During the 2012 presidential campaign the Obama re-election effort depended heavily on the slogan, "Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive." The slogan, first uttered by Vice President Laughing Hyena, was dutifully repeated by the lapdog media. But with the distance of some time having lapsed, even those fairly shallow reasons to re-elect a president who single-handedly has destroyed not only the economic health of this country, but our standing in the world, have failed to live up to their billing.
"Osama Bin Laden is dead...," the first part of the slogan was meant to imply that since Barack Obama finally allowed himself to be pulled off the golf course after repeated attempts and he graciously allowed a photo to be taken of himself in the White House situation room wearing a sports jacket hastily covering his golf shirt, that that somehow made him a great president. It was also more than an implication that since Osama Bin Laden was dead, so was his terror organization, Al Qaeda.
Today, around the world, Al Qaeda is more influential and capable of inflicting terror than when Barack Obama first took the oath of office in January 2009. The recent taking of Fallujah in the Anwar province of Iraq is just one in a long line of incidents that prove my assertion. The hi-jacking of the Syrian revolution by Al Qaeda is another. Every where one looks there is evidence that Al Qaeda is far from "on the run," as President Obama stated many times. From Libya, where they murdered a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, to Tunisia and a majority of North Africa and into the Middle East, where they have increased their stranglehold on that region.
Al Qaeda has become stronger because it has become decentralized. No more is every operation of terror orchestrated by the bearded cave dweller in the mountains of Afghanistan. But it has become a federation of terror groups that can strike independently while advancing the same goal.
The second part of the Obama 2012 campaign slogan does not fare any better than the first. The violation of this nation's bankruptcy laws and the manner in which secured creditors, i.e. the bond holders, were handled by the Obama administration was strictly illegal. But that was only the first sin of the GM bailout. Recently, the government quietly sold its final shares of GM stock at a loss to taxpayers of $10 billion, quite an investment the president made on our behalf. GM also employs half the persons it did in 2000. The waste of hard earned tax payer dollars and the disintegration of this nation's laws was engaged in so that the president could payoff his union supporters with other people's money.
President Obama's campaign slogan, "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive," is exemplary of the failure endemic in his administration. But far from the president and his sycophant supporters being ashamed of their failure, they gleefully wallow in it, blissfully unaware of the utter disaster they have created and the hardship they have wrought upon millions of their countrymen.
Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
Monday, February 3, 2014
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Would Benghazi Ad Have Given Romney The Presidency?
There has been quite a stir among Republicants and Conservatives in recent days with the release of a Republicant National Committee ad dealing with the feckless response by the Obama administration to the Benghazi terrorist attack that took four American lives. Many feel that, had the ad run, it would have changed the outcome of last fall's election. Not running the ad was a calculated risk on the part of the Romney campaign to stay focused on the horrible economy.
One must remember that before Barack Obama was re-elected, no president had won re-election with economic data worse than when he took office. Mr. Romney was placing his faith in the American people to want better for the country than the Obama administration had delivered in its first term. He thought that bringing an unsettled scandal into the campaign would confuse things and take the focus off the economy. I know it is popular among conservatives to want a magic bullet to which they can point as the reason Governor Romney lost the election. But the truth is that one ad on Benghazi would not have changed the outcome. Besides which, presidential elections are almost always about domestic issues and rarely are decided on foreign affairs.
All the polling about President Obama's handling of Benghazi, before, during and after the attack, show that his negative numbers never got much over the low fifty percentile. And people still re-elected him. Even to this day, polling shows that there is still not the kind of outrage over the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration's incompetence before and during and their blatant lies afterward, that there should be from the majority of the American people. For the Romney campaign to have run an ad, no matter how effectively produced conservatives thought it might have been, during the campaign, would not have changed any votes. The people who felt the Obama administration's handling of Benghazi was a national disgrace, were going to vote for Romney with or without an ad about it.
Conservatives need to move away from analysis of the Republicant failed election bid and begin to wake up to the battle they should be fighting against Leftism. Until there is an acknowledgement in the Republicant party that recent elections have been lost because effectively articulated conservatism has not been the focus of the Republicant message, they will continue to lose elections. And no one ad is going to be a substitute for principled adherence to the conservative values which founded and made this country great.
One must remember that before Barack Obama was re-elected, no president had won re-election with economic data worse than when he took office. Mr. Romney was placing his faith in the American people to want better for the country than the Obama administration had delivered in its first term. He thought that bringing an unsettled scandal into the campaign would confuse things and take the focus off the economy. I know it is popular among conservatives to want a magic bullet to which they can point as the reason Governor Romney lost the election. But the truth is that one ad on Benghazi would not have changed the outcome. Besides which, presidential elections are almost always about domestic issues and rarely are decided on foreign affairs.
All the polling about President Obama's handling of Benghazi, before, during and after the attack, show that his negative numbers never got much over the low fifty percentile. And people still re-elected him. Even to this day, polling shows that there is still not the kind of outrage over the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration's incompetence before and during and their blatant lies afterward, that there should be from the majority of the American people. For the Romney campaign to have run an ad, no matter how effectively produced conservatives thought it might have been, during the campaign, would not have changed any votes. The people who felt the Obama administration's handling of Benghazi was a national disgrace, were going to vote for Romney with or without an ad about it.
Conservatives need to move away from analysis of the Republicant failed election bid and begin to wake up to the battle they should be fighting against Leftism. Until there is an acknowledgement in the Republicant party that recent elections have been lost because effectively articulated conservatism has not been the focus of the Republicant message, they will continue to lose elections. And no one ad is going to be a substitute for principled adherence to the conservative values which founded and made this country great.
Monday, March 25, 2013
The "Cool Factor" And Barack Obama
There have literally been hundreds of millions of words written and spoken in analysis of last November's election. Many theories have been advanced as to why Barack Obama won and Mitt Romney lost, some of which have made valid points and others of which border on conspiracy theory. But I believe the reason Barack Obama won re-election is the same reason teenagers buy music that they ultimately abandon in a few years, it is the "cool factor." People will give up their money, time and labor, and in the case of Barack Obama's re-election, their liberty, in order to be thought of by their fellow human beings as cool.
Marketing gurus have known for a long time that if they can convince people that something is cool, and not having it is uncool, the public can be convinced to buy anything. No one wants to feel that they are the outsider, looking in. This human phenomenon is especially present in the young teenage physique, which with the juvenilization of America that has been implemented for the last few decades, explains the actions of people who are chronologically adult but emotionally teenagers.
The music industry has used the "cool factor" to sell their product to successive generations of teenagers for the last 60 years. I use to think, when I was young and foolish, that hit music sold because it spoke to people's souls and was important. But top 40 music sells because it has successfully been marketed to the music-buying public using the "cool factor." Unfortunately, this method that has been used for decades by music industry marketers, has now made its way into the hands of political charlatans who sell candidates based on the "cool factor" and not the candidate's ideas or accomplishments.
Which brings us full circle to Barack Obama. The blatancy of the "cool factor" being used to sell the public on Barack Obama was evident, not only in the war room of his campaign, but the media as well. I have been awestruck the last four plus years with the number of times I have heard Barack Obama referred to as "cool." As if he were the latest iPhone offering from Apple or the horribly disfigured musical styling of Beyonce. It is a sad commentary on where we are as a nation that Barack Obama, supposed leader of the free world, has been referred to as cool many more times than he has been referred to as presidential during his tenure. The marketing gurus must have focus grouped presidential, and found with today's juvenile voters, it didn't test as well as cool. But just remember, all you seekers of the cool thing, what is cool generally is not what is best, in music as well as politics.
Marketing gurus have known for a long time that if they can convince people that something is cool, and not having it is uncool, the public can be convinced to buy anything. No one wants to feel that they are the outsider, looking in. This human phenomenon is especially present in the young teenage physique, which with the juvenilization of America that has been implemented for the last few decades, explains the actions of people who are chronologically adult but emotionally teenagers.
The music industry has used the "cool factor" to sell their product to successive generations of teenagers for the last 60 years. I use to think, when I was young and foolish, that hit music sold because it spoke to people's souls and was important. But top 40 music sells because it has successfully been marketed to the music-buying public using the "cool factor." Unfortunately, this method that has been used for decades by music industry marketers, has now made its way into the hands of political charlatans who sell candidates based on the "cool factor" and not the candidate's ideas or accomplishments.
Which brings us full circle to Barack Obama. The blatancy of the "cool factor" being used to sell the public on Barack Obama was evident, not only in the war room of his campaign, but the media as well. I have been awestruck the last four plus years with the number of times I have heard Barack Obama referred to as "cool." As if he were the latest iPhone offering from Apple or the horribly disfigured musical styling of Beyonce. It is a sad commentary on where we are as a nation that Barack Obama, supposed leader of the free world, has been referred to as cool many more times than he has been referred to as presidential during his tenure. The marketing gurus must have focus grouped presidential, and found with today's juvenile voters, it didn't test as well as cool. But just remember, all you seekers of the cool thing, what is cool generally is not what is best, in music as well as politics.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Barack Obama: The Anti-King
Today is inauguration day, although Barack Obama and Joe Biden officially took the oaths of their respective offices yesterday on January 20, as required by the Constitution. Today is the more public spectacle that will begin with the swearing in and end with multiple gala events known as inaugural balls. One of the highlights of any presidential inauguration is of course the inaugural address by the President. Usually it is a time for the President to outline in general terms his goals and aspirations for the country he serves. In the case of Barack Obama, it will no doubt be an opportunity to extol the virtues of his leftist ideology and engage in subtle hyperbole against anyone who would oppose him.
