Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (2012): A Review From a Fan of the Historic Lincoln
Patriotic feeling showered over me after leaving a showing of Lincoln at
a local AMC theater last night. I was also filled with a heavy sorrow
over the ghastly sacrifices our forefathers made to make this country
great. Exiting the theater in my presence was a group of teenagers
muttering amongst themselves, "That was a lame movie." Looking at them,
my sorrow grew heavier as I realized those ghastly sacrifices made by
our forefathers were made so that shallow creatures such as these may
live for the great and noble purpose of killing zombies in computer
games, impregnating young ladies before abandoning the responsibility
following their actions, and generally taking up space in a number of
other - useless - ways. Perhaps those numbskulls remembered watching Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter a
year ago, mistook it for the real Abe Lincoln, and were expecting
something similar from Spielberg. If you're looking for action and
suspense, see the latest Bond movie instead. But if you're looking for a
film to learn something from, do not miss Lincoln.
Exactly what do you learn from a film
like this? As an avid reader of history, I can tell you with one hundred
percent sincerity that I believe Spielberg represents Lincoln and the
people of his times accurately and responsibly. Taking the battle for
passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (which forever abolished the
practice of slavery in the United States) as the focal point of the
story's events, Spielberg slays the mythology that Lincoln freed slaves
only to pack his armies with more soldiers to wage the Civil War. If
that were true, Lincoln's efforts to free African Americans would have
ended with the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1863), which was a
temporary, wartime measure intended to undermine the capacity of the
Confederacy to continue the war. On the contrary, Lincoln placed his own
re-election and a speedy end of the war in jeopardy, to further the
work of the Emancipation Proclamation by pushing for a constitutional
amendment that would forever extinguish slavery.
Setting history straight is not the only virtue of this film. Superb, Oscar-worthy performances abound throughout Lincoln.
Daniel Day-Lewis looks exactly the way Lincoln is portrayed in
photographs and behaves exactly the way Lincoln is described by
contemporaries. The historic Lincoln's homey mannerisms and sometimes
off-color jokes are on vibrant display in Lewis' rendering. The fiery,
anguished, emotion-drenched Mary Todd Lincoln could not be more
effectively brought to life by anyone other than by the magnificent
Sally Field. The rugged, idealistic, Congressional abolitionist Thaddeus
Stevens nearly steals the show in Tommy Lee Jones' masterful hands.
The sometimes tedious political
discourse in the film is navigable if you understand a few concepts. In
the context of the Civil War period, Democrats wanted to leave slavery
alone and just end the war with or without victory. "Conservative
Republicans" did not like slavery, but were unenthusiastic about freeing
slaves as a necessary means of winning the
war. "Radical Republicans" (like Thaddeus Stevens) were crusaders for
social justice who cared more about destroying slavery and righting the
social wrongs of American culture than about winning the war or
preserving the Union. If anything, they wanted to wage the war to forge a
new Union based on equality for all. Lincoln's success was based in no
small measure on the ability to bring these two hostile wings of his
party together to advance the twin goals of social justice and
preservation of the Union. To achieve bipartisan support for his goals,
Lincoln offered government jobs to lame-duck Democrats who had been
turned out of office during the November 1864 election but were still
voting in Congress until their term expired. Did this amount to bribery?
Not in the way bribery was punishable in those days.
In sum, Spielberg's Lincoln is a
badly needed correction to the mythology perpetrated by those scholars
(Thomas Di Lorenzo, for one) who believe Lincoln was driven by cynical,
political calculations rather than by moral values centered on social
justice. It is also a refreshing example of what great acting looks and
sounds like in an age when fast action and cutting-edge special affects
drown-out characters and relationships in typical Hollywood films.
Finally, Lincoln showcases the qualities of leadership
most-needed and most sorely-lacking in our current political culture
namely, the willingness to reach across the aisle, look for common
ground, and accomplish something for the greater good of our society. In
the current battle over the "fiscal cliff" House Speaker John Boehner
and President Barack Obama ought to take notes from Steven Spielberg's Lincoln.
Jason A.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Joblessness Soars In The Week Since President Obama's Re-Election
The Labor Department has announced a surge in jobless claims in the week between President Obama's re-election and last Saturday. In the shadow of Mr. Obama's victory, 78,000 new Americans filed for unemployment benefits, bringing the figure to 439,000, the highest since April 2011.
of the Los Angeles Times blames the new joblessness on the aftermath of "Superstorm Sandy" which pummeled the northeast a few weeks ago, an almost believable excuse except for the fact that the highest unemplyment filings were made in Pennsylvania and Ohio - beyond the wrath of the hurricane! The latest filings from New York and New Jersey may not be complete yet, as widespread power outages have made it impossible to process all claims.
