Sergio Veskovic,www.sergiopolitics.org: What are your thoughts about Mitt Romney as a GOP candidate?Romney was not my first choice; I was disappointed that my preference did not make it through to the nomination. As in all political life issues, however, the choice goes to the people . . . and we have to live with that choice. The part that bothers me more than anything else, is that we all have to live with the choice of the majority . . . as we are now with Obama.
On the night of that infamous election, I told my husband, “We are f*ed.” Because I had not only seen, heard and understood Obama's response to Joe Wurzelbacher, I knew my instinctive reaction to Obama from the start of his campaign was right on the money. It had been so clear to me and to many, many other foreign-born, naturalized American citizens (not to mention hundreds of thousands of very smart Americans) that the mantra we had heard from Obama throughout his almost 3 years-long campaign was nothing less than socialist propaganda.
Romney, at least, does not create that violent, fear-filled reaction in anyone. (Mrs. Pelosi's overheated rhetoric does not count.) I do not think Mr. Romney is as Conservative politically as I would prefer: I think it will take the equivalent of a very hard right turn in our politics to get our Country even slightly headed in the direction we should be, if guided by the Constitution. I am not entirely confident that Mr. Romney is capable of that much of a hard right at the helm of our Country.
Regardless, I believe that Mr. Romney's cabinet choices will engender more confidence in his strong desire and ability to bring the Country around, stand up to the many detractors, the many discordant, ugly, and contrary voices that will doubtless continue maniacally trying to tear our country down.
Mr. Romney is not my favorite choice, but as far as it goes now, he is the only choice and has my vote and confidence.
Sergio Veskovic,www.sergiopolitics.org: What do you think about Obama and his chances for re-election?If more people start speaking out as fearlessly as many have recently, the chances of Obama's re-election are quite slim, possibly getting slimmer. Those who were able to convince themselves they were choosing correctly in 2008 have now, to a great extent, come to their senses. Their shock at what has been happening to their country in front of their eyes – aided by their own votes has doubtlessly shown them their error in judgment.
I find it quite encouraging to hear so many Republicans and so-called “Independents,” and even some Democrats, start to regret their vote . . . “buyer's remorse,” as it has been deemed. I call it allowing one's self to look for an excuse for one's own gullibility, sense of imposed guilt, and intense need to be “politically correct” to the extreme, resulting in voting for a man who had no business being a state legislator, much less be elected to the highest office of this country.
Reality tells me this man should not have the least possible chance of re-election. Regrettably, when I listen to an unfortunately significant number of my fellow citizens, I fear the chances may be slightly higher. Considering the fact that I would never have expected this man to have been elected in first place, yet he was, I have to hesitate, considering the mentality of a great number of our fellow citizens, to state definitively that he has little chance.
In essence, I do not think he would have been elected had two essential issues not converged in 2008: what I consider the complete betrayal of the American public by the “main stream” media, and the unfortunate weakness of the Republican candidate. I've never been a believer that only the economic crash of 2008 was the only trigger, though it was, of course part of it.
The economic crash was used in a politically masterful, even Machiavellian manner not seen since the machinations of the '60s between Kennedy and LBJ. (Anyone notice a correlation, there?)
In sum, if people remain stupid and gullible, Obama may well be re-elected; if not, the country has more chance to survive.
Sergio Veskovic,www.sergiopolitics.org: What do you think will be the main issue in November election?
That will entirely depend on which side has the better grasp of the use of propaganda, pabulum, and bromides . . . and how many more of the electorate have educated themselves in politics, economics, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
It should, of course, be “the economy, stupid,” but with today's populace, one never knows.
To me, it is an atrophied brain that is capable of listening to the nonsense spewed by the White House mouthpieces and not run screaming in complete frustration and anger. The Left has made inroads already in public thinking, engendering a seemingly complete lack of interest in the realities of life, even if those realities are hitting them square between the eyes.
Based on the mentality, laziness, and apathy of a great number of our voting public, it is almost a fact – as unfortunate as it may be – that the main issue will devolve to one of the most inane aspects of today's life: which candidate is more “personally popular” instead of which candidate is most qualified.
As pessimistic as that may appear, however, I retain my personal hope that the main issue will be reflected in President Reagan's question: “Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?”
Any self-sufficient, individual will have a strong, resounding “No!” in response, thereby making the economy the main issue, as it should be.
Social media's role in the 2008 election was primarily focused by the Obama campaign to their primary constituents: the young, high school and college age youngsters who were swept away by the “Obama Aura” . . . an absolute reflection of “style over substance” which has clearly been more important to young people these past several generations. Because the young are not much known for critical thinking, discernment, and logic, social media was the perfect medium for getting them corralled and moving in the direction demanded by the campaign.
Four years later, I think there has been enough awakening, realization, and economic and political changes to perhaps significantly lessen the effect of social media. Facebook, for example has suffered a major setback quite recently. I have canceled my subscription; my last communication was a detailed explanation of exactly why I canceled. The reasons included what I called my “last straws” . . . actions on the site, accepted by the site, the hypocrisy of the site and the creators. I have encouraged many of my friends to cancel as well. That leaves (among others, of course) Twitter, blogs, websites, each of which have their own limitations.
The most important factor this year in the battle of social media is that Conservatives have acquired the technology and have become just as adept in using the various media to disseminate their ideas, ideology, and premises. At this point, it's a matter of which side will better express themselves in the “language” easiest for the masses to comprehend.
Sergio Veskovic,www.sergiopolitics.org: What is your opinion of Super PACs and its influence in this race?
I have to admit, I'm not too knowledgeable about what this issue is all about, primarily because I have ignored it for the most part. I do not see anything wrong with groups of citizens to gather, pool resources and funds to work for the election of a preferred candidate.
The Citizens United lawsuit and the ultimate Supreme Court Decision supporting it, I feel, shows that “Super PACs” do have their place (in spite of Mr. Obama's selective description) – as they have always had in all elections to this point. If a candidate engenders such support as to encourage citizens with the funds to come together in support of that candidate, then I feel the only ones complaining about “Super PACs” will be the candidate whose support does not include that level of support.
As an individual citizen, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a group of citizens gathering funding and support for one candidate or another. In a truly fair world, the outcome would reflect the triumph of the one whose PACs were the most successful . . . sort of as in the 2008 election outcome.
Hopefully, Conservatives will not only have acquired more ability in the use of “social” media to spread the word, but also better use of PACs to purchase air time for better prepared commercials and broadcast presentations.
Sergio Veskovic,www.sergiopolitics.org: If you have some other thought you would like to share please feel free.
I have two additional thoughts to share here and a prayer, really, that the electorate that participated in the election of Obama in November 2008 will have come to their senses and not commit the same grievous error in November 2012.
It is imperative that Romney's campaign and that of the Super PACs continue to focus on the economy as it is Obama's major “Achilles' Heel." Both Romney and the Super PACs should be following Karl Rove's Super PAC example. They are almost entire tuned to highlighting the state of the economy today and giving the specific facts of what caused those issues. They put the questions out there, requiring that any thinking person determine for themselves whether the current economic policies will alleviate any of the problems.
I want to again thank Sergio for his interview and interest in actually giving me more time and a new forum in which to "share" my opinions.