Why Men Are in Trouble by William J Bennett

This Bill Bennett article is thought provoking.  As I read it I thought about how the feminist movement began when I was coming of age and thank God not before.  Many women asked and many others demanded things from men that caused me to scratch my head in wonder. 

I searched for reasons why women began to celebrate stars like Leonardo Dicaprio, Mathew McConaughey, Johnny Depp, and Brad Pitt.  These men were not masculine.  They were pretty.  What might a woman today see in pretty men when their prior generation was attracted to handsome, masculine men like Clark Gable, Cary Grant, John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and Jimmy Stewart?

I also tried to understand why women stopped asking men to be gentlemen.  I am certain I am not the only man who was sneered at by a woman for opening a door for her or for otherwise treating her like a lady.  One woman demanded that I not refer to her as a lady.  She insisted that I had no way of knowing whether she was a lady or not.  I asked her, "Wouldn't you like the benefit of the doubt?"  However, she was adamant.  She considered it improper etiquette for a man to refer to a woman as a lady.  Whose etiquette?  Hers perhaps but not mine. 

I watched as some women denigrated other women for choosing to marry and stay at home to raise children over joining the corporate world or a profession.  Somehow, the existence of women who nurtured and cherished their families when they could be furthering a movement to break through the corporate glass ceiling threatened feminists.

Many women attempted to do both.  They married.  They had children.  They had a career.  Their children were raised by nannies or placed in day care.  Where then was the loving hand to nurture these children as they matured?  I understand not all of this was by choice, that it was sometimes a matter of circumstance.  However, all women were not in the workforce as a matter of necessity.  Many were there for reasons that were more selfish. 

I watched as women and many authors encouraged men to get in touch with their feminine side.  I have no doubt but that many young men were confused and worse, emasculated trying to be what some women wanted them to be in order to gain their favor.

I watched in awe as a television character portrayed by Candace Bergen encouraged young women to have babies without a husband.  I watched her belittle the Vice President of the United States because of his clarion warning that statistically women who raise children alone were far more likely to live in poverty and destine their children for the same.     
 

I watched as women entered relationships with men that required no commitment.  Living together and worse, living together while having children with no formal commitment between the partners denied their children the security of a strong family and an emotionally secure home.  The motivation appeared to be selfishness on the part of the women and as for the men; they were given the key to the candy store without any need to accept even a modicum of responsibility.  

Bill Bennett's article speaks well of the outcome of all this.  He speaks of boys who have not matured into men.  He speaks of men who have not been taught to accept responsibility.  He speaks of men who have dropped out or at the very least have been robbed of their ambition.  In the end, I have to wonder what those original feminists believe they might have gained from all of this.  As a man taught the virtues of life as a dominant male I have to say nothing at all of value has come from this and I am aware of many women who believe this as well.

The Tea Party supports the Employee Rights Act as authored by Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Tim Scott.

Argument

The Employee Rights Act

Orrin Hatch

Note: Co-authored by Rep. Tim Scott

America's laws have long recognized the need to protect workers from abuse. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which ensured that employees would have the right join a union ­ or to refrain from doing so -- free of harassment or intimidation. 

Full article...

What happened to the Reagan 11th Commandment?  Republicans went after each other tonight with inappropriate or dishonest charges.  A few spoke over the top of their opponent when it was not their turn to speak and demonstrated a rudeness not before seen in these Republican debates. 

I am disappointed.  If Rick Santorum wishes to ask Mitt Romney a question then he owes Romney the opportunity to answer.  The same was true of Rick Perry.  He levied a charge against Romney about his having employed an illegal immigrant and spoke over the top of Romney when he tried to explain those circumstances.  It was boorish.  It was not becoming of anyone engaged in any debate and it colored my attitude further about a few of these candidates.  

It has long been known that Mitt Romney hired a lawn service.  That lawn service hired illegal immigrants.  When the Boston Globe disclosed that some employees were illegal, Romney contacted the lawn service and told them he would not allow this.  The service dismissed those workers.  Later, another illegal immigrant falsified documents and his lawn service did not know they had hired an illegal immigrant.  Again, the man was dismissed.  How could Perry levy a charge against Romney like this for a matter so benign?  Has politics succumbed to a flurry of gotcha moments?  Are there no more important issues to discuss than Romney's lawn service?  Is it improper to expect that Rick Santorum behave himself with a certain amount of decorum when participating in these debates? 

