Wants -- Don't Wants in 2012 Election

The News and Politics category at BlogHer is engaging their readers on the topic of the upcoming 2012 Election.    Their writer's observation has been  that individuals often write what they do want, but some may prefer to express their thoughts by saying what they don't want to occur in this election and/or to our nation. I'm reminded of what's occurring politically in California.

The time is ripening for California political campaigning to intensify, since our Primary Election is upcoming Tuesday, June 5th.    This will be our State's first election since redistricting changes.  Also, Primary Election voters can now vote across Party lines.   Another major Primary change is that the winners will be the top two vote-getters regardless of political party.  I supported these changes, but such a system is not without risk.  Many candidates for an office could result in a vote split allowing final candidate selections in November to be individuals least preferred by a majority of voters.  All those who cast their ballot for those candidates who were eliminated might have had a total vote count greater than either or both winners received

Below is a comment I wrote rather quickly at BlogHer, so is far from inclusive about what I do want candidates to discuss in this 2012 election.  I thought with all the election issues this year maybe I should have more across-generations discussions.   Exchanging views seems to me would be important since many of the blogs I usually encounter reflect similar points of view to mine. 

What do you think?  Are you able to have civil discourse with those who have different views than yours?   

(Your comments are welcome here and/or there, but you'll need to register with BlogHer which I did several years ago.  I don't know what specific aspects of the political discourse they'll introduce, or how frequently in the future.  They seem to be a primarily younger women's site, do have a "Senior" sub-section under their Life category -- where I recently commented, also.  Men are welcome at BlogHer, too, the last I knew.  Ronni Bennett at "Time Goes By" wrote some guest blog articles there a few years ago engaging some younger readers in some interesting dialogue. 

I do want to hear a REAL debate on issues between Presidential candidates.

I do want them to discuss the critical issues facing this nation.

I do want them to avoid injecting social issues into the conversation as a way to divisively distract voters.

I do want to know the contributors names to all Super Pacs.

I do want Social Security preserved (not changed to private investing) for the sake of my children and their children, generations to come, as can be done despite rhetoric to the contrary.

I do want health care coverage plans for all to be increasingly made available and not cut as promoted by some. 

I do want a Congress committed to working together to solve the nation's problems instead of focusing on being obstinate.

I do want Congress to institute a combination of budget cuts and revenue increases that address our deficit in gradual stages and not in one gigantic traumatic action.

I do want to see the middle class re-established in this country (remember the 99%.)

I do want to see tax rate increases for the 1% as Warren Buffett and others affected believe to be warranted in this time of our nation's need.

I do want to see wasteful subsidies such as with the oil industry reduced or eliminated since those companies are making millions in profit.

I do want to see budget reductions in military spending which even they say are warranted.

There are a lot of other matters I want and others I don't want, but this is a start.

THOUGHTS ON POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Californians had once thought there was a possibility our June primary election results might well be a significant determining factor in selecting the U.S. Republican Party presidential candidate. But now news pundits speculate the choice is pretty well settled. The present dominating Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, still needs more primary election delegates before the Party convention, but likely will have garnered them in other states.

Today a competing major Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign, though a couple others remain. They're not expected to create seriously disrupting divisions at the convention, but one never knows until the political party officially gathers, delegates vote, then announce their nominee. Their vice presidential selection might be interesting, considering the previous presidential election year choice.

Incumbent President Barack Obama is the uncontested Democratic Party candidate.

The Republican Party convention will be held in Tampa, Florida one week before the Democratic Party convention in Charlotte, North Carolina which begins Labor Day. Then both candidates will court us for our votes the remainder of September and the entire month of October.

We've heard a lot of alarming Republican Party extremist base-appeasing rhetoric spoken to date. I'm curious about how their candidate will mold his future words and issue positions to attract the large percentage of more moderate, but alienated voters needed to win the national election? I anticipate some rhetoric discrepancies which leaves me wondering how voters can determine what he actually believes and will do?

We'll all want to pay close attention to both political party candidates words to see exactly what they each propose to resolve our nation's problems. Then, we'll need to compare that language with what they've said before, along with what we can realistically expect either of them to actually achieve. Congressional candidate selections we make will also be most critical for any future legislation passed.

A major issue both political parties are rightfully determined to address is reducing our national deficit. The parties seem to have distinctly different ideas about how this is accomplished. I've been concerned there are some alarming proposals for budget cuts adversely affecting current and future generations. Logic would suggest reductions would be made where dollars -- hundreds of thousands, millions, billions -- could most readily be realized with the least amount of negative impact on our basic needs, health and security. I find Congressional actions and failure to act on budget items that would contribute to that goal extremely troubling.

The end of March when the issue of oil company subsidies arose our U.S. Senate Republicans, plus a few Democrats, demonstrated just how seriously they're committed to the goal of deficit reduction. Senators also revealed what interests are their real priority.

President Obama had proposed eliminating $24 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the big five oil companies, but his plan met with little support. Senators ignored the fact the oil companies profits have been very high. Also, little did it matter that these oil companies are expected to make a trillion over the next decade. Given how dedicated Republicans are to save taxpayers money, voting to eliminate these oil company subsidies seemed like it should have been automatic.

The reality: only two Republicans -- Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe -- thought these oil subsidies were a good place to initiate deficit reduction. All other Republican Senators didn't want to save our taxpayer dollars, including four Democrats -- Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and James Webb of Virginia.

To repeat, we know where those Republican Senators priorities are and how sincere they are about national deficit reduction in ways to least impact the ordinary American. This is only one example of an area where taxpayer dollars could be saved. Americans across this nation should be outraged.

Listen to the words, review past actions plus current acts in these months leading to the November 2012 election.