Buried halfway into Puzzanghera's article emblazoned with the title New jobless claims surged last week after Superstorm Sandy is a more insightful explanation for the new joblessness:
There also have been job losses recently unconnected to Sandy that could reflect the growing concerns by companies about the large tax increases and government spending cuts coming next year in what is known as the fiscal cliff.
Source:http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jobless-claims-unemployment-sandy-20121115%2c0%2c4830000.story
The business community has long been worried about the higher taxes on individuals with money to invest, and the crushing obligations Obamacare will put on them now that President Obama will remain in office long enough to see his major healthcare reform become the law of the land.
Here are some of those new taxes the job creators are to pay:
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.
The following large companies have announced they will lay-off large swaths of their workforce in the next several years:
Welch Allen
Stryker
Boston Scientific
Medtronic
Lockheed
Pratt & Whitney
Texas Instruments
Another curse of Obamacare is that employers will now transition from a full-time to a part-time workforce to reduce insurance costs. This is the ominous change the American electorate foisted upon its society with the advent of the Obama presidency. It is an era that will go down with infamy in the history books. Children will ask their parents, "Do you remember what life was like before the Obama catastrophe?"
Jason A.
The Labor Department has announced a surge in jobless claims in the week between President Obama's re-election and last Saturday. In the shadow of Mr. Obama's victory, 78,000 new Americans filed for unemployment benefits, bringing the figure to 439,000, the highest since April 2011.
of the Los Angeles Times blames the new joblessness on the aftermath of "Superstorm Sandy" which pummeled the northeast a few weeks ago, an almost believable excuse except for the fact that the highest unemplyment filings were made in Pennsylvania and Ohio - beyond the wrath of the hurricane! The latest filings from New York and New Jersey may not be complete yet, as widespread power outages have made it impossible to process all claims.
Buried halfway into Puzzanghera's article emblazoned with the title New jobless claims surged last week after Superstorm Sandy is a more insightful explanation for the new joblessness:
There also have been job losses recently unconnected to Sandy that could reflect the growing concerns by companies about the large tax increases and government spending cuts coming next year in what is known as the fiscal cliff.
Source:http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jobless-claims-unemployment-sandy-20121115%2c0%2c4830000.story
The business community has long been worried about the higher taxes on individuals with money to invest, and the crushing obligations Obamacare will put on them now that President Obama will remain in office long enough to see his major healthcare reform become the law of the land.
Here are some of those new taxes the job creators are to pay:
- a $123 billion surtax on investment income
- a $20 billion medical device tax
Obamacare's Barrage of Tax Hikes
Obamacare imposes numerous tax hikes which total more than $500 billion over 10 years. Obamacare's higher tax rates on income and investment will slow economic growth, leaving hardworking American families and businesses worse off. A particularly harmful new payroll tax on investment income goes into effect in January 2013.
BILLIONS OF NOMINAL DOLLARS
The following large companies have announced they will lay-off large swaths of their workforce in the next several years:
Welch Allen
Stryker
Boston Scientific
Medtronic
Lockheed
Pratt & Whitney
Texas Instruments
Another curse of Obamacare is that employers will now transition from a full-time to a part-time workforce to reduce insurance costs. This is the ominous change the American electorate foisted upon its society with the advent of the Obama presidency. It is an era that will go down with infamy in the history books. Children will ask their parents, "Do you remember what life was like before the Obama catastrophe?"
Jason A.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
A New Ground Game: A Conservative Road Map To Winning In Future Elections (Part 3)
The first two entries in this series began with a warning not to draw the wrong lessons from Romney's loss of the election. They continued with an admonishment to avoid thinking the way to win in the future is mainly a matter of finding the perfect candidate. Finally, the entries advanced a recognition that Romney's loss and Obama's win was overwhelming attributed to the latter's superior ground game and the advantages of incumbency, namely, time to campaign and a united party base. This entry focuses on recommending a new, winnable ground game for taking back our country back from the leaders who continue to lead it toward financial, economic, and international ruin.
Step 1: Recognize that we can all make a difference
Think back to 2004 when the Democrats lost their bid for the presidency and the Republicans kept control of both houses of Congress. Did they despair? Did they think the future was out of their hands? Did they give up and crawl into a hole? If they had done any of those things, how does one explain their win of the presidency and both houses of Congress (the House in 2006) in 2008? Was this all the work of a conspiratorial network of billionaire donars (like George Soros) and the mainstream media? I'll tell you this, they did conspire and they do continue to conspire.
