Paul Ryan’s and Ron Wyden’s new bi-partisan health care reform plan.  He praised it and welcomed the bipartisanship. Romney agreed.  Perry talked about his part-time Congress.  Huntsman, asked about the 22% tariff China has placed on American car imports, gave a long-winded answer saying we need to get closer to the Chinese people.  Santorum, I forgot what he was asked, but he talked about his plan to have zero per cent tax on money corporations bring back from overseas.

The next round started out with one question to Romney, then went to the Judicial Branch.   To Romney, which 10 industries will grow in the next 10 years?  Let the market decide.  Gingrich, that attorneys have said his comments on reigning in the courts are dangerous, gave a very strong response saying that courts are arrogant and should not legislate;  Bachmann, should the 9th circuit court be abolished?  Courts should follow Constitution, should not make laws.  Paul, subpoenas for judges to Congress would be bad.  Romney, need care in appointing judges.  Santorum, recited his experience in taking on judges.  Perry doesn’t want lifetime terms for judges.  Huntsman, emphasizes rule of law, not a memorable answer.

The round on foreign policy was where Paul stumbled badly, while the other candidates gave predictable answers.  Paul would remove sanctions on Iran, said there is no evidence they will ever have an atom bomb, predicted America will overreact.  Santorum: Iran has been at war with us since 1979.  Romney: Obama asked Iran to give back the drone, pretty please.  The President’s weakness invites war.  Bachmann: Iran will move into Iraq right after we move out.  She never heard of a more dangerous answer than Paul’s.  Paul: war is dangerous.  Bachmann: Paul’s biggest problem would be under-reaction.  Gingrich: would re-examine a U.N. that is anti-American in many ways.  Huntsman: U.N. serves as peacemaker.  Perry: would impose a no-fly zone over Syria.

On energy:  Gingrich: grand slam home run when he criticized Obama’s putting off the Keystone Pipeline decision until after the next election.  Huntsman: generalities, as usual.  Bachman: Obama’s Keystone decision based on his re-election, not America’s need.  Perry: federal government should not pick winners and losers. 

On Immigration (but questions not always answered): Perry: as president, if Eric Holder didn’t know about Fast & Furious, Perry would fire him immediately.  Santorum: Iraq is training jihadists in Venezuela.  Romney, asked why illegals would leave if he didn’t round them up, said he would implement an ID card system and punish employers who hired illegals.  Gingrich, on becoming president, will stop all lawsuits against states, cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities.  Huntsman, says we need a more moderate approach to illegals, says numbers have dropped.

On social issues:  Romney, accused of changing positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, admitted changing from pro-choice to pro-life, said he opposes discrimination against gays but has always opposed same-sex marriage, said the Massachusetts Supreme Court made him allow it as governor.  Santorum said Romney ordered the state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  Bachmann accused Newt of having the wrong idea on life.  Newt said life begins at conception,  said Bachmann didn’t have her facts right.  Bachmann, said she was outraged that Newt said she didn’t have her facts right, accused Newt of (indirectly) supporting partial birth abortion.  Newt denied. 

That was essentially it, although candidates were polled on whether they should break Reagan’s “11th commandment” and go after other candidates.  All essentially said, “we can take it” and “Obama will do worse.”

========

My overall evaluation: Romney was smooth, didn’t attack, and wasn’t hurt.  Gingrich hit home runs – getting strong applause — on all but his response on Freddy Mac, which he addressed but didn’t convince the crowd or the pundits.  The remaining major skeleton in his closet, which I haven’t seen him address, is the fact that he was censured by the House, including virtually every Republican, as he was on his way out.  He has mostly put the other criticisms down.  Paul was exposed, and if his followers weren’t so fanatical, he might lose support.  Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, and Santorum didn’t help themselves.  Romney and Gingrich probably won the debate, most likely a tie. 

Demonizing principles and techniques

by asmwizard

Character assassination through demonization is an art form practiced by most politicians, columnists, and TV news network talking heads. Their objective is to bring an opponent down in the esteem of the public.  It seems natural to them – they do it so easily and often.  Yet, I submit it could be more effective.  If you know the principal tools, you could be more effective as a demonizer.

The principal tool in demonization is the slur (to talk about disparagingly or insultingly), also called the “gotcha”.  It consists of a simple accusation, presented as evidence without corroboration.  Other demonizing tools are lies or exaggerations.

Slurs are effective because accusation is everything, and the general public consists mostly of gullible people.