Today is also Martin Luther King Jr. day, which is ironic given that Barack Obama is the antithesis of the great man who we honor with this holiday. Both in party affiliation (most Liberals seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Reverend King was a Republican) and in political and social values, there couldn't be two men further apart than Barack Obama and Martin Luther King Jr. The Reverend King believed in the American values of hard work, individualism and personal liberty as a means of operating the most just society. Barack Obama sees a large and confiscatory central government as the way forward to social salvation. Reverend King believed that each man should be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin. Barack Obama has spent almost his entire life promoting the proposition that special compensation and opportunity should be awarded to him based solely on his skin color. And he aims to make this favorable judgement a matter of government policy, not only based on skin color, but now on sexual preference and immigration status as well.
The Reverend King loved America and the values and principles upon which it was founded. Barack Obama seeks to tear down those values and replace them with ones that he deems to be more fair and socially just. This is not simply speculation on my part, the President has stated from the beginning that he wanted to fundamentally transform America. The Reverend King wanted to embrace American values and convince this country to realize its full potential, not by transforming into something else, but by reaching back and pulling forward the principles of its founding. He sought to emblazon on each American heart the words enshrined in our founding documents and bring to fruition the dream of his and all of our founding fathers.
As you experience snippets of inaugural hoopla today you will invariably hear references, vague or overtly, to Barack Obama being the realization of Reverend King's dream. Just consider that the source of these references originates from a political ideology which has sought to reshape, re-manufacture and re-package the man we honor with today's holiday. It is an ideology populated with people who in recent years have found Martin Luther King's spirituality so objectionable that they have dropped the word reverend from his title. It is also an ideology currently lead by the other man that some will honor today, Barack Obama, the anti-King.
Today is also Martin Luther King Jr. day, which is ironic given that Barack Obama is the antithesis of the great man who we honor with this holiday. Both in party affiliation (most Liberals seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Reverend King was a Republican) and in political and social values, there couldn't be two men further apart than Barack Obama and Martin Luther King Jr. The Reverend King believed in the American values of hard work, individualism and personal liberty as a means of operating the most just society. Barack Obama sees a large and confiscatory central government as the way forward to social salvation. Reverend King believed that each man should be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin. Barack Obama has spent almost his entire life promoting the proposition that special compensation and opportunity should be awarded to him based solely on his skin color. And he aims to make this favorable judgement a matter of government policy, not only based on skin color, but now on sexual preference and immigration status as well.
The Reverend King loved America and the values and principles upon which it was founded. Barack Obama seeks to tear down those values and replace them with ones that he deems to be more fair and socially just. This is not simply speculation on my part, the President has stated from the beginning that he wanted to fundamentally transform America. The Reverend King wanted to embrace American values and convince this country to realize its full potential, not by transforming into something else, but by reaching back and pulling forward the principles of its founding. He sought to emblazon on each American heart the words enshrined in our founding documents and bring to fruition the dream of his and all of our founding fathers.
As you experience snippets of inaugural hoopla today you will invariably hear references, vague or overtly, to Barack Obama being the realization of Reverend King's dream. Just consider that the source of these references originates from a political ideology which has sought to reshape, re-manufacture and re-package the man we honor with today's holiday. It is an ideology populated with people who in recent years have found Martin Luther King's spirituality so objectionable that they have dropped the word reverend from his title. It is also an ideology currently lead by the other man that some will honor today, Barack Obama, the anti-King.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
The Fantasy Dwellers
It has been a month since the 2012 Presidential election, which saw the American people reward failure and incompetence with another four year term for President Obama. Over the last month I have heard many hours of analysis from the right, the left and those disinterested parties in the middle. One thing is clear, many in the Republican party are what I call, "The Fantasy Dwellers." They refuse to leave their comfort zone of denial as they blame the election loss on a supposed lack of Hispanic outreach or too strict of an adherence to the social issues like abortion. All of their reasons lead to the same conclusion, less Conservative influence in the party.
I believe that the recent election loss is a result of Republicans not understanding the contest in which we were involved. We sent a chess player to a boxing match, and expected him to deliver a first round knock-out punch. This is not a criticism of Mitt Romney, he is a decent and accomplished man for whom I have nothing but respect and admiration. But it is obvious now that the world of politics has an ever decreasing tolerance for men who posses decency and honor. And therein lies our problem. The electorate say they abhor negative campaigning, yet they just re-elected a man to the Presidency based solely on his character assassination of his opponent. The more that Republicans deny this fact, the more national elections they will lose.
But still the "Fantasy Dwellers" persist in their absurd notion that somehow we can keep sending out tit-mice to battle rattle snakes. I'm re-evaluating, based on the election results, my opinion that Newt Gingrich may have been a better choice for our party than Mitt Romney. Recent polling has shown that a majority of those who voted for President Obama don't like his policies and think they are wrong for the country. So why did they vote against their own self-interests? They did so because they were influenced by the barrage of negative ads by the Obama campaign against Mitt Romney. It didn't matter that they weren't true, they made people dislike Mitt Romney more than they disliked the President's policies. The Republican establishment's insistence that President Obama is a nice guy but just misguided on policy, helped President Obama maintain his likability edge.
Hindsight is always 20-20, but after the 2008 election many on our side were saying we needed to attack Obama on his radical ideology and roots. But the moderate faction of the party, "The Fantasy Dwellers", were afraid of alienating the independent voters as well as being called racists. Well Mitt Romney won the independent vote and was called a racist anyway, and still lost the election. Maybe if we had sent a street fighter like Newt Gingrich into the ring with Obama, the result may have been different. He may have been able to give people a reason not only to vote Republican, but a reason not to vote Democrat. "The Fantasy Dwellers" in the Republican party, unfortunately, seem to be in control. And as long as they are, we can expect to lose elections with candidates who arm themselves with pee-shooters against nuclear-armed opponents.
Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted December 2, 2012.
I believe that the recent election loss is a result of Republicans not understanding the contest in which we were involved. We sent a chess player to a boxing match, and expected him to deliver a first round knock-out punch. This is not a criticism of Mitt Romney, he is a decent and accomplished man for whom I have nothing but respect and admiration. But it is obvious now that the world of politics has an ever decreasing tolerance for men who posses decency and honor. And therein lies our problem. The electorate say they abhor negative campaigning, yet they just re-elected a man to the Presidency based solely on his character assassination of his opponent. The more that Republicans deny this fact, the more national elections they will lose.
But still the "Fantasy Dwellers" persist in their absurd notion that somehow we can keep sending out tit-mice to battle rattle snakes. I'm re-evaluating, based on the election results, my opinion that Newt Gingrich may have been a better choice for our party than Mitt Romney. Recent polling has shown that a majority of those who voted for President Obama don't like his policies and think they are wrong for the country. So why did they vote against their own self-interests? They did so because they were influenced by the barrage of negative ads by the Obama campaign against Mitt Romney. It didn't matter that they weren't true, they made people dislike Mitt Romney more than they disliked the President's policies. The Republican establishment's insistence that President Obama is a nice guy but just misguided on policy, helped President Obama maintain his likability edge.
Hindsight is always 20-20, but after the 2008 election many on our side were saying we needed to attack Obama on his radical ideology and roots. But the moderate faction of the party, "The Fantasy Dwellers", were afraid of alienating the independent voters as well as being called racists. Well Mitt Romney won the independent vote and was called a racist anyway, and still lost the election. Maybe if we had sent a street fighter like Newt Gingrich into the ring with Obama, the result may have been different. He may have been able to give people a reason not only to vote Republican, but a reason not to vote Democrat. "The Fantasy Dwellers" in the Republican party, unfortunately, seem to be in control. And as long as they are, we can expect to lose elections with candidates who arm themselves with pee-shooters against nuclear-armed opponents.
Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted December 2, 2012.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
My Final Word On The Election Results
My angst over the re-election of Barrack Obama was compounded by some on the Conservative side blaming Mitt Romney for the loss. Some on our side tried to make the point that Mitt Romney didn't embrace the Tea Party enough and pandered to the Republican establishment too much, and that's why Barrack Obama still holds the Oval Office. But Mitt Romney is the embodiment of the American value of achievement through a strong work ethic. He articulated, fairly well in my opinion, the promise of America enshrined in our founding documents. No, the fault is not in our candidate, but in our culture.
A culture where over 50% of the people don't understand how and where prosperity is created in this country. A culture where over 50% of the people don't understand that it's been the private sector in the U.S., working in an environment dominated by freedom not government involvement, that has been able to produce wealth and advancement that has progressed the human condition more than any nation in history. A culture where over 50% of the people think that government exists, not to protect our God-given rights, but to create new rights for everything from health care to housing. A culture where over 50% of the people believe that they do not possess because others do, and they have no problem empowering government to confiscate wealth from those who have earned it and redistribute it to those who didn't. Yes, our problems are bigger than whether Mitt Romney kept his distance from the Tea Party or didn't appear on some Conservative talk show.
As a nation, we elected as our President a teleprompter over a real flesh and blood substantive man. I guarantee you that Mitt Romney's life experience and value system is more aligned with the vast majority of Americans than is the life experience and value system of Barrack Obama. And yet, over 50% of the voters in this country elected a man President who has a proven track record of implementing policy that is destructive to their own value system. This fact means that a majority of the people in this country either have a death wish, or they have been dis-informed by the very sources whose Constitutional duty it is to disseminate the truth to the people. Ignorance in this country is not by accident, it has been a deliberate political strategy by those on the left to gain and to hold power over those they have inculcated with it.