Who won the debate?  It certainly was not me except I did get to see another side of a few candidates that was not impressive.  Candidates, the way to elevate yourself is not to destroy those above you in the polls.  Your economic arguments support the belief that you do not pull yourself up by dragging someone else down.  You do not make yourself rich by making a rich man poor.  How is this any different?  If you want my vote, you will earn it by demonstrating that you offer something beyond your opponent, not by attempting to destroy your opponent.  That opponent, no matter how disconcerting it may be to you, could well be our candidate and all you have done is to arm everyone's opponent, Barack Obama, with sound bites that he will use in the national election.  Knock it off!!!!!

Some did impress me.  Despite the fact that Romney is not as conservative as I might like, he continues to impress.  He aptly defended himself tonight against the unfairness of Santorum and Perry.  He has made it clear that he will work to repeal Obamacare.  Opponents, find something new.  We understand the issues surrounding Massachusetts and the other 49 states.  Give it a rest.  Tell us something new about yourself instead of something old about Romney. 

Michele Bachmann was impressive tonight.  She blended some humor into her introduction by stating that in this case, what happens in Vegas will not stay in Vegas.  She was clear, articulate and her position on the change in tax laws proposed by Herman Cain was a criticism of the policy not a criticism of Herman Cain.  Michele also made an impassioned statement to women affected by the Obama economy by asking them to hold on, to do everything they can to hold onto their homes and that help was coming in 2013.  

Newt Gingrich expressed reservations about 9-9-9 but he did so reasonably.  He praised Herman Cain for his boldness in putting forth the effort to introduce a brand new idea.  Newt was concerned whether anything so radical could be done quickly.  He prefers a focused effort to eliminate many regulations and improve the existing tax code.  I also liked the way Newt responded to a question about the Latino Community and whether the Republican position on illegal immigration did not adversely affect that voting bloc.  Newt explained very well the need we have as a nation to respond to different races and ethnicities with a vibrant economy that will provide opportunity to all.  He disfavors programs that help specific groups and as a result penalize others.  I agree.

Newt also took a swipe at the super committee in the Congress and described them as responding to a dysfunctional model.  A committee of individuals trying to hit an arbitrary budget target should not adversely affect our national security.  

Ron Paul scored points when he spoke to this same issue.  He spoke of the Constitutional protections for individuals, not groups.  In a later comment he defended his position by stating that rights do not come in bunches.  They belong to individuals.  He is right.  Unfortunately, Paul also made a statement late in the debate about the residents of Guantanamo.  He railed against their being considered terrorists because none has been convicted of anything.  I am sorry Ron Paul but if you were on the battlefield fighting American soldiers on behalf of Al Qaeda you do not belong in our nation's court system.  You have no right to a jury trial to determine your guilt or association as a terrorist.  You are an enemy of our government and because of your association with the terrorist enemy we are fighting; you are fairly assumed a terrorist yourself.  

Herman Cain acquitted himself well once again.  He stayed out of the shouting match that consumed Perry, Romney, and Santorum.  This was easier for him as the critics of 9-9-9 were critical of a policy.  They were not declaring Herman to be a hypocrite nor trying to catch him in a gotcha moment.  His response regarding protesters in Occupy Wall Street demonstrations was excellent.  They are protesting the wrong people.  Wall Street did not spend a trillion dollars without positive effect.  Government forced the banks to make bad loans.  The Government forced TARP.  It was not Wall Street.  Their demonstrations need to be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Rick Santorum spoke eloquently about the importance of religion in our election.  We should be concerned with the candidate's values.  Does the candidate possess a faith that Newt described as at the core of their judgment?  Santorum redeemed himself by pointing to his Catholicism as being different from Romney or Perry's religion.  The manner in which a person exercises their faith is personal and should not be a part of any campaign.  

Perry was limited in his statement concerning the Reverend Jeffers who had made the offensive statement about Romney's religion at a Perry campaign event.  He does not agree with the Reverend.  However, he was bellicose when he described his conservatism as genuine and encouraged voters to judge Romney by his past.  He called Romney a failure as Governor of Massachusetts.  Romney then nailed Perry as the former campaign manager for Al Gore in the State of Texas.  If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword, Governor Perry.  Perry was also rude to Anderson Cooper, the moderator when he told Cooper that he has to ask the questions and "I get to answer as I want to."  I found Perry's tactics to be over the top, to resemble bullying and to be nonpresidential.     