It should contain some smidgen of truth. Most slurs consist of one sentence.  Take, as an example, a successful slur against Newt Gingrich: He called the Ryan plan “right-wing social engineering.”   It’s true Newt said that, but it’s a phrase taken out of context.   The phrase, taken by itself, asserts that Gingrich was criticizing Paul Ryan and his healthcare reform plan.  Actually, he wasn’t, and has incorporated Ryan’s principles into his own plan.  He was merely saying that a major revision to America’s health care would be best implemented by presenting it as an option, so it wouldn’t be forced onto the public, but would be accepted on its own merits. 

If the target of the slur manages to find time to explain it away, simply ignore his/her explanation and restate the slur, endlessly.

Phrases taken out of context are one of the principal forms of gotchas, but another form equally effective, is the lie.  Assert the target did something he/she did not do in a particular situation.   An example, again with Newt Gingrich, is: He took money from Freddy Mac for peddling his influence.”   This is seen as a despicable act, because Freddy Mac is despised as a major contributor to the housing bubble.  Also, it is seen as hypocritical, since Newt is known to have criticized Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae’s culpability in causing the economic crisis we now have. 

Again, ignore the explanation, that Freddy Mac was one of several customers of Newt’s management consulting firm over a period of eight years, that he never used his influence in any way, and that he was a private citizen at the time.  According to Gingrich, his firm assisted in strategic planning.

Always look for ways to employ an exaggeration.  If the target did something, magnify the effects.  Admittedly, this is a form of lie, but it’s more subtle.  Michelle Bachmann employed it against Newt Gingrich in a recent debate.  Newt Gingrich had just explained, in capsule form, his approach toward the estimated 11 million illegals in this country. He said that under his plan, illegals who had been in the country a long time would have a path to legality. Michelle Bachman then spoke and said she thought Newt’s plan to allow 11 million illegals to stay amounted to amnesty.  Had she read his plan, she would have known he would only have allowed long term, successful illegal aliens to stay. 

Exaggerations can be used to assert the other guy is a flip-flopper, a loose cannon, or behaves erratically.  If the guy changed his mind once, he must be a serial flip-flopper.  If he made one silly decision, it’s a chronic problem with him.  And so on.

Transference is a word I recently heard.  If there are three parties, you, some other, and your opponent, transfer the blame from the other to your opponent.  Example, in climate change, there is you (blameless), nature, and the Republicans. Transfer the blame from nature to the enemy.  Their policies are leading to climate change.  

Reversal is closely related.  I’m doing something, and I say my opponent is doing it instead.  Example: The majority in the Senate are not letting bills that might reduce spending go through, and the President threatens to veto them if they do.  Yet, if one of his bills fails to pass, he says the Republicans are blocking it.  Obviously, some of his Democrats didn’t vote with him.  

 Never give a sucker an even break.  (W.C. Fields) and

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.  (W.C. Fields)  

Always remember, if the other guy is a demon, you look better by comparison.

 

The 14th debate

by asmwizard

I’m calling this the 14th televised debate.  It was held in Des Moines on December 10, sponsored by the Iowa Republican Party and conducted by ABC.  Liberals Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos (had to look up the spelling) were the moderators.   My guess on attendance was around a thousand, all selected by the party.  The six candidates present were: Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, and Bachmann.  John Huntsman failed to attend, possibly because he wasn’t invited, or possibly because he’s off in his own world.  Either way, he has never been relevant.

The format was similar to previous debates conducted by news networks: one minute responses, 30 second rebuttals.  Romney and Gingrich were positioned in the center and received the most time, but all had a chance to speak.  Some of the questions seemed designed specifically to expose Newt, and this was good for him because he blasted them out of the park.   Both Gingrich and Romney may have stumbled slightly, however.  Bachmann came across as a mean little lady, and didn’t help herself much, in my opinion.  Perry was himself, which isn’t good, Paul remained strange, and Santorum probably gave his best performance. 

The first question was a bit naive: how many jobs would you create as president, and how long would it take?  Romney said 11 million in 4 years; Newt repeated his record on job creation, especially while speaker.  Someone gave the correct answer, I believe it was Perry, who said no one can tell but he would create an economic climate to allow the private sector to create them.  Every one mentioned lower corporate taxes and less regulation, except Paul, who gave his usual meandering poppycock.

Are you in favor of renewing the payroll tax cut?  Bachmann said no – it cost 111 billion this year, we’re already borrowing from general revenue; Santorum voted no, while Romney, Perry, and Gingrich were for it in a qualified way.  Not sure what Paul said, but then I never am.

Who is the most conservative candidate?   This useless question provoked no intelligent responses – each candidate said “me” within a cloud of words.