The election on this past Tuesday is proof positive that the left's decades long strategy has paid off. I think it was Ben Franklin who said, "Those who would trade their liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Over 50% of the people in this country made the conscience decision on this past Tuesday to trade their liberty for the government promise of security. Which as we all should know isn't worth the paper upon which it is written, just ask Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who were brutally murdered by terrorists as our newly re-elected President and members of his administration sat and watched, and did nothing. Good luck extracting their empty promises of health care and jobs from the wreckage of their rhetoric.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
A culture where over 50% of the people don't understand how and where prosperity is created in this country. A culture where over 50% of the people don't understand that it's been the private sector in the U.S., working in an environment dominated by freedom not government involvement, that has been able to produce wealth and advancement that has progressed the human condition more than any nation in history. A culture where over 50% of the people think that government exists, not to protect our God-given rights, but to create new rights for everything from health care to housing. A culture where over 50% of the people believe that they do not possess because others do, and they have no problem empowering government to confiscate wealth from those who have earned it and redistribute it to those who didn't. Yes, our problems are bigger than whether Mitt Romney kept his distance from the Tea Party or didn't appear on some Conservative talk show.
As a nation, we elected as our President a teleprompter over a real flesh and blood substantive man. I guarantee you that Mitt Romney's life experience and value system is more aligned with the vast majority of Americans than is the life experience and value system of Barrack Obama. And yet, over 50% of the voters in this country elected a man President who has a proven track record of implementing policy that is destructive to their own value system. This fact means that a majority of the people in this country either have a death wish, or they have been dis-informed by the very sources whose Constitutional duty it is to disseminate the truth to the people. Ignorance in this country is not by accident, it has been a deliberate political strategy by those on the left to gain and to hold power over those they have inculcated with it.
The election on this past Tuesday is proof positive that the left's decades long strategy has paid off. I think it was Ben Franklin who said, "Those who would trade their liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Over 50% of the people in this country made the conscience decision on this past Tuesday to trade their liberty for the government promise of security. Which as we all should know isn't worth the paper upon which it is written, just ask Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who were brutally murdered by terrorists as our newly re-elected President and members of his administration sat and watched, and did nothing. Good luck extracting their empty promises of health care and jobs from the wreckage of their rhetoric.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
An Open Letter To Obama Voters
So you voted for Barrack Obama, again, to be our President and you're celebrating your victory today. You're emailing and calling all your Conservative friends and rubbing it in, as if it were a sporting event in which you each supported different teams. But it's not a sporting event, it's the fate of our country that hung in the balance of this election. You made your choice against traditional American values as outlined by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but in doing so you have also earned the responsibility to explain your decision to your children and grandchildren.
Someday you must explain to your children and grandchildren why over 70% of their earnings are being confiscated by the federal government to pay for health care and other social programs. Additionally, you will have to explain to them why their grandparents and great-grandparents are being rationed to death by a health care system that now allows bureaucrats to choose who lives and who dies. You must explain why as Americans, even if we had the money, we can no longer travel anywhere abroad for fear of being kidnapped and murdered by Islamic extremists. You must tell your children and grandchildren that the decision you made in the 2012 Presidential election has lead to the terrorist attacks they now have to endure as they live their daily lives. Your children and grandchildren will know that it was your decision to re-elect Barack Obama that has caused a high percentage of their peers to be without work most of their adult lives, requiring them to live off a tiny pittance provided by the government. You will have to explain to your children and grand-children that in the free days of their country, people had access to as much energy as they wanted, anytime they wanted it and didn't have their energy rationed to them by the federal government. You, and you alone, will have to explain to your children and grandchildren why, when the liberty that heroes of the past spilled their blood to defend, you couldn't summon enough courage to vote in defense of that liberty. You will have to explain to your progeny why you chose the empty promises of a nanny-state over the liberty and prosperity of an opportunity society.
Someday, if your ignorance hasn't completely blunted your senses, you will realize that this one decision will have had dire consequences that will span generations. You will have to explain to your children and grand-children that the liberty and prosperity enjoyed by over 200 years of Americans, was voted away by you for purely short-term and selfish reasons. God help you when your children and grand-children look at you with despair in their eyes and ask why you condemned them to a dark and desperate future where their only subsistence depends, not on their own ambition and drive, but on crumbs from an ever-expanding government. This is the country and the world you have left, not only for your own descendants, but for the descendants of all Americans. So celebrate your grand accomplishment. How does it feel?
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Someday you must explain to your children and grandchildren why over 70% of their earnings are being confiscated by the federal government to pay for health care and other social programs. Additionally, you will have to explain to them why their grandparents and great-grandparents are being rationed to death by a health care system that now allows bureaucrats to choose who lives and who dies. You must explain why as Americans, even if we had the money, we can no longer travel anywhere abroad for fear of being kidnapped and murdered by Islamic extremists. You must tell your children and grandchildren that the decision you made in the 2012 Presidential election has lead to the terrorist attacks they now have to endure as they live their daily lives. Your children and grandchildren will know that it was your decision to re-elect Barack Obama that has caused a high percentage of their peers to be without work most of their adult lives, requiring them to live off a tiny pittance provided by the government. You will have to explain to your children and grand-children that in the free days of their country, people had access to as much energy as they wanted, anytime they wanted it and didn't have their energy rationed to them by the federal government. You, and you alone, will have to explain to your children and grandchildren why, when the liberty that heroes of the past spilled their blood to defend, you couldn't summon enough courage to vote in defense of that liberty. You will have to explain to your progeny why you chose the empty promises of a nanny-state over the liberty and prosperity of an opportunity society.
Someday, if your ignorance hasn't completely blunted your senses, you will realize that this one decision will have had dire consequences that will span generations. You will have to explain to your children and grand-children that the liberty and prosperity enjoyed by over 200 years of Americans, was voted away by you for purely short-term and selfish reasons. God help you when your children and grand-children look at you with despair in their eyes and ask why you condemned them to a dark and desperate future where their only subsistence depends, not on their own ambition and drive, but on crumbs from an ever-expanding government. This is the country and the world you have left, not only for your own descendants, but for the descendants of all Americans. So celebrate your grand accomplishment. How does it feel?
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
We're All Socialists Now
This is not the blog that I thought I would be writing this morning, nor was it the one for which I had the least bit of preparation. The words do not flow easily from this heavy heart. The re-election of Barrack Obama extinguishes the flames of hope and optimism I had that the United States of America was not lost, and that her people would once again choose to live by the principles and values enshrined in their founding documents. The shackles of leftism, at this moment, seem too strong for the forces of liberty to break.
The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have resoundingly said they no longer want the unalienable right to pursue their own happiness, but want an all-powerful government to dole out happiness in amounts they have determined to be fair. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country support the destruction of the best health care system in the world and replacing it with government rationing and less individual choice. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country are not interested in employment or economic growth but rather in undeserved benefits paid for by some magical government money that doesn't depend on a growing private sector. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country think that a man who wants to reduce American strength and refused to protect the lives of Americans serving abroad, is going to somehow provide protection for them and their families. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country accept the victim status attached to them by the left and want to give the Federal government the authority to redress their perceived grievances. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have lost faith in themselves and their communities and instead have foolishly invested their faith in big government.
There is going to be much analysis of last night's election in the coming days and weeks. But analysis won't change the reality that things are going to become much more oppressive in this country over the next four years, as they have over the last four. This President is hell-bent on punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends, both actions will deplete us even more as a nation. Expect new edicts from the President that will regulate free speech out of the Internet and radio, as well as yet undetermined areas of our lives. Expect the world to become more chaotic as President Obama weakens U. S. military strength, and the forces of evil in the form of radical Islam become stronger. Expect even more debt and higher and higher taxes to pay for the President's ever-expanding portfolio of social programs. And finally, when there is no more wealth to squeeze out of the producers and give to the non-producers, expect Greece-like insolvency and riots. And the once great nation of the United States of America will no longer be exceptional, which is the true dream of Barrack Obama senior and one which the son will bring to fruition, thus making the father very proud indeed.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have resoundingly said they no longer want the unalienable right to pursue their own happiness, but want an all-powerful government to dole out happiness in amounts they have determined to be fair. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country support the destruction of the best health care system in the world and replacing it with government rationing and less individual choice. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country are not interested in employment or economic growth but rather in undeserved benefits paid for by some magical government money that doesn't depend on a growing private sector. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country think that a man who wants to reduce American strength and refused to protect the lives of Americans serving abroad, is going to somehow provide protection for them and their families. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country accept the victim status attached to them by the left and want to give the Federal government the authority to redress their perceived grievances. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have lost faith in themselves and their communities and instead have foolishly invested their faith in big government.
There is going to be much analysis of last night's election in the coming days and weeks. But analysis won't change the reality that things are going to become much more oppressive in this country over the next four years, as they have over the last four. This President is hell-bent on punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends, both actions will deplete us even more as a nation. Expect new edicts from the President that will regulate free speech out of the Internet and radio, as well as yet undetermined areas of our lives. Expect the world to become more chaotic as President Obama weakens U. S. military strength, and the forces of evil in the form of radical Islam become stronger. Expect even more debt and higher and higher taxes to pay for the President's ever-expanding portfolio of social programs. And finally, when there is no more wealth to squeeze out of the producers and give to the non-producers, expect Greece-like insolvency and riots. And the once great nation of the United States of America will no longer be exceptional, which is the true dream of Barrack Obama senior and one which the son will bring to fruition, thus making the father very proud indeed.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Another Time For Choosing
It's election day, and I am reminded of something that Ronald Regan said in his now famous speech for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign entitled, "A Time For Choosing." Towards the end of the speech he said, "We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." Those words, uttered almost 50 years ago, couldn't be more apropos to the next 24 hours. For those who think that I am being overly dramatic or exaggerating for political effect, consider how far down that road to a thousand years of darkness we have traveled in the last four years.