Newt summed it all up in the end by stating that formats designed to maximize bickering are not helpful.  If nominated Gingrich would challenge Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates.  I would love to see those debates and I have no doubt, who would win going away.  Gingrich is certainly the brightest star on that stage whether he ultimately proves to be my choice or not.  Week after week, he brings reason, humor, and analysis in a way unmatched by the other candidates. 

Any of them would make a better President than Barack Obama.

Whether the occupant of the White House is a Republican or a Democrat the President works for us.  As American citizens it is we who should have the right to determine whether the records of an administration should be made public, not the former president.  Democrats introduce legislation to seal Obama records. 

I certainly have no objections to a new administration sealing records if there are national security considerations but I have real reservations about codifying a right to privacy through legislation that would provide this kind of power to a former president based upon issues of personal embarrassment or as a means to avoid disclosure of improper activity. 

Most of the candidates acquitted themselves well on Tuesday night at the Dartmouth Debate.  If there was a winner, I cannot say who it was because I believe Gingrich, Romney, Cain, Hunstman, Paul, Santorum, and Bachmann all did very well.  If there was a loser, I believe it was Perry. 

I do not mean to sound like I am piling on but it has been a bad week for Rick Perry.  He had already slipped in the polls when Pastor Jeffress, the man who had introduced Perry at a campaign gathering provided a private moment with the press and denigrated Mitt Romney's religion.  Why would anyone, especially a man of the cloth, disrespect someone for his or her religion as he did?  Worse, this has been in the news now for three days and Perry has said nothing about it.  Then there was tonight's debate.  Perry looked uncomfortable.  When others laughed as Governor Huntsman's joke about gas in Washington, he sat with a pained expression on his face demonstrating no sense of humor.  With the conversation focused on China and the imbalance of trade caused by China's currency manipulation, Perry interrupted everyone to change the subject to Energy.  Governor Perry, energy is important.  I want regulations to end.  I want Texas and all oil rich states to drill.  However, the moderator was directing the conversation to foreign relations and specifically China.  I could only interpret this as a talking point he needed to introduce to the debate but he did not pick his time well.

I thought both Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann delivered knock out blows on Obamacare.

I thought Herman Cain was strong in his defense of 9-9-9 however as mentioned previously I believe that for this to work it must be in a Constitutional Amendment.  If we elect Cain, he will not always be president and the Congress will change three times subsequent to his inauguration.  I do not trust those Congresses and I do not trust his successor not to change that legislation only to require a majority to change rates.  9-9-9

Cain's weakest moment was his reference to Alan Greenspan as a model Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  It was also Ron Paul's strongest moment.  Paul gave semi-applause to Paul Volcker but he called Greenspan a disaster.  Given that Bernanke has followed Greenspan's lead, I do not know how anyone today could call Greenspan a model chairman.  

As candidates asked their questions of each other, most targeted a specific opponent.  Those so designed missed their mark and in some cases were obvious attempts to create a perception that may not be true.  Romney asked his question of Bachmann.  It was polite.  It was core and it was a good question.  Bachmann handled it easily without a need to be on defense.  Score one for Bachmann and especially for Romney.  He did not focus a question to hurt his closest opponent. 

Score one for Gingrich as well.  His strategy has elevated him from a candidate I could not support to a candidate I could easily support because of these debates.  His strategy is obvious.  He is talking issues and about the Obama record.  He is not talking personalities, religions, candidate histories, etc.  He is addressing the issues straightforwardly and he is making excellent observations when he does.  When he calls the Congress stupid for not repealing Dodd-Frank already, he does so with great credibility.  He has been there. 

I remain undecided in this primary.  This is an advantage.  I will have other opportunities to hear these candidates.  I will not have to make my decision until long after the field narrows.  Every one of these candidates is superior to Barack Obama, a point made often and well by Newt Gingrich.  I have expressed before that I cannot support Paul or Huntsman because of statements made in earlier debates.  I also believe Perry should drop out of the race.  Since being told that I have no heart I cannot seem to find it in my heart to forgive Rick Perry for his position on illegal immigration.  For me, today, it is between Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum.  This is not in any particular order.  

