” The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company… a church… a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past… we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude… I ams convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you… we are in charge of our attitudes.”
Pennsylvania for Change is now 1 year young. This blog started with three writers. There was “jer” who always did a great job with his election prediction analysis. Minchy’s writing were always filled with great passion. And then there’s “Cats” who remains writing at this blog even though she threatened to end this blog several times.
There are so many great people that visit this blog and that is why I keep coming back.
This blog originated at the beginning of the Pennsylvania primary season and the purpose was to show support for then candidate, Barack Obama. As politics goes, there were the attacks against Hillary Clinton. Those posts have been moved to a “private view” because that is the past and there is no need to go there. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is doing a fabulous job in her new role.
During the primary season, there were some rough times here as the blog owner of another local blog attacked individual members of this blog for no apparent reason. This blog owner even went as far as to accuse Obama supporters of vandalism and stalking without any proof to back up his accusations. Then again, that is all in the past.
Our new President, Barack Obama, is keeping to his campaign promises and the Republicans in Congress are doing their best to obstruct progress. Representative McHenry of North Carolina even admitted that the role of Republicans in Congress is to obstruct and vote “no” on bills that originated with the Democrats.
President Obama needs to know that we support him. My suggestion is to place our Obama signs back up on our lawns and/or in our windows and don’t remove our Obama bumper stickers.
This blog started with a song and in celebration, this blog will play this song again as a reminder that “Yes, We Can”. If we work together and provide support to each other, we will make it through this current financial crisis.
Walter Brasch has something to say about the media fueling anti-labor fires.
WANDERINGS, with Walter Brasch
Nov. 30, 2008
They Auto Know Better:
Fueling Anti-Union Fires
by Walter Brasch
My local newspaper editor, as he does regularly, once again attacked unions as the problem in America. This is the same editor who once said “all the laziest goof-offs and goldbricks in the newsroom” where he began his career were union officials-and that the unionized New York Times editorial writers are nothing more than “limousine liberals.”
For this most recent attack, two days after Thanksgiving, he combined the economy with what he believes are greedy unions.
“[L]abor unions and their leaders are . . . distorting the truth about the American workplace,” wrote the editor. First he set up Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, who said that “Tens of millions of Americans are working harder than ever just to stay afloat. The latest Census Bureau report shows that wages are dropping and more people lack health insurance . . . a greater percentage of the economy is going to profits than to wages.”
Then, he cut apart Stern’s statement by gleefully citing data from the pro-business pro-management U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber said that wages, adjusted for inflation, for workers rose 30 percent from 1967 to 2007. Now, 30 percent seems good-unless you do the math. That’s about three-quarters of one percent per year, far less than any executive compensation. The editor then added in about 30 percent for benefits. Of course, these benefits also include federally-mandated deductions, like social security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes.
As an afterthought, the editor claimed the “poverty rate dropped from 22.4 percent in 1959 to 12.5 percent in 2007,” mysteriously trying to connect a reduced poverty level with reduced union influence. What he didn’t point out was that 1959 was a recession year, and that between 2000 and 2007, according to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate actually increased from 11.3 percent to 12.5 percent. About 37.3 million Americans are living below the federal poverty level; about 40 percent of all Americans fell beneath the poverty line at least once in the past decade.
Sounding the alarm, the editor tied together Democrats and unions. “[T]he plight of the American worker will grow more dire in the new year, as Democrats push to pass their legislation. . . . The danger is that their union-friendly legislation will hurt rather than help the American economy.” To wrap everything up, the editor of a newspaper with the median circulation of all dailies in America concluded by asking his readers to “consider the current state of the once mighty American auto industry, and ask yourself: What role did the powerful United Auto Workers play in its downfall?”
It’s the workers-and those pesky liberal Democrats-who the editor blames for America’s economic crises. Unfortunately, this editor isn’t alone in his contempt for the workers.
Get your popcorn ready on election night… Again I will insist that an Obama win is now almost certain… Up to 95% according to the models I use. The question is becoming how big will this win be ??? I mentioned in my last Full Electoral College Breakdown how a landslide win (375+ EC votes) was possible, what if I told you that states that many have written off got Obama to that mark ??? After the primaries I had indicated due to high African American turnout that I though states in the southeast were in play for Obama, particularly MS and GA with the Bob Barr effect perhaps much more the reason in GA. I had gotten away from that idea after the “Palin bounce” but recent polling and a new study about the Bradley effect is making me re-think that these are indeed Safe McCain states. I’ll get to that study in a second but first lets start with some numbers… We’ll begin in Mississippi…
Polls of this state have been sparse due to the fact its a safe Republican state…. In fact since 9/1 there have only been 3 polls done here, one by ARG who’s accuracy I question… on 9/9 Research 2000 did a poll indicating a +12 McCain win. This was at the height of the Palin bounce for the red team… But by 9/30 the last poll done in MS the VERY Republican tilted Rasmussen had MS in the McCain column at +8.
Since that time there has been no more polling in MS and the more trusted polls like Survery USA haven’t been there at all.
My thoughts on MS at the end of the primary were that with a 35% voting public that is African American that in theory Obama would need to only get 20% of the white vote to win this state. Now comes the kicker… a recent study on the Bradley effect shows that in some parts of the country there is a reverse Bradley effect…
The Bradley effect–a black politician doing well in the polls but badly in the actual election–has been much discussed but there is little data on how it would work this year. Now a team of researchers from the University of Washington has analyzed the data from the 32 Democratic primaries this year and come to a surprising conclusion. The effect existed in California, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, but a reverse effect existed in 12 other states, largely in the Southeast. Obama did better in the elections there than in the polls leading up to them. Researchers speculate that some people may tend to give pollsters the “socially correct” answer and in the Southeast, supporting the white person is socially correct.