Four years ago, or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought it possible that our government would have a 32% ownership in General Motors, or any other company for that matter. And furthermore, that the Executive branch of our government would void legitimate ownership of that company's debt, i.e. the bondholders, and give that equity to the President's political supporters in the unions. We would have never thought that our President would close GM car dealerships, not because they weren't profitable, but because they were owned by Republicans.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would destroy the financial industry with a law that had written into it special provisions for a dozen of the biggest financial institutions. This law, known as Dodd/Frank, has decimated small community banks and credit unions because they can't afford the millions of dollars required to be compliant. Hundreds of these smaller institutions have been closed in the last four years, simply because they can't afford the price of government intrusion into their business .
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our President, the first black man to be voted into that office, would divide us even more along racial lines. By attacking as racists those who disagree with him on the right policies for this country, he slashed open this nation's wound of racial disharmony that was well on its way to healing forever. But he didn't stop at race, he divided us along lines of wealth and poverty, male and female, gay and straight, young and old, religious and non-religious and in hundred more ways to voluminous to list here. We never would have thought that our President would actively pursue a policy of divisiveness to further his own political agenda.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would, using bribes and threats to Congress and with members from only one party behind closed doors, craft and pass a law that allows the Federal government to confiscate one sixth of the U.S. economy that is comprised of the health care industry. Furthermore, we would have never thought that under that same law, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Federal government would be given such authority over the lives of the governed as to allow it to compel individuals to purchase a product in the form of health care insurance.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government, under control of a radical President, would deliberately implement policies that would slow growth for the purpose of increasing dependence on government programs. That these policies would decrease middle-class wealth by 40% and middle-class incomes by $4500 a year. And furthermore, that our government would engage in such fiscally irresponsible behavior as to add more national debt than any other administration in the history of our great country. This debt threatens to crush us and make us weaker at home and around the world.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought that our President, in a candid moment he didn't know was being recorded, would speak words of appeasement to the Russian President, saying he would have more flexibility to reduce U.S. nuclear strength after he was re-elected. We would have never thought that any President, Republican or Democrat, would show such weakness abroad as to not defend U.S. sovereignty or American lives, and would actually sit and watch while an ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered.
Yes, I think we have indeed made great strides down that road to a thousand years of darkness. And the further down that road we travel, the more the entire world will be plunged into that darkness. America is the last best hope of man on earth. Today we can give rise to that hope by changing the course we are on and by replacing our President with one who believes in the American hope and will lead us back to the road of light and prosperity.
Four years ago, or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought it possible that our government would have a 32% ownership in General Motors, or any other company for that matter. And furthermore, that the Executive branch of our government would void legitimate ownership of that company's debt, i.e. the bondholders, and give that equity to the President's political supporters in the unions. We would have never thought that our President would close GM car dealerships, not because they weren't profitable, but because they were owned by Republicans.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would destroy the financial industry with a law that had written into it special provisions for a dozen of the biggest financial institutions. This law, known as Dodd/Frank, has decimated small community banks and credit unions because they can't afford the millions of dollars required to be compliant. Hundreds of these smaller institutions have been closed in the last four years, simply because they can't afford the price of government intrusion into their business .
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our President, the first black man to be voted into that office, would divide us even more along racial lines. By attacking as racists those who disagree with him on the right policies for this country, he slashed open this nation's wound of racial disharmony that was well on its way to healing forever. But he didn't stop at race, he divided us along lines of wealth and poverty, male and female, gay and straight, young and old, religious and non-religious and in hundred more ways to voluminous to list here. We never would have thought that our President would actively pursue a policy of divisiveness to further his own political agenda.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would, using bribes and threats to Congress and with members from only one party behind closed doors, craft and pass a law that allows the Federal government to confiscate one sixth of the U.S. economy that is comprised of the health care industry. Furthermore, we would have never thought that under that same law, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Federal government would be given such authority over the lives of the governed as to allow it to compel individuals to purchase a product in the form of health care insurance.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government, under control of a radical President, would deliberately implement policies that would slow growth for the purpose of increasing dependence on government programs. That these policies would decrease middle-class wealth by 40% and middle-class incomes by $4500 a year. And furthermore, that our government would engage in such fiscally irresponsible behavior as to add more national debt than any other administration in the history of our great country. This debt threatens to crush us and make us weaker at home and around the world.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought that our President, in a candid moment he didn't know was being recorded, would speak words of appeasement to the Russian President, saying he would have more flexibility to reduce U.S. nuclear strength after he was re-elected. We would have never thought that any President, Republican or Democrat, would show such weakness abroad as to not defend U.S. sovereignty or American lives, and would actually sit and watch while an ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered.
Yes, I think we have indeed made great strides down that road to a thousand years of darkness. And the further down that road we travel, the more the entire world will be plunged into that darkness. America is the last best hope of man on earth. Today we can give rise to that hope by changing the course we are on and by replacing our President with one who believes in the American hope and will lead us back to the road of light and prosperity.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Barrack Obama-The Democrats Hindenburg
Beginning in 2004, when Barrack Obama gave the keynote address at the Democrat National Convention, the party faithful have seen him as the Democrat's version of Ronald Reagan. With his great oratory skills and political savvy, he was going to lead the Democrats to political dominance that would last for decades. Mr. Obama's victory in the 2008 Presidential election brought to fruition this lofty narrative and put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican party. Or such was the belief among many Democrats.
A funny thing happened on the way to decades-long political dominance, actual real-life governing got in the way. It was bad enough that Barrack Obama had absolutely no experience having actually run anything, but he surrounded himself with people who had the same lack of this very important skill. He, and the country at large, soon found out that you can't simply govern a nation with lofty, well-read speeches. At some point, if he wants to be successful, a President has to persuade members of the opposite party in Congress, and the public at large, that his policy ideas are right for the country. Barrack Obama had no ability to this end and from the start of his administration governed by fiat. His Presidency quickly became persona non grata among the voters, and in the 2010 mid-term elections, they sent a clear message by handing control of the House of Representatives over to the Republicans and giving them 5 more seats in the Senate. In fact, the Republicans gained the most House seats than either party had in any previous election. But even with this resounding rejection of the President's policies, especially Obamacare, Mr. Obama ignored the will of the people and continued to govern against it.
And now we come to the end of the 2012 election cycle, one which has shown the American people a President who is not only un-presidential, but mean-spirited and a true political bully. But more than that, the President has lead members of his own party to behave in a like-wise manner. He said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, but instead he has fundamentally transformed his own party from a group of well-meaning, albeit at times wrongheaded, public servants to a group of opportunistic and thuggish community organizers. The rank and file Democrats thought they were getting in Barrack Obama a Reagan, but instead received the political equivalent of the Hindenburg.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
A funny thing happened on the way to decades-long political dominance, actual real-life governing got in the way. It was bad enough that Barrack Obama had absolutely no experience having actually run anything, but he surrounded himself with people who had the same lack of this very important skill. He, and the country at large, soon found out that you can't simply govern a nation with lofty, well-read speeches. At some point, if he wants to be successful, a President has to persuade members of the opposite party in Congress, and the public at large, that his policy ideas are right for the country. Barrack Obama had no ability to this end and from the start of his administration governed by fiat. His Presidency quickly became persona non grata among the voters, and in the 2010 mid-term elections, they sent a clear message by handing control of the House of Representatives over to the Republicans and giving them 5 more seats in the Senate. In fact, the Republicans gained the most House seats than either party had in any previous election. But even with this resounding rejection of the President's policies, especially Obamacare, Mr. Obama ignored the will of the people and continued to govern against it.
And now we come to the end of the 2012 election cycle, one which has shown the American people a President who is not only un-presidential, but mean-spirited and a true political bully. But more than that, the President has lead members of his own party to behave in a like-wise manner. He said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, but instead he has fundamentally transformed his own party from a group of well-meaning, albeit at times wrongheaded, public servants to a group of opportunistic and thuggish community organizers. The rank and file Democrats thought they were getting in Barrack Obama a Reagan, but instead received the political equivalent of the Hindenburg.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Why Obama Will Lose On Tuesday
When Barrack Obama loses the Presidential election this Tuesday, it will be for two main reasons. One, he just can't transform the souse ear of his policy failures into the silk purse of re-election victory. And the second cause of his loss will be a poorly run campaign. I know some of you are thinking, "But Axelrod and Plouffe are the geniuses that ran Barrack Obama's successful 2008 campaign." Well, a high school student council campaign would have won in 2008 against John McCain, who at times looked like he didn't even want the job.
The biggest problem for President Obama is not that he is a big government Liberal, which he most certainly is, but that the voters see him as dangerous to their individual liberties. Especially in light of the public statements he has made, which are antithetical to our system of government and the Constitution. In a 2002 radio interview, Barrack Obama called the Constitution a charter of negative rights, because it only said what the Federal government can't do. In other words he doesn't want to see any limiting principle enforced on the Federal government. Since becoming President, Mr. Obama has publicly expressed envy for the power possessed by China's Communist leaders, lamented that the founders wrote a Constitution which made change difficult and has expressed a desire to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) and make laws himself without the laborious legislative process.
But back to the poorly run campaign. The Barrack Obama re-election campaign has been chaotic, veering from Bain Capital attacks to Mitt Romney's tax returns to Mitt Romney's 47% remark to Big Bird to Mr. Romney's binder comment in the second debate and then back to the Bain Capital attacks. The President's campaign has done everything it can to avoid talking about Barrack Obama's dismal record on the economy, energy, the debt and foreign policy (especially the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi which killed four Americans, including our ambassador). All that has been left to them is to attack Mitt Romney, which I think has back-fired. It has made the President's campaign look negative and week, while Mitt Romney's effort has been seen by the voters as uplifting and positive. Someone should have told the Obama campaign that voters don't like electing a President that is a gloomy Gus. But then they were committed to the low road upon which they set themselves and nothing was going to make them change course. Not being able to adapt to new information and changing situations is what made President Obama a horrible failure as a president, as well as giving him a losing campaign.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
The biggest problem for President Obama is not that he is a big government Liberal, which he most certainly is, but that the voters see him as dangerous to their individual liberties. Especially in light of the public statements he has made, which are antithetical to our system of government and the Constitution. In a 2002 radio interview, Barrack Obama called the Constitution a charter of negative rights, because it only said what the Federal government can't do. In other words he doesn't want to see any limiting principle enforced on the Federal government. Since becoming President, Mr. Obama has publicly expressed envy for the power possessed by China's Communist leaders, lamented that the founders wrote a Constitution which made change difficult and has expressed a desire to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) and make laws himself without the laborious legislative process.