This country has recently had two very controversial Attorneys General, John Ashcroft and Eric Holder.   John Ashcroft served the first term of the George W. Bush administration.  Eric Holder currently holds the job.

What did the critics say about each and where was the press on those issues relevant to them?

John Ashcroft had just lost a Senate Race in Missouri when he was appointed by GW Bush.   Most Democrats voted against his confirmation because he had opposed laws that forced busing in metropolitan areas to achieve integration.  The media was highly critical but Bush’s appointee had the votes and Ashcroft became AG.

During his tenure Ashcroft supported what was known as the Patriot Act.   Section 215 of that act allowed the federal government access to the library records of individuals thought to be terrorists.   The media was totally opposed to this “intrusion” in the privacy of individuals and roundly criticized Ashcroft for his opinion on a political issue. 

Late in his tenure, he was roundly criticized for testifying that al Qaeda represented a direct threat and might soon attempt another attack in the United States.  He angered even more in the media and many Democrats when he testified before the 911 Commission and bluntly informed the chairman that Jamie Gorelick, a member on that commission, should be testifying before the commission rather than sitting in judgment of the testimony of others.  If everyone will recall, it was Jamie Gorelick's famous order that prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information with one another about known terrorists before the attack on 911.  

Ashcroft was also a proponent of the War on Drugs, an issue never popular with those on the left including the US media.  

Among the things we will likely remember the most about Ashcroft stemmed from his personal modesty.  He covered nude statues in the Justice Department.  Ashcroft was a religious man.  What the leftist elite regarded as art he regarded as offensive.  He didn’t remove them.  He simply covered them.

Thus, the criticism that probably drove Ashcroft to resign at the end of the first Bush term was reactions to his opinions and his modesty.  I do not recall criticism for any failure to enforce a law, only for his advice as to what those laws should be.    

Contrast Ashcroft with Eric Holder.

Like Ashcroft, Holder brought a record with him to the Attorney General position but his sin was his orchestration of the Marc Rich pardon in the last minutes of the Clinton Presidency.  Rich was a commodities trader who fled the country to avoid charges of tax evasion, mail fraud and trading with the enemy.  

Since assuming the responsibility of Attorney General, Holder has introduced lawsuits against two states for having the temerity to pass their own legislation that allowed them to enforce federal laws on illegal immigration, laws that Holder has refused to enforce.

Holder’s decision to dismiss charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation at Pennsylvania Polls during the 2008 Election was barely mentioned by the mainstream media.   His testimony on the issue did not receive a lot of criticism either.  During that testimony Holder admitted that the “intimidation” that people encountered from those Black Panthers was nothing compared to what others of his race historically encountered.  Does it not matter to him when any citizen is hindered while attempting to vote?  He used his power to "get even" with citizens for sins of the past without regard to whether those sins belonged to them personally or to someone else.

Holder’s Justice Department has experienced resignations by US Attorneys who claimed Holder would not enforce crimes of black on white.  The voter intimidation in Philadelphia was apparently only one example.

Most recently Holder’s participation in the Fast & Furious program that sent guns to drug cartels in Northern Mexico has been in question.  Representative Issa asked him in testimony he gave to Issa’s committee in May 2011, just when he became aware of the Fast & Furious program.  Holder testified he had only recently, within the last few weeks, learned of this program.  There is now evidence that staff communicated to Holder about Fast & Furious as early as March or April 2010.  It has yet to be determined whether Holder's testimony represented perjury or whether he and his department are simply so incompetent that he would not have been thoroughly briefed on the program prior to his testimony.   

Each of these examples of the performance of Eric Holder involves more than opinion.  It involves a willful neglect to enforce our laws and a racist influence he has had in the Justice Department.  Holder has deliberately abused his position and has used his power selectively to enforce his duties as Attorney General.  Ashcroft only had opinions and to my knowledge never abused his position by willfully neglecting his responsibilities as our chief law enforcement officer.  Yet, the media vilified Ashcroft and thus far, I have seen nothing of that kind of furor over the attitude and performance of Holder.      