The first attack on Newt: addressed to Paul, Why did you run an ad saying Newt is a “serial hypocrite”?  Paul listed several things – the Pelosi ad, I believe; Newt’s “Right-wing Social Engineering” comment on the Ryan Plan health reform; and making money at Freddy Mac.  Newt responded and explained each of these rather well in the short time he had to talk, but he did get some extra time here.  Others went on to attack Newt: Michelle called him “the poster boy for crony capitalism” – again referring to his time with Freddy Mac, and Newt explained again, but told her she should be truthful in her comments.  Perry attacked Romney and Perry on health insurance mandates.  Gingrich explained that it first began in 1994, to counter Hilary Care, and originally began with the Heritage Foundation as a conservative idea, but rapidly lost his support as the unintended consequences became clear.  When Romney tried to address the question, he said it was OK for states, bad for the federal government.  Perry came back and said that wasn’t what Mitt’s book said, and here Romney offered to bet Perry ten thousand dollars.  This may have been a blunder, according to pundits after the debate – insensitive in bad economic times.  Perry turned it down. 

Somewhere, I think in the prior round, Romney cast himself as an outsider and implied Gingrich was a career politician.  Gingrich responded by saying Romney would have been one if he hadn’t lost the 1994 senatorial election to Ted Kennedy.  Mitt and Newt laughed with each other several times during the debate, appearing to have a good time on the stage.  Perry’s exchanges with Romney also appeared friendly.  Only Michelle seemed to lack a sense of humor.  It now strikes me that she never has, and perhaps that’s why she hasn’t done well as a candidate.

Then came the question seemingly designed to hurt Gingrich.  Should marital fidelity, family values, and faith be considered important factors in choosing a president?  Diane Sawyer knew full well only Gingrich has had marital problems and is known to have been unfaithful to his spouse.  Of course, she selected every other candidate to speak before Gingrich.  Every candidate agreed those attributes were very important – talked about how long they had been married, how many kids they had, etc.  Perry said, “If you’ll cheat on your wife, you’ll cheat on your partner, and who knows who else.” (Paraphrase, but the general idea.)  Then it was finally Newt’s turn: he said: of course those things are important.  He cited the Federalist Papers words on integrity, said voters should consider those factors in choosing a candidate.  But he said he has made mistakes but now he’s a 68 year old grandfather. It was the best possible answer under the circumstances.

I’ll paraphrase the next question: What would you do about illegal aliens still in the country (after you close the border)?   This is another gadfly question, since there is a controversy among the candidates – only Gingrich has suggested any sort of leniency.  Here, I believe Newt stumbled, but so did the other candidates, of which only Romney gave a slightly better answer – he mentioned registering the aliens, but then deporting them and making them get back in line.  Newt explained his plan to have long-term illegals pass through some tests to become legal, but Diane asked him how long – and Newt said 25 years.  So, only aliens who could prove they had been in the country since say, 1987, could qualify.  That struck me as incredibly harsh.  What about someone who has been here 20 years?  Newt insisted on 25.  I don’t think Newt has given the matter sufficient thought, nor have any of the candidates – or perhaps they don’t really want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.  Perhaps only I see this. 

However, the others displayed no leniency whatever.  All illegals would be deported.  I’m not sure Paul had a chance to give his usual incompetent answer.

Do you think Palestinians are an “invented” People?  This was a phrase from another comment by Newt.  Newt responded yes, and we need to stop lying about people who attack Israel every day and deny Israel’s right to exist.   Mitt Romney mostly agreed, but thought Newt caused unnecessary turmoil, should watch what he says. Newt responded by saying he is a Reaganite who, like Reagan, will tell the truth, referring to Reagan’s “Evil Empire” and “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall” comments which made history.  Santorum said truth should be spoken with prudence; Perry thought it a minor issue, and Bachmann was critical and talked about how many times she has visited Israel.

What was the last time you had a financial problem?  (paraphrased)  Perry, grew up poor; Romney, was rich but dad had been poor, made him work; Bachmann, came from a middle class family but divorce made her mother struggle and Michelle had to get a paying job at 13; Santorum, came from a modest home; Paul, wife worked his way through medical school; and Gingrich, family once lived in an apartment over a service station, and his father’s income as an army officer wasn’t much.

Should federal government regulate unhealthy habits (such as obesity, smoking)?  Paul, hell no; Perry, such things should be left to the states.

What important thing have you learned from another candidate?  Santorum, as a young politician, watched Newt’s tapes on government; Perry, Paul got him thinking about Federal Reserve problems; Romney, no one specific, all show leadership; Gingrich, Santorum’s consistency on Iran; Paul, incoherent answer; Bachman, Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan shows value of simplification and plain speaking.

The debate ended there, at the 1:47 mark.

Afterward, several pundits thought Romney was hurt, differed on Bachmann, one thought Gingrich has taken over as the inevitable nominee and solidified his position.

 

The Huckabee Presidential Forum

by asmwizard

The forum of December 3, 2011 was not a debate.  Mike Huckabee’s idea was interesting.  Give each candidate exactly 11 minutes, with a final one-minute summary at the end.  The questioners were state attorneys general, from 3 states.  The general topic was the relationship between the federal government and the states.