But back to the poorly run campaign. The Barrack Obama re-election campaign has been chaotic, veering from Bain Capital attacks to Mitt Romney's tax returns to Mitt Romney's 47% remark to Big Bird to Mr. Romney's binder comment in the second debate and then back to the Bain Capital attacks. The President's campaign has done everything it can to avoid talking about Barrack Obama's dismal record on the economy, energy, the debt and foreign policy (especially the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi which killed four Americans, including our ambassador). All that has been left to them is to attack Mitt Romney, which I think has back-fired. It has made the President's campaign look negative and week, while Mitt Romney's effort has been seen by the voters as uplifting and positive. Someone should have told the Obama campaign that voters don't like electing a President that is a gloomy Gus. But then they were committed to the low road upon which they set themselves and nothing was going to make them change course. Not being able to adapt to new information and changing situations is what made President Obama a horrible failure as a president, as well as giving him a losing campaign.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Friday, November 2, 2012
October Surprise-A President Doing His Job
The idea of an October surprise in Presidential politics started with the election of 1988, when Democrats accused George H. W. Bush of having flown to Iran before the 1980 election to make a special deal with the Iranians not to release the hostages until Ronald Reagan was safely elected President. Of course, the story was proven to be a complete fabrication by the Democrats. Other October surprises did have some basis in truth, illustrated by the revelation a few days before the 2000 election that years prior, George W. Bush had been charged with a DUI. The whole idea of an October surprise, some revelation that has an important impact on the outcome of a Presidential election, is really more myth than reality. Usually practiced by Democrats, October surprises have rarely had an impact on elections, but there is still an unexplainable mystique about them.
Some have suggested that the October surprise assigned to this year's Presidential election is hurricane Sandy, more to the point, President Obama's response to hurricane Sandy. Let's examine the President's actions closely. He flew to and over some storm devastated areas, mainly in New Jersey, and promised quick government aid. He received the slobbering endorsement of Republican Governor, Chriss Christie, who is trying to ensure his own re-election next year in a predominantly Democrat state. The dog-looking-for-a-bone response of a Governor from a state in turmoil aside, the President did nothing that wasn't commensurate with his job description. And yet, the expectations for this President have been lowered so much, that even doing his job for a couple of days earns him high praise. There are even those deluded few, on both sides of the political spectrum, that think his performance was so spectacular that it will sway voters away from Mitt Romney next Tuesday and re-elect the President. That would not only be a surprise, but a miracle. Considering that his storm performance has done nothing to bring down chronically high unemployment, increase the slowest GDP growth in decades, reduce the ever-expanding food stamp roles, reverse the growing number of people in poverty and reduce the historically high debt and deficit that threatens to make the country insolvent.
Another aspect of the President's storm-related political pandering is his promise to speed up the process by which government operates in order to get aid to stricken areas as quickly as possible. My question is, "Why can't government always work that way?" Why not have a government that is streamline and employs efficacy in everything it does, as Mitt Romney has suggested and Barrack Obama has criticized throughout this campaign. It seems to me that the real October surprise is that when things really need to get accomplished, President Obama has endorsed Mitt Romney's government model. So why would the American people elect a part-time practitioner of better government when they can have as President the man who designed it and would employ it on a full-time basis?
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Some have suggested that the October surprise assigned to this year's Presidential election is hurricane Sandy, more to the point, President Obama's response to hurricane Sandy. Let's examine the President's actions closely. He flew to and over some storm devastated areas, mainly in New Jersey, and promised quick government aid. He received the slobbering endorsement of Republican Governor, Chriss Christie, who is trying to ensure his own re-election next year in a predominantly Democrat state. The dog-looking-for-a-bone response of a Governor from a state in turmoil aside, the President did nothing that wasn't commensurate with his job description. And yet, the expectations for this President have been lowered so much, that even doing his job for a couple of days earns him high praise. There are even those deluded few, on both sides of the political spectrum, that think his performance was so spectacular that it will sway voters away from Mitt Romney next Tuesday and re-elect the President. That would not only be a surprise, but a miracle. Considering that his storm performance has done nothing to bring down chronically high unemployment, increase the slowest GDP growth in decades, reduce the ever-expanding food stamp roles, reverse the growing number of people in poverty and reduce the historically high debt and deficit that threatens to make the country insolvent.
Another aspect of the President's storm-related political pandering is his promise to speed up the process by which government operates in order to get aid to stricken areas as quickly as possible. My question is, "Why can't government always work that way?" Why not have a government that is streamline and employs efficacy in everything it does, as Mitt Romney has suggested and Barrack Obama has criticized throughout this campaign. It seems to me that the real October surprise is that when things really need to get accomplished, President Obama has endorsed Mitt Romney's government model. So why would the American people elect a part-time practitioner of better government when they can have as President the man who designed it and would employ it on a full-time basis?
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Dreams From My Second Term Agenda
This week, President Obama released a book-like agenda for his second term, should he be re-elected. The rather lengthy tome used thousands of words to express three main themes, which he repeated in all three debates and just about every stump speech on the campaign trail. President Obama's three big ideas for a second term that he claims will fix all our problems are 1) Soak the rich, 2) Hire teachers and 3) Build roads and bridges.
The trouble with the President's first agenda item, soak the rich, is that the top 10% of wage earners in this country already shoulder 70% of the total tax burden, according to the latest IRS statistics. Additionally, over a million small businesses would be hit by the President's higher tax rate because they file as sub-chapter S corporations, which means they file their taxes as individuals. These small businesses account for two thirds of new job creation. Logic, and simple economics, would dictate that these small businesses will hire fewer, or no new workers if they are paying more in taxes. Not to mention the additional burden that Obamacare will place on them. The other problem with soaking the rich is it leaves them less money to invest in private enterprises that keep people employed and create economic activity. A strong economy depends on business investment, a third of Gross Domestic Product is comprised of this type of investment.
President Obama's second big agenda item, hire more teachers, is both antithetical to reason and disingenuous. According to the Department of Education, since the 1970s the number of teachers has doubled while student enrollment over that period has only increased by 8%. The myth that smaller class sizes leads to a better educational experience for students has no basis in reality. If it did, universities would never turn out educated students because in many courses the class sizes are in the hundreds. I remember my own elementary and high school experience where class sizes were rarely under 40 pupils to a class, and my education didn't suffer at all from class sizes they now call too large. The last thing to remember on this agenda item is that practically all direct education spending happens at the state and local level. The Federal government doesn't hire teachers, so no president can promise to do so. And the over 100 billion dollars a year that is spent by the Federal Department of Education is done so on administration costs, none of that money actually augments bottom line education.
The last part of the President's agenda, building roads and bridges, sounds good on the surface but its reality is a different story. The President would have people believe that our entire infrastructure is crumbling and no administration in the last 50 years has allocated a dime to its repair. This just isn't true, the Federal government has doled out hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money over the last 30 years for infrastructure maintenance and repair. The problem is that politicians use that money to build bike paths and new government buildings that they then name after themselves. No politician wants a pothole named after them and giving people something new will always garner more votes than simply fixing something old that has fallen into disrepair. Infrastructure spending is another example that is illustrative of the fact that we don't have a funding problem, we have an allocation problem.
The common thread linking all three of the President's main agenda items is redistribution of wealth. Whether it is redistributing that wealth from the rich to the poor, as in the first agenda item, or it is redistributing wealth from everyone to his union supporters, as in the last two items, re-distribution is the plan for a second term. And the President, for all of his failings, has not failed to make crystal clear his intention to redistribute wealth. And if the voters return him to office next month, it will be with the full knowledge of his intentions, and God help us if those intentions are realized.
The trouble with the President's first agenda item, soak the rich, is that the top 10% of wage earners in this country already shoulder 70% of the total tax burden, according to the latest IRS statistics. Additionally, over a million small businesses would be hit by the President's higher tax rate because they file as sub-chapter S corporations, which means they file their taxes as individuals. These small businesses account for two thirds of new job creation. Logic, and simple economics, would dictate that these small businesses will hire fewer, or no new workers if they are paying more in taxes. Not to mention the additional burden that Obamacare will place on them. The other problem with soaking the rich is it leaves them less money to invest in private enterprises that keep people employed and create economic activity. A strong economy depends on business investment, a third of Gross Domestic Product is comprised of this type of investment.
President Obama's second big agenda item, hire more teachers, is both antithetical to reason and disingenuous. According to the Department of Education, since the 1970s the number of teachers has doubled while student enrollment over that period has only increased by 8%. The myth that smaller class sizes leads to a better educational experience for students has no basis in reality. If it did, universities would never turn out educated students because in many courses the class sizes are in the hundreds. I remember my own elementary and high school experience where class sizes were rarely under 40 pupils to a class, and my education didn't suffer at all from class sizes they now call too large. The last thing to remember on this agenda item is that practically all direct education spending happens at the state and local level. The Federal government doesn't hire teachers, so no president can promise to do so. And the over 100 billion dollars a year that is spent by the Federal Department of Education is done so on administration costs, none of that money actually augments bottom line education.
