Sunday, October 7, 2012
US -2012: Chief Election Agenda
The rich back Mitt Romney and others Barack. This is the real and central election agenda on which public will give decision on 6th Nov.2012. Apparently; there are many big issues like ailing economy, high unemployment, Obamacare etc. Among all election issues, the central point is social versus market, wealthy (1%) versus un-wealthy (99%). That means rich versus others. This issue is not very visible at all, but it has created a strong under current affecting people who will bring win to Barack.
A message is all around that Mitt is backed by rich while Barack is backed by middle and below. He has given a solid poof for this. Unaware he was being recorded at a private fundraiser for wealthy donors in May; Mr. Romney solidified his image as a super-rich guy out of touch with his struggling countrymen.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," he said. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.
"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," he continued, adding that his job "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Now election is very clearly polarised in two camps in disguise. One camp is 1% while other is 99%. This issue was buzz word of a movement- Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally.
OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.
David Maraniss recounts in his new biography, “Barack Obama: The Story.” By the time that Obama ran for President, in 2008, his relations with the financial industry had grown warmer, and he attracted more donations from Wall Street leaders than John McCain, his Republican opponent, did. Yet this good feeling did not last, despite the government’s bailout of the banking sector. Many financial titans felt that the President’s attitude toward the “one per cent” was insufficiently admiring, even hostile.
Washington fund-raiser sees it. The White House social secretary must spend the first year of an Administration saying, “Thank you, thank you, thank you.” Instead, the fund-raiser says, Obama’s first social secretary, Desirée Rogers—a stylish Harvard Business School graduate and a friend from Chicago—made some donors feel unwelcome. Anita McBride, the chief of staff to Laura Bush, says, “It’s always a very delicate balance at the White House. Do donors think they are buying favours or access? You have to be very conscious of how you use the trappings of the White House.
But you can go too far in the other direction, too. Donors are called on to do a lot. It doesn’t take a lot to say thank you.” One of the simplest ways, she notes, is to provide donors with “grip-and-grin” photographs with the President. “It doesn’t require a lot of effort on anyone’s part, but there’s been a reluctance to do it” in the Obama White House. “That can produce some hurt feelings.”
Obama's ban on the influence of lobbyists was one of several measures he implemented in 2009 themed around changing the Washington establishment. A federal judge upheld the attempt by President Barack Obama to cut down the influence of lobbyists, ruling that Obama was within his authority when he barred them from serving on government boards.
From family background both belongs to two opposite school of thoughts . Barack has lived poverties, scarcities, and difficulties. Hence, it is but natural that his thought process will be like that. He is pro middle class, deprived. Mitt is from an affluent and rich family. His father was Governor. So he talks about rich class, decrying the others (47%) on the basis of different benefits offered to them by the government.
On party line,Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. Our party, led by President Obama, is focused on building an economy that lasts—an economy that lifts up all Americans.
On party line,Republicans believe in the power and opportunity of America’s free-market economy. We believe in the importance of sensible business regulations that promote confidence in our economy among consumers, entrepreneurs and businesses alike. We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry and allow it to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
In 2008 chief agenda was the change, we can. The public was fed-up with and wanted to get rid of misrule of then republican president. Empirically, it is proved that, in general, one agenda pays once. During his working as President, he strategically set the agenda. He avoided photos with big donors of 2008 to prove to his voter that he is pro them. He banned lobbyist to send benefit to his voters. He, tacitly, lends his support to OWS to help remove inequality from the society.
It is very hard for Mitt to break the image of pro rich. He is trying to avoid this ghost to muster support of middle class voters. Only rich can’t fetch win to him. They can give big donations but in vote count all are same.
This is the chief election issue fanned by Barack camp by a privately recorded speech during a fund raising activity. This recorded message has done the work of Barack. It has created a strong undercurrent in disguise in masses among voters who are pro Barack on social issues. To make it an issue, very silently, he behaved like this in his current presidency at the cost of annoyance of rich who are vehemently opposing him in different ways. This time his donations are small but from bulk numbers to top the fund raising.
There is no sign yet in sight that Mitt will be able to remove his pro rich image. Barack contested 2008 on visible issue of change; but in 2012, he is contesting on invisible issue. This situation is more dangerous for the challenger. If this situation prevails which is most probable? This ongoing situation will re-elect Barack President on 6th November, 2012.
(Views are personal and based on different ref.)