Hmmm is the only thought that comes to mind on this issue… now on to Georgia…
Where along with a high African American turnout likely also come these to “B” words… “Bob Barr”
This state has been polled more and by other companies first I’ll start with Survery USA 9/15 poll showed McCain up +16, but by 9/29 that lead had been cut in half by Survery USA to +8 most polls this month have been in the McCain +7-+8 range with an error % of 5 %… add in Bob Barr stealing votes from McCain especially if he alienates more true conservatives and this possible reverse Bradley effect and Election Night could be very interesting indeed. On 10/9 there was a McCain plus 3 poll for GA as well.
“…under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. What ever happened to our national unity?
The union began to separate when Ronald Reagan ushered in divisiveness in our nation by demonizing liberal thinking. This was unpatriotic because it polarized our nation by pitting Americans against Americans. It also ushered in a fascist mentality in which any American that didn’t think like the Reagan conservatives was considered to be un-American. This way of thinking was bolstered in 1988 when Rush Limbaugh first took to the air with his hate filled messages targeting liberals. That same year, the Presidential campaign was one of the most vial campaigns which again pitted Americans against Americans by separating the conservatives from the liberals. These years of “fiscal conservatives” created large national deficits and it was during this time that “union busting” and deregulation became standard practice by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. It also gave birth to the “religious right” which further spread the message of hate.
This way of thinking continues to this day. It divides us and weakens our nation. There is an Italian proverb, “In union there is strength”. With globablization of the world’s economy, the United States needs to be united. Instead we are still facing racism and hatred. By acting like a dictator, George W. Bush further divides our nation. When John McCain’s anger rears its nasty head and attacks with lies, he, too, divides our nation.
Barack Obama said, “There is not a liberal America. There is not a conservative America. There is the United States of America”.
Here’s is his 2004 speech of unity for ALL Americans, not just red states or blue states, ALL Americans. Let me re-introduce you to Barack Obama and the politics of “Hope… God’s greatest gift to us”.
And here is his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
The press will argue who won the debate on points. It’s totally irrelevant. (On points, it was a draw.) Speaking as a former state champion debater and as a former professional campaign organizer on the senior staff of two presidential campaigns in the 80s, I know that it just doesn’t matter.
Based on the results of previous debates going all the way back to Kennedy-Nixon, it’s well known that the American public doesn’t score presidential debates on points. (Nixon won on debate points, Kennedy won over the public and won the election.) I think polls tomorrow and in days to come will show that a majority of Americans believe Obama won, and I’ll be surprised if it turns out otherwise. Here’s why:
1. Expectations. Obama’s the challenger, the outsider. Expectations were lower for him, especially on foreign policy, supposedly McCain’s strong suit. He needed to show that he could stand on the stage with McCain, be credible, be knowledgeable, be forceful, be confident. He did all that extremely well. People could feel comfortable with him. The newbie met or exceeded expectations. Kennedy did this in 1960 and won. Reagan did it in 1980 and won. So Obama wins category one.
2. Body language. McCain looked angry, cranky, was disrespectful; he hunched over and never looked directly at Obama. Barack looked directly at McCain repeatedly (showing no fear), stood up straight, never grew flustered or angry, challenged McCain directly but without showing contempt. (In 1960, Nixon lost this category because he looked tired, wan, and hunched over. Kennedy looked rested, relaxed. In 2000, Gore lost this category because he sighed audibly, made faces and shrugged, showing evident distain for Bush. The American people don’t like contempt openly displayed.) Barack wins category two
3. Non-Partisanship. Obama agreed with McCain on some points. (The right will spin this as a win for McCain. It’s inside baseball, important to the right but not to anybody else. If the press buys this, they’ll demonstrate again that they’re idiots.) Obama’s agreement, like his demeanor in general, demonstrated the willingness to rise above partisanship, something Americans have said in poll after poll they want to see.) McCain talked about reaching across the aisle, but most importantly, HE DIDN’T DEMONSTRATE IT. OBAMA DID. Rule No. One: SHOW, DON’T TELL! Obama wins category three.
4. The Future. Obama talked about the future a lot, McCain about the past. People care about what the next president will DO, not what he did or where he went 25 years ago. A significant segment of the public doesn’t remember most of those events, and another significant segment was born too late to remember them. It’s history book stuff. Policy wonks get caught up in it, but the public doesn’t care. Obama understood it’s about the FUTURE. He wins in category four.
5. Style of Speaking. Obama kept his answers short, straight-forward, easily understandable. He never wandered, his asides and one-liners made sense in context. He talked REPEATEDLY about how the economy affects the middle class and how the policies he will pursue will affect the average person. People care about how the policies of the next president will affect THEM.
McCain’s anecdotes were often discursive, he rambled a bit, he didn’t stay as focused on the points he was making. He made a few asides that didn’t quite make sense or sounded odd (and he didn’t provide the context to make them understandable.) References to Miss Congeniality simply reminded people of beauty queen Sarah Palin, who has turned into a liability and a reminder of McCain’s bad judgement. Above all, he didn’t bring it down to the “how will this affect YOU!!” level. Obama wins category five.
6. Change. McCain didn’t talk about change, which polls show people want this year especially. He talked about being a maverick, but polls show that people are not connecting that with change. Obama talked repeatedly about change. Obama wins category six.
Barack Obama looked Presidential. He handled himself really well. McCain’s body language was poor. He kept moving around, blinking his eyes, clenching his teeth and smirking. He should his anger and also that he was trying to hold back his anger. There were moments when McCain did a parental “finger wagging” at Obama with statements like “you don’t know the difference between tactics and strategy.” That was demeaning and made McCain look weak.
McCain really is a cranky, old man, someone with poor impulse control who should NEVER be allowed to get near the “nuke button”.