The last part of the President's agenda, building roads and bridges, sounds good on the surface but its reality is a different story. The President would have people believe that our entire infrastructure is crumbling and no administration in the last 50 years has allocated a dime to its repair. This just isn't true, the Federal government has doled out hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money over the last 30 years for infrastructure maintenance and repair. The problem is that politicians use that money to build bike paths and new government buildings that they then name after themselves. No politician wants a pothole named after them and giving people something new will always garner more votes than simply fixing something old that has fallen into disrepair. Infrastructure spending is another example that is illustrative of the fact that we don't have a funding problem, we have an allocation problem.
The common thread linking all three of the President's main agenda items is redistribution of wealth. Whether it is redistributing that wealth from the rich to the poor, as in the first agenda item, or it is redistributing wealth from everyone to his union supporters, as in the last two items, re-distribution is the plan for a second term. And the President, for all of his failings, has not failed to make crystal clear his intention to redistribute wealth. And if the voters return him to office next month, it will be with the full knowledge of his intentions, and God help us if those intentions are realized.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Final Presidential Debate-2012
The final Presidential debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, was held last night at Lynn University in Boca Rotan, Florida. The moderator for the debate was veteran newsman, Bob Schieffer. The topic of discussion was foreign policy, however much of the time was spent talking about economic issues. I thought Bob Schieffer's performance was closer to Jim Lehrer's in the first debate than it was to Candy Crowley's in the second. It was ironic that yesterday was the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy telling the American people that the Soviets had missiles in Cuba. Ironic because as Mitt Romney pointed out later in the debate, we now have a President who recently told the Russian President that he would have more flexibility after the election with regards to reducing our nuclear arsenal.
I thought Governor Romney was effective in prosecuting the foreign policy failures of President Obama, in sharp contrast to the sometimes delusional view that the President tried to advance. This delusion was highlighted by the President's refusal to use the term Islamic extremists, illustrating his inability to understand the nature of our enemy. He also advanced the narrative that Al Queda was far weaker and our relationships in the Middle East are far stronger today than when he took office. Mitt Romney refuted the President's assertions by illustrating just how much more dangerous and volatile the Middle East is since Mr. Obama's term began. The two candidates did agree on several topics including the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, sanctions on Iran (although Mitt Romney said they should be more sever) and the future departure of Bashar al-Assad as leader of Syria.
A highlight of the debate was when Mitt Romney correctly pointed out the weakness shown by the President to our enemies early in his term when he embarked on his apology tour. The President called reports of his apology tour a "Whopper" of a lie. The President also repeated the now thoroughly discredited lie that Governor Romney's tax cuts would cost 5 trillion dollars. Mitt Romney didn't defend himself adequately on that charge, but did effectively refute the President's charge that Mitt Romney wanted to let GM completely dissolve. Mitt Romeny scored further points when he pointed out that the President pulled missile defense from Poland, an ally, and didn't support the Green Revolution in Iran after their "elections" in 2009. Governor Romney also correctly pointed out that our Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 and our Air Force is the smallest it's been since its founding. The President's reply to these facts was snarky and made him look petty and small. Mitt Romney successfully made the case for a strong U.S. military and an overall optimism which made the President's attempts to do the same look weak in comparison.
If there was one disappointment for me, it was that Mitt Romney didn't mention the security failures in Libya or the two weeks of administration lies that followed. Maybe his campaign made the political calculation to allow the Governor's surrogates and others in the media to push this issue, and allow Mr. Romney to stay above the fray and look more Presidential. Taking everything in total, Mitt Romney edged out the President in the debate and in doing so kept alive his recent momentum in the race. I'm sure those on the left and in the media will call the debate for President Obama, but as we saw with the last debate, media support for the President doesn't translate into any bounce in the polls.
I thought Governor Romney was effective in prosecuting the foreign policy failures of President Obama, in sharp contrast to the sometimes delusional view that the President tried to advance. This delusion was highlighted by the President's refusal to use the term Islamic extremists, illustrating his inability to understand the nature of our enemy. He also advanced the narrative that Al Queda was far weaker and our relationships in the Middle East are far stronger today than when he took office. Mitt Romney refuted the President's assertions by illustrating just how much more dangerous and volatile the Middle East is since Mr. Obama's term began. The two candidates did agree on several topics including the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, sanctions on Iran (although Mitt Romney said they should be more sever) and the future departure of Bashar al-Assad as leader of Syria.
A highlight of the debate was when Mitt Romney correctly pointed out the weakness shown by the President to our enemies early in his term when he embarked on his apology tour. The President called reports of his apology tour a "Whopper" of a lie. The President also repeated the now thoroughly discredited lie that Governor Romney's tax cuts would cost 5 trillion dollars. Mitt Romney didn't defend himself adequately on that charge, but did effectively refute the President's charge that Mitt Romney wanted to let GM completely dissolve. Mitt Romeny scored further points when he pointed out that the President pulled missile defense from Poland, an ally, and didn't support the Green Revolution in Iran after their "elections" in 2009. Governor Romney also correctly pointed out that our Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 and our Air Force is the smallest it's been since its founding. The President's reply to these facts was snarky and made him look petty and small. Mitt Romney successfully made the case for a strong U.S. military and an overall optimism which made the President's attempts to do the same look weak in comparison.
If there was one disappointment for me, it was that Mitt Romney didn't mention the security failures in Libya or the two weeks of administration lies that followed. Maybe his campaign made the political calculation to allow the Governor's surrogates and others in the media to push this issue, and allow Mr. Romney to stay above the fray and look more Presidential. Taking everything in total, Mitt Romney edged out the President in the debate and in doing so kept alive his recent momentum in the race. I'm sure those on the left and in the media will call the debate for President Obama, but as we saw with the last debate, media support for the President doesn't translate into any bounce in the polls.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Final Debate Preview
When President Obama and Mitt Romney meet at Lynn University in Boca Rotan, Florida tonight for their third and final debate, it will signal the home stretch of the 2012 Presidential campaign. The debate will be moderated by Face the Nation host, Bob Schieffer and the subject of the debate will be limited to foreign policy. It is important for each candidate not only to turn in a solid debate performance, but also to force their opponent to appear the clear loser. As important as a decisive win is for each candidate, each campaign is looking for something different from the debate.
As for Mitt Romney, who trounced President Obama in the first debate and clearly had a strong performance in the second, his strategy will be to lock up the election with a decisive win in tonight's debate. The Governor has taken the reins of the campaign's momentum, as evidenced by last Friday's Gallup daily tracking poll which showed Mr. Romney with a 6 point lead over the incumbent president. He has also managed to convert states like Pennsylvania and Michigan to toss-up status from solidly in the Obama column.
President Obama, on the other hand, is engaged in the much more formidable task of shifting the momentum of the campaign back in his favor. His campaign has been seen by many to be rootless and wandering, trying desperately to diminish Mitt Romney with Big Bird ads and the spinning of Governor Romney's binder comment, which he made at the second debate. With crumbling poll numbers not only related directly to the race but his favorability as well, President Obama is behind the proverbial eight ball. I'm sure his campaign is looking to this final debate as a chance to shift the winds of the race in a direction that will fill his flaccid sails and pull him across the finish line ahead of Governor Romney.
I look for Mitt Romney to be well versed on every aspect of the President's foreign policy, but especially keen on Libya. The death of four Americans, including the ambassador, is not an easy pill for the American public to swallow. It is made even more difficult by the apparent incompetence of this administration to provide adequate security, even after it was requested several times by Ambassador Stevens and his staff. The incompetence was compounded by the clumsy cover-up which saw members of the administration denying the attack was an act of terror and instead blaming it on an obscure You Tube video.
The proceedings tonight in Florida will consist of a generous helping of political drama and I'm sure both candidates will bring their A game. But in the final analysis, Mitt Romney has the edge going in, he only needs a draw or better. President Obama needs a decisive win to have any hope of a change in the direction of this Presidential campaign.
As for Mitt Romney, who trounced President Obama in the first debate and clearly had a strong performance in the second, his strategy will be to lock up the election with a decisive win in tonight's debate. The Governor has taken the reins of the campaign's momentum, as evidenced by last Friday's Gallup daily tracking poll which showed Mr. Romney with a 6 point lead over the incumbent president. He has also managed to convert states like Pennsylvania and Michigan to toss-up status from solidly in the Obama column.
President Obama, on the other hand, is engaged in the much more formidable task of shifting the momentum of the campaign back in his favor. His campaign has been seen by many to be rootless and wandering, trying desperately to diminish Mitt Romney with Big Bird ads and the spinning of Governor Romney's binder comment, which he made at the second debate. With crumbling poll numbers not only related directly to the race but his favorability as well, President Obama is behind the proverbial eight ball. I'm sure his campaign is looking to this final debate as a chance to shift the winds of the race in a direction that will fill his flaccid sails and pull him across the finish line ahead of Governor Romney.
I look for Mitt Romney to be well versed on every aspect of the President's foreign policy, but especially keen on Libya. The death of four Americans, including the ambassador, is not an easy pill for the American public to swallow. It is made even more difficult by the apparent incompetence of this administration to provide adequate security, even after it was requested several times by Ambassador Stevens and his staff. The incompetence was compounded by the clumsy cover-up which saw members of the administration denying the attack was an act of terror and instead blaming it on an obscure You Tube video.
The proceedings tonight in Florida will consist of a generous helping of political drama and I'm sure both candidates will bring their A game. But in the final analysis, Mitt Romney has the edge going in, he only needs a draw or better. President Obama needs a decisive win to have any hope of a change in the direction of this Presidential campaign.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Mitt Romney-A National B-12 Shot
If and when President Obama loses his bid for re-election, the deciding factor, in my opinion, will be twofold. He will have underestimated the voters' desire to reject him and his ideology, and he will have overestimated his ability to convince the voters to believe his mis-characterizations of Mitt Romney. It will be the proverbial "pride coming before a fall" which will be his undoing. According to a recent book by Bob Woodward, President Obama touched John Boehner's arm during the 2011 debt ceiling debate and told him, "John, I have complete confidence in my ability to sway the American people." Well, maybe not when it comes to the American people agreeing to a suicide pact with the President. We shall see in a couple of weeks.
