October 21, 2014--Midcoast: Independents

Rona asked why is it that half the Republicans we know say they're not Republicans but Independents.

We were with a friend who took us out to a farewell lunch (we're here for two more weeks), and to Rona's question, said he too is an Independent.

"I'm for LePage for governor this time around, but two years ago I voted for Angus King for senator. He's officially an Independent and caucuses with the Democrats."

"But why is it," Rona pressed, "that every time we have this discussion and you say you're an Independent all the examples you give of government programs you don't like are ones supported and defended mainly by Democrats?"

"Could it be," I piled on, "and please don't take this personally, that some Republicans are reluctant to admit they're conservatives and so they pretend to be Independents? Of course I'm only speculating," I hastened to add, winking.

"That's not me," our friend said. "I'm not trying to evade responsibility for my political beliefs."

"But let's get back to my more fundamental question," Rona said, leaning across the booth to get closer to him so she would not be overheard by the people in the adjacent booth, and to keep me at arms distance--this was her issue, "Why do so many Republicans pretend they're Independents when--"

"I'm not sure I'm following you. Give me a few examples since I think I'm pretty balanced."

"How many times have you told the story about the woman you saw in the supermarket who paid with a SNAP card and then got into an expensive car?"

"Well, she did."

"And what about Obamacare? How you claim it's mainly for illegal immigrants--which in fact it isn't. It specifically excludes them."

"Well, if they show up at the ER they get treated, don't they?"

"Not because of Obamacare," I said.

"And," Rona continued, "you talk all the time about people ripping off welfare, when in fact you can't be on it for more than a lifetime total of three years."

"Well, I--"

"And when you talk about people cheating the system the examples you cite are all of poor people, never a Wall Street or hedge fund fat cat. People who are really taking advantage of what they can get away with. Making millions and paying less in taxes than you or I. Which means the rest of us have to pick up the tab for what it costs to pay for their loopholes."

"They're the job creators."

"Now you're sounding like you're friend Mitt. Which is another example of my point--the only politicians you like--and admittedly there are very few of them--are Republicans and--"

"Don't forget Angus." He smiled.

"Point well taken. But, tell the truth, the examples you generally cite of the things you don't like are of things liberals tend to support."

Shifting the subject he asked, "Why is it that when I drive around and see all those political yard signs, if there's one for the Democrat Mike Michaud, all the other signs are for Democrats. Shenna Bellows for the Senate--whoever she is--Chellie Pingree for the House of Representatives, Chris Johnson for the Maine Senate. All Democrats."

He leaned back feeling he had trumped Rona's argument.

"But there you go again,"she said.

"Once more I'm not following you."

"Again your bad example is from the Democrats. When you drive around and see a LePage sign and a Susan Collins sign, and a Les Fossel sign they're all Republicans aren't they?"

"Well, I suppose if you're an Independent," he was still attempting to avoid Rona's point. "I mean a real one, you'd have a mix of signs. Wouldn't you?"

"Fair point," Rona conceded, "But to tell you the truth, with everyone here claiming they're Independents I've never seen that kind of mix of lawn signs."

"We'll, if you want to, you should come to my neighborhood."

After lunch we did, even driving by his house.

In fairness, he didn't have any signs on display.

"That's what I call a real Independent," Rona said, looking sly. "He doesn't support anyone."

October 17, 2104--Liberal Wusses

For about 10 minutes last night, on TV, I stumbled onto the Maine governor's debate. That's all the time it took--actually, five minutes would have sufficed--to figure out who will win: current Republican governor Paul LePage in a walk.

It will help that he has two opponents, both in effect Democrats, and they will split the progressive vote so that LePage, as last time, will win with less than 40 percent of the vote. Actually, his two opponents this time are such wusses that he could easily get close to that magic 50-percent-plus-one.

Even as a part-time resident I know enough about LePage's record to cause me to hate the idea that he is one of my governors. (The other two, Rick Scott in Florida and Andrew Cuomo in New York, are in their own ways as terrible as LePage.)

I know--so what else is new.

I see LePage winning easily in spite of the fact that he's currently in a statistical dead heat with Mike Michaud--he's at 40 percent, Michaud 39 percent, and Eliot Cutler trails with less than half that.

Here's how I know--

LePage has an awful record when it comes to government programs targeted to make life a little easier for low-income Mainers. Of course he's against Obamacare and refuses to support it here. He also turned down federal support for the expansion of Medicaid. And you should only hear what he has to say about Food Stamps and minorities, even though Maine is almost all white.

Michaud and Eliot favor all of these programs and then some. They even look like central casting governor material--tall, slender, full heads of hair--while LePage has a weight problem, is height challenged, and has a snarly-looking face.

So, what's the story and why am I so sure that LePage will trounce the two of them?

I needed to hear responses to just one question to convince me who will win--

One of the things LePage has not done is expand food programs for poor, school-age kids. The host of the debate asked all three candidates what they would do about the 20 percent of Maine youngsters who do not get adequate nourishment. This should have been an easy one for Michaud and Cutler. Who doesn't want to see kids get fed? Especially if the federal government picks up most of the tab.

The two governor-types, all earnestness, took weak shots at LePage (missed opportunities) and proceeded to rattle off a long list of forgettable statistics, none of which scored any points with the audience or this viewer.

Then it was LePage's turn to respond.

He leaned forward, depositing his full weight on the podium (I feared for it) and snarled, "I know what it's like to be hungry. I didn't grow up rich [a swipe at his two rivals]. There were days I went to school hungry. I know about hunger. So don't lecture me about feeding kids. I favor that and have done everything I could during my first term to work on the problem [a lie]. And if I'm reelected I'll do more [probably another lie]."

Case closed. Election over.

One reason Republicans are doing better than Democrats is because Republican politicians, as insincere and hypocritical as they are, are better at coming across as authentic.

Take George W. Bush as as example--people thought that Yale-Harvard graduate George W, a third generation Brahmin Prescott-Bush who never wanted or worked hard for anything, was actually one of them. Just plain folks who it would be fun to hang out with and have a (nonalcoholic) beer. This also explains the appeal of a Chris Christie. Another faux-authentic.

Most Democrats, in contrast, come off as effete know-it-alls, telling people that they know best what's good for "ordinary people." Think John Kerry and Hillary (not Bill) Clinton. People are tired of hearing this, being treated this way. Lectured to.

I hate the idea, but I am trying to get used to the idea that I'll have four more years of LePage and probably Rick Scott. Cuomo I can swallow. But if liberals want to make a comeback, they had better practice being real. Or at least how to pretend to be.