I won’t pretend false equivalence – I think certain sides fudge, way more than others – or rather create false correlations.  Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.

Now, Mitt Romney, you were recently caught in a rather offensive gaffe – calling 47% of the populace victims. You can argue that the 47% won’t buy your tax plan – but let’s be real that wasn’t the offensive part – it was the dependent “victim” wording that landed you in the hot water of political gaffes.

Yet for this liberal – the disconcerting part of your statement was the mis-conflation on the math, that the 47% were Obama supporters – um, no. The flaw in your tax argument is  many will vote for you, Mitt. Many seniors, vets, low income white men, poor pro lifers…lets be real – the majority of the 47% live in deep red, southern states.

They don’t vote their economic interests Mitt, they vote against what  they see as liberal elitism even as our social redistributionist dollars redistribute directly to them.

According to your understanding, Mitt, my state, Washington, one of the most paid up income tax states, should be voting for you…alas, this will never happen – in fact we may even make gay marriage legal – does that give you shivers?

Us tax paying Washingtonians – believe in social equality, helping out and giving everyone a chance for success and love.  We accept our conservative brethren here and vice versa – but even they know in the big races we are liberal at heart – maybe we can blame the sun setting on the Pacific for this!?

Mitt what I’m saying is, you need to understand your voters – and understand they are not victims, unless you count voting against their own economic interests, as being victimized.

Conflating the tax base with the electorate, shows a lack of understanding of not only basic arithmetic, but a sad misunderstanding of how people think.

Math matters – but who is in your numbers, matters so much more.  Perhaps you are hoping to be aspirational – and perhaps your base doesn’t understand  their own place in this.  I don’t know – but I’ll be watching the results in November, from my bleeding heart liberal tax paying living room.

The Tea Party owns first dibs on this one – though many have said it’s been co-opted by the Republican Grand Old Party – or has the GOP been otherwise inversely co-opted? I’ll leave that for a future commentary…

More recently, the populist discontent, has erupted in a slowly(or quickly?) growing uprising against and directly aimed at Wall Street – at those that were bailed out – by those that were not. Everyday of the “occupation”(s) means it’s more newsworthy, something to be ignored, demonized, revered? It is also clear, that there is at least a left lean, or a liberal lean to it – not a Democrat one(yet) mind you. If anything, the movement(and it is fast becoming one) is pointedly anti-establishment. They don’t want to be labeled or aligned (again, I say yet) with the flip side, aka the Dems. And the Dems don’t know if they want them. One of the always (as a liberal) frustrating things about the party that claims us, is that we are a bit rebellious, and harder to harness, focus, for common goals.

Even more eye crossing for those of us on the sidelines, that would like to support the new movement, if you will, is the anarchists hat thrown into the fray – yeah, you heard me, anarchists – they seem to come to any party, especially rebelious ones – I guess that is invetible, no? I mean, define anarchy. Read more about the anarchists solidarity here – http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2011/10/07/dear-occupiers-a-letter-from-anarchists/. If the concept of this “alignement” seems a bit troubling, you aren’t the only one, but that too, will be held for future commentary.

I am not here to say whether the “occupy” movement is any more legitimate than the tea party – but why I get it, even if I don’t agree with some of the more radical things that are being spouted.

The reality, is that the people are feeling unfairly put upon. Jobs have dried up, and companies and banks are hoarding cash, and finding new ways to raise profits. They were bailed out, and now they’re bailing out. The tea party slash conservative view would be to cut government spending/intervention, because the bail out was wrong (I am being kind). The flip side is, they were bailed out, now where’s ours? After the far right has decided that government can’t do the job, the otherside is like, wall street screwed us. And thus opposing corners. Is either wrong. Perhaps both are.

The bail out, as the TARP is referred to, was necessary. Financial collapse of any of the major institutions would have lead to 1929 redux. That is why even the then exiting Bush whitehouse knew it had to be done. The problem with the initial bail out, and subsequent pieces, was that it included no accountability. Not surprising but still unsettling, and thus, an incomplete fix. Sure we avoided chaos, but we instead bought into a long uncomfortable recession. Squirts of goverment stimulus can’t fix it, and party squabbling and inaction, just drag it out more. Spending cuts do nothing but increase the hurt. What is the answer?

Personally, I think they need to stimulate innovation, give payroll tax cuts where needed(not the people that already have piles in the bank – duh), incent relief in the mortgage market. Everyone knows in sales, etc, incentives work. What does not work, is giving freely (bailouts, tax cuts)and crossing fingers that this will result in what is needed. It doesn’t even make logical sense what was done and what the GOP would promote. Blind hope isn’t realistic, and history proves against it. As of now, the Democrats are unable(the occupiers may even say are unwilling) to do anything else but edge barely to the left – these are not solutions.

What I would promote – probably neither side would consider politically feasible – it doesn’t satisfy either radical approach. To be pragmatic & logical, has in turn become it’s own version radical. Chew on that.

I will follow up with my take on the Tea Party – it’s partnership and perhaps take over of the elected GOP, and why I think it has evolved to be nothing more than a “legitimate” mask for religious zealots. And of course more on the Occupy movement – because, it cannot be ignored – whether you support it or not, something is brewing.

Occupy Seattle – Images by Elisa Sherman

My first full blog on the images from 10/6 & 10/8 is here – http://photosbyelisa.com/2011/10/occupy-seattle-beginning-first-images.html

ETA – a representative article – shows the disconnect vibe the occupy is almost using against the Democrats – http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/pers-o08.shtml – question for the next, how will being so anti establishment effect any change?