The one glaring difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney which has been highlighted by the debates, as well as the campaign in general the last couple of weeks, is the desire to uplift the country in every way. And in that respect, I think the optimism of Governor Romney is very similar to that of Ronald Reagan. I'm not saying that Mitt Romney is Ronald Reagan, but then again, Ronald Reagan wasn't Mitt Romney either. But Mitt Romney does seem to have the Reaganesque gift for inculcating in Americans a sense of greatness and a desire to strive for better. President Obama's message is that America must settle for less than she once was. Whether it is less economic growth, less influence to do good in the world or less individual freedoms for the good of the collective. These are concepts which are ingrained in President Obama's DNA and are conversely anathema to every fiber of Mitt Romney's being.
Barrack Obama's four year odyssey of crisis creation, class-warfare and general thuggery, has emotionally and physically drained the American people. Mitt Romney is like a super shot of B-12 for our national energy and well being. Where Barrack Obama paints a bleak picture of America's future as unexceptional, Mitt Romney is an advocate for that exceptionalism. Where Barrack Obama says the only salvation for Americans is to cede their liberty to bigger and bigger government, Mitt Romney believes every American can use their God-given gifts to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Where Barrack Obama wants Americans to accept that someone else is holding them back and government should be employed to settle the score, Mitt Romney makes the case that it is the governmental policies of Barrack Obama and those who think as he does that are truly holding back the greatness of the American people. Where Barrack Obama thinks that America should have less of a role in the world to shape events for good, Mitt Romney believes that it is the American values enshrined in our founding documents that can bring peace and prosperity to the rest of the world. I believe, in the final analysis, Mitt Romney will win the Presidential election because he is the right man for the time and his optimism will not allow any other outcome.
The one glaring difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney which has been highlighted by the debates, as well as the campaign in general the last couple of weeks, is the desire to uplift the country in every way. And in that respect, I think the optimism of Governor Romney is very similar to that of Ronald Reagan. I'm not saying that Mitt Romney is Ronald Reagan, but then again, Ronald Reagan wasn't Mitt Romney either. But Mitt Romney does seem to have the Reaganesque gift for inculcating in Americans a sense of greatness and a desire to strive for better. President Obama's message is that America must settle for less than she once was. Whether it is less economic growth, less influence to do good in the world or less individual freedoms for the good of the collective. These are concepts which are ingrained in President Obama's DNA and are conversely anathema to every fiber of Mitt Romney's being.
Barrack Obama's four year odyssey of crisis creation, class-warfare and general thuggery, has emotionally and physically drained the American people. Mitt Romney is like a super shot of B-12 for our national energy and well being. Where Barrack Obama paints a bleak picture of America's future as unexceptional, Mitt Romney is an advocate for that exceptionalism. Where Barrack Obama says the only salvation for Americans is to cede their liberty to bigger and bigger government, Mitt Romney believes every American can use their God-given gifts to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Where Barrack Obama wants Americans to accept that someone else is holding them back and government should be employed to settle the score, Mitt Romney makes the case that it is the governmental policies of Barrack Obama and those who think as he does that are truly holding back the greatness of the American people. Where Barrack Obama thinks that America should have less of a role in the world to shape events for good, Mitt Romney believes that it is the American values enshrined in our founding documents that can bring peace and prosperity to the rest of the world. I believe, in the final analysis, Mitt Romney will win the Presidential election because he is the right man for the time and his optimism will not allow any other outcome.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
The Obama War On The Free Market
At the conclusion of the second Presidential debate on Tuesday night, President Obama tried to convince the viewing public that he was as much a supporter of free markets and individualism as Ronald Reagan. As I have observed politics for the last several decades, the thing that has bothered me most is the dishonesty with which most Liberal politicians present themselves. They know if they told the electorate what they really believe and what their plans are for the country, they would never win election. Anyone who has been a casual observer of the political scene for the last four years, knows that Barrack Obama is anything but a supporter of free anything, let alone free markets. I thought, with the election just weeks away, a review of President Obama's record on free market policies was in order.
We begin our journey into the land of Obama free markets with a stop at the auto bailouts, you know, the ones implemented by President Bush and continued by President Obama. As if the use of taxpayer money to support a failing company wasn't anathema enough to the concept of free markets, President Obama took it a step further. He confiscated the equity of the legitimate bondholders and gave that equity to his union buddies. This was all done to prevent bankruptcy, which Mitt Romney so aptly pointed out, happened anyway. There is no Constitutional basis for government at any level to interfere in the financial affairs of private individuals, as was done with the auto bailouts.
Our next stop along the long and winding road of Obama free markets is actually a three-fer. It includes the bonuses for AIG executives, the use of corporate jets and Las Vegas. During the last part of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, when the government was picking winners and losers and handing out taxpayer money to the winners, Barrack Obama was also demonizing everything corporate. He criticized bonuses that insurance giant AIG was paying some of their employees after they had received billions in taxpayer money. The President never bothered to explain that these bonuses were in lieu of any salary, agreed to by the employees for staying for another year and closing out certain business units. They are called retention bonuses and most were not the millions of dollars characterized by the President. But the truth didn't advance the President's agenda of class warfare. The truth also didn't support his administration's tactic of leaking the AIG's employees names and addresses so that thugs from ACORN and the unions could camp out at their houses and harass them. The President also made it official government policy that corporate jets and Las Vegas were strictly off limits and he proceeded to demonize both in several speeches.
Small banks have fared worst of all in the land of Obama free markets. The President's financial reform law, better known as Dodd/Frank, has crushed small community banks while favoring the largest banks. Hundreds of small community banks have had to close their doors, simply because they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to make sure they are compliant with the law. Meanwhile, the "Too big to fail" aspect of the law insures big banks against bad decision-making using taxpayer money. It's no coincidence that the big banks give millions of dollars in campaign donations to the Democrat party, and small banks do not.
There are a myriad of other examples of Obama policy that are anti-free market, almost too many to even remember. The President talks about making the free market fair, but insuring there is no failure or eliminating risk from the market, is antithetical to capitalism. Just remember that when the President talks about government imposing fairness on free markets, he is not espousing the virtues of free markets, but the morally bankrupt ideas of Marxism.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
We begin our journey into the land of Obama free markets with a stop at the auto bailouts, you know, the ones implemented by President Bush and continued by President Obama. As if the use of taxpayer money to support a failing company wasn't anathema enough to the concept of free markets, President Obama took it a step further. He confiscated the equity of the legitimate bondholders and gave that equity to his union buddies. This was all done to prevent bankruptcy, which Mitt Romney so aptly pointed out, happened anyway. There is no Constitutional basis for government at any level to interfere in the financial affairs of private individuals, as was done with the auto bailouts.
Our next stop along the long and winding road of Obama free markets is actually a three-fer. It includes the bonuses for AIG executives, the use of corporate jets and Las Vegas. During the last part of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, when the government was picking winners and losers and handing out taxpayer money to the winners, Barrack Obama was also demonizing everything corporate. He criticized bonuses that insurance giant AIG was paying some of their employees after they had received billions in taxpayer money. The President never bothered to explain that these bonuses were in lieu of any salary, agreed to by the employees for staying for another year and closing out certain business units. They are called retention bonuses and most were not the millions of dollars characterized by the President. But the truth didn't advance the President's agenda of class warfare. The truth also didn't support his administration's tactic of leaking the AIG's employees names and addresses so that thugs from ACORN and the unions could camp out at their houses and harass them. The President also made it official government policy that corporate jets and Las Vegas were strictly off limits and he proceeded to demonize both in several speeches.
Small banks have fared worst of all in the land of Obama free markets. The President's financial reform law, better known as Dodd/Frank, has crushed small community banks while favoring the largest banks. Hundreds of small community banks have had to close their doors, simply because they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to make sure they are compliant with the law. Meanwhile, the "Too big to fail" aspect of the law insures big banks against bad decision-making using taxpayer money. It's no coincidence that the big banks give millions of dollars in campaign donations to the Democrat party, and small banks do not.
There are a myriad of other examples of Obama policy that are anti-free market, almost too many to even remember. The President talks about making the free market fair, but insuring there is no failure or eliminating risk from the market, is antithetical to capitalism. Just remember that when the President talks about government imposing fairness on free markets, he is not espousing the virtues of free markets, but the morally bankrupt ideas of Marxism.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Obama Debate Performance Highlights Differences
Two aspects of President Obama's debate performance last night highlighted core differences in ideology between Liberals and Conservatives. It's the ultimate victory of one of these ideologies over the other which will determine if this country will travel a road paved with the principles enshrined in our founding documents, or continue down a road toward European Socialism.
I noticed during the debate that President Obama used the term government advocacy at least three separate times. As a Conservative, I find repulsive the concept of a government that advocates for one segment of the population over others. The Federal government should advocate for the strict interpretation of the Constitution for the benefit of all citizens, not pick winners and losers and make special laws for their chosen groups of losers. Our founding fathers would be abhorred at a government with the power to specify groups who have been wronged, and confiscate wealth from other groups considered by politicians to be the wrong doers. But this is how the Left attains and holds power, by separating people into groups and pitting them against each other. This leads me to the second aspect of President Obama's debate performance that highlighted the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
When answering a question from a Hispanic woman named Lorraine, President Obama called her Lorraina, even after he had witnessed Candy Crowley and Mitt Romney call the woman by her correct name. This may seem like a small thing, but it speaks volumes about how President Obama and other leftists look at people. He just assumed that the Hispanic-looking woman had a Hispanic-sounding name. It is this identity politics that the left engages in on a daily basis that is so corrosive to our body politic. It's what drives them to demonize members of minorities who support Conservatives, because in their world view all members of a certain racial group should vote the same way, i.e. Democrat. The behavior of the President, believing his ideology over his ears physically hearing the correct name, is illustrative of the inherent racism of the Left and the moral bankruptcy of leftist ideals.