Herman Cain, having dropped out of the race earlier that day, was not present, nor was John Huntsman.  The six candidates were Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and the Ricks – Perry and Santorum.  The 3 questioners – all lawyers – posed some but not all tough questions. 

Newt’s most difficult test was on his immigration ideas – having a local board select which long-term illegals can stay was questioned, and rightfully so.  He was also questioned on his initial support of a federal mandate for insurance.  He handled the questions well and wasn’t hurt too much.  For the second time, I heard him refer to President Obama as a “Saul Alinski radical.”  In my view, though arguably true, this is a mistake.  Such references should be saved until direct debates between Newt and Obama.

Romney did quite well.  He called the EPA a tool in the hands of the president to crush fossil fuels in favor of renewables.  He would eliminate the NLRB.  While harshly criticizing the Department of Education, he would continue to test kids.

Perry said some interesting things.  He would not support a national right-to-work law, would leave that to the states.  He believes the federal government should reimburse states for their expense in dealing with illegal aliens.  He wants to amend the constitution to have shorter terms for Supreme Court judges, doesn’t like appointment for life as it is now.  As said earlier, he wants congress to meet every other year.

Bachmann also did well.  She favors a federal law enforcing right-to-work in all states.  She confirmed she would deport all illegal aliens without exception.   She would abolish the Department of Education, and supports the amendment for human life, defining a fetus as human.

Ron Paul’s performance was terrible.  He came across (to me) as cranky and crazy.  His opposition to the Patriot Act would strip tools from the federal which give them the ability to stop acts of terror before they happen.  He thinks terrorism is a crime, not a way.

Santorum did fairly well.  He said the government does things to hurt families, citing aid to unmarried mothers which results in couples not marrying so they can continue to receive government money.   He cited EPA regulations that hurt states.  He said the president has an obligation to enforce the law, and supports the Patriot Act.

In my view, the candidates are over-exposed.   This is the most heavily televised pre-primary season of all time.  There are currently 4 remaining events this month, 3 to be held in Iowa, and the Huntsman-Gingrich debate to be held in New Hampshire.   Two of these events were arranged within the past few days, as was the Huckabee Forum.   Perhaps the most interesting is the Donald Trump debate, coming up on December 27, a week before the Iowa Caucus.   The Donald says that sometime after the debate, he will endorse one of the candidates.      

Internet danger?

by asmwizard

With mankind’s normal tendencies, an absolute democracy might be a hell on earth for minorities – simply because the majority would vote goodies for themselves, and the minority would pay for them.  It would be a form of tyranny.  The Internet makes an absolute democracy feasible, in theory.  A new law could be posted up, everyone with an internet connection could vote, and the President (if you still have one) could sign the law within a couple of days.  You wouldn’t need a Congress.  But, it’s probably a bad idea.  Like Congress, the general public isn’t very smart, in fact, the public might even be more stupid, if that’s possible.  Unintended consequences would pop up all over the place.  We, the public, would wreck our country in no time, even without Obama’s help.

Internet democracy of a different kind is moving forward in several ways right now, and the results are sometimes good but potentially horrible.  Good?  The Tea Party movement was enhanced and re-enforced by internet.  One of their principal websites is  www.teaparty.org.  Not so good? The Occupy Wall Street movement (and all the other locations they occupied) was begun by a radical Canadian magazine which set up www.occupywallst.org  Now, the various Occupy movements come together at OccupyTogether.org, promising even more disruption and chaos.  Of course, what’s good and what’s not good depend on your point of view, but if you think Occupy is good, you might want to seek psychiatric help.

More of not so good?  The Left is planning to disrupt the Republican National Convention in Tampa: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Tampa-for-The-National-Republican-Convention/238668532853294?sk=info.  Congress has already allocated 50 million dollars for security in Tampa.  That might not be enough.

Horrible?  Potentially, there could be a 3rd party movement being set up – on a website – which could help re-elect Obama.  Americans Elect 2012 at www.americanselect.org  is reported by Senator Joe Lieberman to be trying to get on the ballots of all 50 states.  Their intention is to bypass the two main political parties and choose their own candidates. 

On this website, “delegates” – i.e., those who join the movement – can list issues and suggest solutions, which will be voted on to create a platform.  They will eventually vote to nominate candidates, in effect holding a primary of their own, then put them on the state ballots.  Potentially horrible is that while they aren’t likely to elect their own candidate as president, they could take enough votes from Republican votes to re-elect Obama.  Of course, they might take more from Obama.  No one can be sure at this point.

Watch out for the internet.  It has already produced disturbing innovations, and more may be on the way.