The Tea Party supports an amendment to the Constitution that would provide the following:

Changes to tax laws, tax rules, and tax regulations may only be made in years evenly divisible by 10. 

Changes to tax rates may be made at any time but must be approved by a super-majority, 2/3 of the House of Representatives.

All revenue earned by or assigned to the federal government shall be considered a tax and shall be subject to this amendment.

Argument

Among the greatest causes of uncertainty in our economy is the threat the government may modify tax laws or change tax rates that significantly affect the planning of individuals and businesses.  This amendment would prevent the Congress from enacting any law that would modify exclusions, deductions, definitions of taxable revenues, taxable gains, etc. except in the last year of each decade.  The amendment holds constant the moving targets that create uncertainty for at least ten years beginning in 2020.  This is a tremendous aid to tax reform.

Tax tables and tax rates on the other hand would be modifiable at any time but would require a 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives (290 votes) to approve.

The amendment would also remove from Congress any and every attempt to game the system by creation of a revenue source that is called something other than a tax.  The amendment identifies that all sources of revenue to the government would qualify as a tax under this amendment.  Thus, the amendment would include not only income taxes but also tariffs, franchise fees, user fees and all other methods the federal government employs to increase revenue, regardless of the source and regardless of the purpose.   

As most who are following the Republican contest for the presidency know, Herman Cain is among the more clear choices to become president in 2013 because of his affable manner and his take-charge attitude.  He bills himself as a Problem Solver and he has certainly convinced me that he is.  However, I am going to express a concern that I have regarding his 9 - 9 - 9 promotion for tax equity.

The 9 - 9 - 9 proposal would provide a 9% Personal Income tax, a  9% Corporate Income Tax and a 9% Value Added Tax against all purchases.  I like the idea in principle but I am concerned that 9 - 9 - 9 could turn into 40 - 40 - 12 or some other similar number.

I have long opposed the idea of a Value Added Tax (VAT) as is found internationally because I do not trust the Congress.  I have always believed that the imposition of a sales tax or VAT without first repealing the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income tax would be a mistake.  My concern has always been that to provide the government the ability to tax both income and consumption would be like giving a child the key to the candy store.  Yet Cain's proposal includes both in a manner that if properly constructed would allow me to accept the concept but not as it is being introduced.

Herman related his plan this morning and directly addressed the problem of future changes to tax rates.  The response was that the legislation would include the requirement for a 2/3 majority to change these rates.  That is not good enough.  No Congress can bind a future Congress to their legislative decisions.  Any bill that requires a 2/3 majority for modification could itself be modified to change that requirement to a simple majority or a plurality of those meeting the requirements of a quorum.  The supermajority must be included in a Constitutional Amendment or the 2/3 can easily become 50% +1.  

I would suggest that Cain introduce the idea as a Constitutional Amendment and while he is at it, I would like to forbid the Congress to making any changes in tax laws that deal with exclusions, deductions or anything but rates to those years ending in zero.  Thus, a real benefit to businesses would be that with the exception of rates there would be no changes in tax law until the end of every decade.  It is uncertainty that has hindered this recovery and it will continue to inhibit the recovery until we provide businesses some hard realities they can use with which they can develop their business plans.  These suggestions would provide that certainty that Obama and his legions seem unwilling or unable to provide.   

Herman Cain is catching flack for having suggested that many black men and women have been "brainwashed."  His comment was in an answer to a question posed on CNN as to why blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.  Cain said they refused to open their minds.  

I have listened to this story multiple times and when asked why it might be so that blacks voted Democrat at a rate of 90%, 88% and 95% for Gore, Kerry, and Obama respectively no one seems to offer a solid reason as to why this might be so.  I have a theory.

Republicans emphasize the individual.  Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans, believe in the tenets of the US Constitution, a document intended to limit the power of the federal government and reserve all rights not provided the federal government to the people and to the states.  Within each state, citizens have the right to determine in more local environments how much liberty they are willing to sacrifice to the state or local government and which powers they wish to preserve for themselves.  At the heart of this, is the individual.

Too many blacks gain their identity from their membership in their racial group.  I believe this is understandable.  During our nation's first 80 years black men and women, at least those who lived in the South, were slaves.  Then for the next 100 years, Jim Crow America segregated and belittled blacks.  We can say things are better now and I think it undeniable that this is true.  Nevertheless, with a history of 180 years of discrimination I believe the average black feels more of an identity with his race than with themselves as individuals.  During those 180 years, they could not have survived as individuals.