I noticed during the debate that President Obama used the term government advocacy at least three separate times. As a Conservative, I find repulsive the concept of a government that advocates for one segment of the population over others. The Federal government should advocate for the strict interpretation of the Constitution for the benefit of all citizens, not pick winners and losers and make special laws for their chosen groups of losers. Our founding fathers would be abhorred at a government with the power to specify groups who have been wronged, and confiscate wealth from other groups considered by politicians to be the wrong doers. But this is how the Left attains and holds power, by separating people into groups and pitting them against each other. This leads me to the second aspect of President Obama's debate performance that highlighted the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
When answering a question from a Hispanic woman named Lorraine, President Obama called her Lorraina, even after he had witnessed Candy Crowley and Mitt Romney call the woman by her correct name. This may seem like a small thing, but it speaks volumes about how President Obama and other leftists look at people. He just assumed that the Hispanic-looking woman had a Hispanic-sounding name. It is this identity politics that the left engages in on a daily basis that is so corrosive to our body politic. It's what drives them to demonize members of minorities who support Conservatives, because in their world view all members of a certain racial group should vote the same way, i.e. Democrat. The behavior of the President, believing his ideology over his ears physically hearing the correct name, is illustrative of the inherent racism of the Left and the moral bankruptcy of leftist ideals.
Romney Gets Edge in Debate
In the second Presidential debate, held last night at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, Mitt Romney turned in a strong performance. President Obama was much more aggressive and engaged than he was in the first debate, but came off looking defensive. Several times during the debate he depended on moderator Candy Crowley for a life-line. For her part, Miss Crowley not only broke the format rules by inserting herself into the questioning, but several times she did not give Governor Romney his allotted response time. She appeared to be doing everything she could to ensure that the President turned in a good performance. The bulk of the questions proposed to the candidates were presented by audience members. There were a total of eleven questions that covered economic, foreign policy, immigration and energy policy.
Mitt Romney confronted President Obama directly and several times seem to fluster the President. One such incident was Governor Romney's response to the President's accusation that Mitt Romney would have let GM go bankrupt. Mitt Romney correctly pointed out that GM did ultimately file bankruptcy under the President's leadership. The President's rebut showed a complete lack of understanding of how bankruptcy works. I thought this was an important moment because it was probably the first time many people were aware that GM actually went bankrupt after receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Another issue on which Mr. Romney confronted the President head on was the question of drilling on public lands. The President tried, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to advance the narrative that under his administration drilling leases on public lands had been increased. Governor Romney was able to argue fairly effectively, with the aid of some facts, that the increase in oil production was a result of drilling on private lands, which the President tried to stop.
One of my favorite moments of the debate came when an immigration question was asked by a Hispanic woman named Lorraine, she inadvertently called Mitt Romney President Romney. I thought Mitt Romney could have hammered the President harder on his administration's insistence that the attacks in Benghazi were the result of an anti-Muslim video, when they knew from the start the attacks were pre-planned. But the Governor did a good job of painting the administration's handling of Libya as anything but competent. Mitt Romney also illustrated that the President's charges against him about his overseas investments were ill-informed when the Governor pointed out that the President's pension plan has some of the same investments.
The take away from the debate is that the President had to misrepresent the facts about the economy and foreign policy as well as the positions taken by his Republican challenger. Tactics that may be effective in adds, but are not so when they are challenged by a worthy opponent. I don't think last night's performance by the President is going to make people any more likely to support him in the election, but it may have swayed a few undecideds toward the Romney camp. And Miss Crowley's advocacy aside, I don't think the President turned in the kind of performance he needed to turn the momentum back in his direction. This debate, as well as the first one, illustrated to the voters the competent management and leadership of Mitt Romney, and the utter lack of such qualities in Barrack Obama.
Mitt Romney confronted President Obama directly and several times seem to fluster the President. One such incident was Governor Romney's response to the President's accusation that Mitt Romney would have let GM go bankrupt. Mitt Romney correctly pointed out that GM did ultimately file bankruptcy under the President's leadership. The President's rebut showed a complete lack of understanding of how bankruptcy works. I thought this was an important moment because it was probably the first time many people were aware that GM actually went bankrupt after receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Another issue on which Mr. Romney confronted the President head on was the question of drilling on public lands. The President tried, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to advance the narrative that under his administration drilling leases on public lands had been increased. Governor Romney was able to argue fairly effectively, with the aid of some facts, that the increase in oil production was a result of drilling on private lands, which the President tried to stop.
One of my favorite moments of the debate came when an immigration question was asked by a Hispanic woman named Lorraine, she inadvertently called Mitt Romney President Romney. I thought Mitt Romney could have hammered the President harder on his administration's insistence that the attacks in Benghazi were the result of an anti-Muslim video, when they knew from the start the attacks were pre-planned. But the Governor did a good job of painting the administration's handling of Libya as anything but competent. Mitt Romney also illustrated that the President's charges against him about his overseas investments were ill-informed when the Governor pointed out that the President's pension plan has some of the same investments.
The take away from the debate is that the President had to misrepresent the facts about the economy and foreign policy as well as the positions taken by his Republican challenger. Tactics that may be effective in adds, but are not so when they are challenged by a worthy opponent. I don't think last night's performance by the President is going to make people any more likely to support him in the election, but it may have swayed a few undecideds toward the Romney camp. And Miss Crowley's advocacy aside, I don't think the President turned in the kind of performance he needed to turn the momentum back in his direction. This debate, as well as the first one, illustrated to the voters the competent management and leadership of Mitt Romney, and the utter lack of such qualities in Barrack Obama.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Romney Vs. Obama-Round Two
The second Presidential debate between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney will be held tonight, starting at 9pm. The location for the debate is Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. CNN's Chief Political Correspondent, Candy Crowley, will moderate the proceedings. The debate will take the form of a town hall meeting and questions will be asked by audience members comprised of undecided voters.
President Obama is at a disadvantage because of Governor Romney's decisive victory in the first Presidential debate. Many analysts speculate that Republican enthusiasm, as well as the campaign's momentum shift towards Mitt Romney, was a result of his exceptional performance in the first debate. Democrats and others on the left have been proffering public advice for the President to be more aggressive in subsequent debates. I doubt that Barrack Obama will be as aggressive as Joe Biden was in the one and only Vice-Presidential debate, but Mitt Romney should expect the President to be on the attack more than he was in the first debate. Governor Romney, on the other hand, just needs to turn in a steady and competent performance to keep the momentum of the campaign headed in his favor.
Many on the left want President Obama to use Mitt Romney's 47% comment from last May, secretly recorded at a donor event. They would also like the President to try and tarnish Mitt Romney with his association with Baine Capital, the private equity firm the Republican challenger founded and ran until 1999. I feel that this strategy would be a mistake for the President, since these attacks only have a chance to work in ads and when Obama campaign surrogates engage in them in various media outlets. If they are used in a debate setting, where Mitt Romney can easily respond to them, I think they may backfire on the President and make him look desperate and small. But it may be all the President has to offer as a strategy, since he can't defend his record in the presence of an opponent who has a command of the facts as Governor Romney does.
I don't look for either candidate to commit any campaign-ending gaffs, but I do believe that if Mitt Romney has another decisive victory, he may very well put the election out of reach for the President. The pressure is going to be on President Obama to turn in an exceptional performance to shift the momentum of the campaign back in his direction. As I stated previously, Mitt Romney just needs to build on the foundation he laid in the first debate. This debate could be a pivotal event in the campaign, shifting the momentum back towards the President or increasing Governor Romney's momentum. One thing is for sure, it will be fun to watch.
President Obama is at a disadvantage because of Governor Romney's decisive victory in the first Presidential debate. Many analysts speculate that Republican enthusiasm, as well as the campaign's momentum shift towards Mitt Romney, was a result of his exceptional performance in the first debate. Democrats and others on the left have been proffering public advice for the President to be more aggressive in subsequent debates. I doubt that Barrack Obama will be as aggressive as Joe Biden was in the one and only Vice-Presidential debate, but Mitt Romney should expect the President to be on the attack more than he was in the first debate. Governor Romney, on the other hand, just needs to turn in a steady and competent performance to keep the momentum of the campaign headed in his favor.
Many on the left want President Obama to use Mitt Romney's 47% comment from last May, secretly recorded at a donor event. They would also like the President to try and tarnish Mitt Romney with his association with Baine Capital, the private equity firm the Republican challenger founded and ran until 1999. I feel that this strategy would be a mistake for the President, since these attacks only have a chance to work in ads and when Obama campaign surrogates engage in them in various media outlets. If they are used in a debate setting, where Mitt Romney can easily respond to them, I think they may backfire on the President and make him look desperate and small. But it may be all the President has to offer as a strategy, since he can't defend his record in the presence of an opponent who has a command of the facts as Governor Romney does.
I don't look for either candidate to commit any campaign-ending gaffs, but I do believe that if Mitt Romney has another decisive victory, he may very well put the election out of reach for the President. The pressure is going to be on President Obama to turn in an exceptional performance to shift the momentum of the campaign back in his direction. As I stated previously, Mitt Romney just needs to build on the foundation he laid in the first debate. This debate could be a pivotal event in the campaign, shifting the momentum back towards the President or increasing Governor Romney's momentum. One thing is for sure, it will be fun to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)