Mitt Romney happens to be an extreme example of our current political discourse. But, I would like to argue that Mitt Romney does not change positions so consistently due to the voters. Rather, Mitt "Money" Romney "Flip Flops" for "political" reasons. In today's climate political superiority is simple, being the financially dominant candidate. During this election many of Mitt Romney's turnabouts in position were largely contradictory to most of the electorate. Mitt and his advisers knew something that many in the public seemed unaware of, which is the candidate who raises more money, statistically speaking, overwhelming will emerge as the victor. Why cater to the electorate, when a few wealthy donors will decide the outcome? Within the last few decades Citizens United and the general convergence of money into our political system is destroying what many Americans including our founding fathers fought and died for. The PEOPLE should decide who represents them regardless of religion, sex, race or financial affluence. According to OpenSecrets.org Romney and Obama combined to spend an eyebrow raising $2,326,060,340 in this election cycle alone. Furthermore, the 2012 election will make history as being the most expensive. Are we as a nation comfortable in allowing money to decide who we will elect? My opinion is an emphatic NO! We must get money and it's corrosive influence out of politics and we must do it now!
If you would like to help, consider supporting Wolf-Pac.com/
Shelby County's challenge to a provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval before changing their election procedures.
The decision was greeted with cheers from Shelby County's attorney, who said Southern communities have changed and no longer need such burdensome 1960s-style oversight from Washington. However, it was met with concern by others who argued that things haven't changed that much and the protection for minorities remains merited.
"We're extremely pleased. Section 5 pre-clearance is a burden on local governments and 16 states," said Shelby County attorney Frank "Butch" Ellis.
Ellis said the pre-clearance requirement served a critical function for 40 years, but is no longer justified. Eighty-five percent of Shelby County's residents are white. But Ellis said black residents have been elected as mayor and to other political positions.
"The South is not the same old South that it was," Ellis said.
Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making any elections-related change such as redrawing lines or implementing voter identification requirements.
The justices said they will examine whether the formula determining which states are covered is outdated because it relies on data that is now 40 years old.
Alabama was part of a coalition of states that supported Shelby County's challenge.
"Section 5 served a critical and laudable function 40 years ago, and the court held that it was constitutional then. But Section 5 is not justified now, and its re-authorization in 2006 was not constitutional. Section 5 currently serves only to allow federal bureaucrats to block good-faith and nondiscriminatory changes in state law and to impose unjustified costs on state and local governments," said a statement issued by the office of Alabama's attorney general.
The South is not the same old South that it was," said Shelby County lawyer Frank Ellis.
However others took a different view.
Ryan Haygood, of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents black residents in Shelby County, said the court's decision to hear the case provides the court an opportunity to review a "very substantial record."
"Congress considered Section 5's utility in 2006 and found discrimination in voting persists and the Act was needed for another 25 years, and Alabama is a very good example of why Section 5 is still needed," Haywood said.
Haygood said Section 5 was used in this election to stop discriminatory redistricting and voter photo identification efforts in Texas, and also in Florida to stop early voting days from being cut in half.
Birmingham's Rep. Demetrius Newton, who served as the first African-American Speaker Pro-Tem of the Alabama House of Representatives, said he was not surprised the high court agreed to hear the Shelby case, but he is concerned about what it could mean.
Newton said he believes there are still efforts to try to limit the voting power of minorities.
"I still see a lot of problems that I believe need to be addressed," Newton said.
Staff writer Brian Lawson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working
with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most
provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.
Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan
would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the
strategists wrote.
The plan,
which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr.
Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama
for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the
proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe
Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts
is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.
The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts,
includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting
it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who
espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”
The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate
conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the
nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual,
black Abe Lincoln.”
A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times
through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its
tone. It is titled “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts
Plan to End His Spending for Good.”
The proposal was presented last week in Chicago to associates and family
members of Mr. Ricketts, who is also the patriarch of the family that
owns the Chicago Cubs.
Brian Baker, president and general counsel of a super PAC called the
Ending Spending Action Fund, said Mr. Ricketts had studied several
advertising proposals in recent months and had not signed off on a
specific approach to taking on Mr. Obama.
“Joe Ricketts is prepared to spend significant resources in the 2012
election in both the presidential race and Congressional races,” Mr.
Baker said in an interview Wednesday. “He is very concerned about the
future direction of the country and plans to take a stand.”
The document makes clear that the effort is only in the planning stages
and awaiting full approval from Mr. Ricketts. People involved in the
planning said the publicity now certain to surround it could send the
strategists back to the drawing board.
But it serves as a rare, detailed look at the birth of the sort of
political sneak attack that has traditionally been hatched in the
shadows and has become a staple of presidential politics.
It also shows how a single individual can create his own movement and
spend unlimited sums to have major influence on a presidential election
in a campaign finance environment in which groups operating
independently of candidates are flourishing.
Should the plan proceed, it would run counter to the strategy being
employed by Mitt Romney’s team, which has so far avoided such attacks.
The Romney campaign has sought to focus attention on the economy, and
has concluded that personal attacks on Mr. Obama, who is still well
liked personally by most independent voters surveyed for polls, could
backfire.
Mr. Ricketts has become an increasingly active player in Republican
politics through several political action committees, including Ending
Spending. He has a son, Pete, who is a member of the Republican National
Committee from Nebraska and a daughter, Laura, who is a top contributor
to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. She has not been involved in her
father’s political efforts.
The 54-page proposal was professionally bound and illustrated with color
photographs, indicating that it is far beyond a mere discussion. The
strategists have already contacted Larry Elder, a black conservative
radio host in Los Angeles, about serving as a spokesman, and the plan
calls for a group of black business leaders to endorse the effort. The
strategists have also registered a domain name, Character Matters.
Read the Rest of the article at the NEW YORK TIMES here - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?_r=1