The civil rights movement is only 50 years old.  This means that two or even three generations of black men and women have come to maturity with no direct experience dealing with segregation.  Still, the history is there and the younger generations are unforgiving.  Worse, they imprint segregationist attitudes on all whites.  Then worse still, they apply credit to the wrong party for having ended Jim Crow and ended segregation. 

Why is this?  Individuals are the focus of Republican positions.  When Republicans speak of prosperity or needed laws they do not argue from the perspective of the groups that will benefit because they do not care about lines that divide.  Republicans promote positions that extend individual liberty.

Democrats propose and promote laws and policies directed toward groups.  They speak of equality to benefit persons who belong to favored Groups.  Programs like the War on Poverty, Affirmative Action, Healthcare, Medicaid, Education, etc. are designed toward meeting the needs of blacks and many blacks see their racial group as gaining an advantage from these programs.  Yet, which of these programs has truly benefited black men and women?  To gain welfare for his family, the black father had to leave the home.  Without the presence of a male role model or parental authority in the home, illegitimate birth rates of black women have gone from 20 to 72% between 1965 and 2007. 

Were it not for Republicans, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill would never have passed.  Mostly Democrats, for example, Senator Gore from Tennessee, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, Senator Fulbright from Arkansas were vehemently opposed to the Civil Rights Bill.  Six years earlier, President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, enforced Brown v. Board of Education and integrated Arkansas schools.  Blacks should praise Eisenhower.  His willingness to exercise authority and send troops to Little Rock took a special courage, one normally found only in a first step.  Still, Democrats promote targeted benefits to pay for free housing, pay for schooling, pay for meals, and other amenities targeted toward blacks and other favored groups.  What many blacks do not realize is that by accepting payments from the government, the government has become their keeper.  Many blacks are now dependent on the government and of course, they vote Democrat in great numbers.  It would be telling if the black vote were to be analyzed as going Republican or Democrat based upon the incomes, the education, the professions, and the ages of those in their samples.  I believe that when blacks become more educated and independent of the government they begin to understand the benefits of individualism and these are the black men and women we see at Tea Party rallies and these are the black men and women we see voting Republican.  

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that." 

Listen to a complete video of Governor Perdue making this statement.  click here 

Contrary to the assertions of her having spoken in hyperbole or that she was making a joke, I would invite you to listen to the audio and decide for yourself whether she was caught in an honest and very frank moment or not. 

A statement that I hope everyone would agree with me on is this.  When the politician comes off the teleprompter, abandons their notes, and shoots from the hip we get to see the true person.  The following defense was made by the Miami Herald, Politics Wires.  You have now heard the audio; do you believe this was a joke or spoken hyperbole?

The founding fathers created a bicameral Congress to have one body represent the people and the other represent the states.  The founders expected conflict and they expected gridlock.  Why does it amaze so many when gridlock occurs?  Why would the governor of a state desire to circumvent the voters and wish for a suspension of elections?  

Governor Perdue, the voters are the ones capable of eliminating gridlock.  If we want the gridlock to end, we will vote the rascals out.  I for one would love to reduce the number of your party that is in the Senate, the primary source of gridlock today.  It has been nearly three years since that body approved a budget.  This is unconscionable.  All Harry Reid has to do is to call the House passed Budget to the floor. 

All Harry Reid needs to do is to put the President's Job Bill on the floor.  Reid is the sponsor.  However, he knows the bill is pure election year tomfoolery.  This is his and the President's attempt to fool those who do not watch every day into believing their problem in life is that Republicans are keeping them down.  Business versus Labor, Rich versus Poor, Hispanic versus White, Black versus White, the list goes on.  This president has been the most divisive president in American History and my first priority is to do what I can to stop him and his agenda.  That requires another election for both the White House and for the Senate.  The sooner we remove Obama from the White House, Reid from his Majority Leader role in the Senate, the sooner gridlock will end, and the sooner we can begin a real economic recovery. 

Yet Bev Perdue apparently had one too many Boilermakers.  She wants to suspend Congressional elections for two years.  What do you suppose she would do with the presidential election if she had the opportunity?