Step 2: Understand that the secret to winning elections is not "the economy, stupid" it is "turn out, stupid"
Yet, no amount of conspiring would have mattered if the Democrats were unable to turn out the vote. Working beneath the liberal elite are the masses of local offices and political action groups pumping out literature and advertisements in the media their constituents read and watch. At the ground level, there are the foot soldiers who make phone calls, knock on doors, shake hands, listen to the concerns of the people, and persuade them to go out and vote for their candidates. Finally, the people themselves come out in droves and cast their ballots. Many of them are even transported to the polling places by the foot soldiers themselves.
Throughout the recent campaigns we heard stories of the Obama foot soldiers busing people to the polls directly from the Obama rallies. I can not recall similar stories of the Romney campaign rallies. Instead, the Romney team was heavy on donations and speeches from wealthy sponsors. They made scant effort to tap into grassroots support from 'we the people'. If Soros money didn't elect Obama on its own, Trump money didn't get Romney to Washington.
For all the advantages the Republican party has in ideas and solutions, it remains a party that is frustratingly hierarchical. It has changed little in functional outlook and outreach since the 1950's. The Republican playbook for 2012 relied heavily on the following assumptions:
Tell me how this playbook has changed from the 1950's, 60's, or 70's? How is this any different from Richard Nixon's 'silent majority' strategy that got him elected and re-elected, in 1968 and 1972 respectively?
Step 3: Realize that blaming demographics is a mistake
The Republicans have a demographic problem with winning over minorities and single, white women, but the Democrats have a demographic problem too: white Democrats are a dying breed. Whites are still a racial/ethnic majority in this country. If the Democrats think they no longer need white voters, they are making a mistake. (However, I have no idea whether or not they are thinking that way.)
The point is, both sides have demographic advantages and challenges. The way to increase the advantages for either side is through outreach. The way for conservatives to win is to pay no attention to the derisive "soul searching" the Democrats recommend of us, and instead copy their innovations in social media and voter turn out.
Step 4: Throw out the old, twentieth century playbook and embrace the outreach innovations the other side has made in social media technology
We need to make more use of internet media and social networking through the web. This is an arena beyond the control of the mainstream television and newspaper media. Freedom Works is a wonderful network to connect conservatives, but we need to use it more. I see too many groups and discussions on there that haven't said or done anything since March or April: tax time. If the Democrats can't afford to stop networking and campaigning, neither can we.
Step 5: Keep the base together...
The grueling Republican primary campaign for the presidency of fall 2011 and spring 2012 was a display of just how knit-picky, petty, and small, conservatives have become in their thinking of what kind of candidate we needed.
Step 6: ... and reach out to Libertarians
Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984 and won 49 states. Just look at this electoral map:
map is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1984.svg
Can you imagine a Republican presidential candidate winning New York, California, and nearly every other blue state, today? We may not see that happen again, but Reagan didn't do it by appealing mainly to conservative, Republican voters. He won an awful lot of liberal voters as well. Let's build a strategy based on a coalition of conservatives, moderates, libertarians, and blue-dogs (fiscally conservative Democrats, how ever many of them are still around). How do we do this? We don't do it by creating third, fourth, and independent parties, each with separate candidates; that way, the Democrats would always win through plurality.
Instead, we come together by setting priorities like Reagan did. We don't campaign on the issues that divide us (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). We must recognize that this country is in grave danger fiscally, economically, and internationally. First, we secure the safety and prosperity of the country. The other issues can be discussed later or sorted out through other cultural actors.
We have to understand that politics is a game of give and take. We have to give a little ground to gain a litttle ground. Reagan would not have gotten his tax cuts if he hadn't assured Senate ruler Ted Kennedy he wouldn't go after entitlements. We have to do something about entitlements today, but the point I'm making is that we can't dig-in our heels and expect to get everything we want. This is not a plan for moderating our views or sacrificing our principles. We can still pursue all our causes through non-governmental entities like churches, educational institutions, and so on; how is that not a conservative position? Let's leave certain things to private actors, not government!
Step 7: Pour time, research, and money into demographic outreach
Let's reach out to Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians (and every other racial/ethnic) minority. Let's stop categorically assuming minorities are lazy and want government to rule their lives. This assumption has never done conservatives any good. This assumption has only thrown red meat to the other side and made the charge of racism and snobbiness seem plausible. Let's stop assuming single, white women, care more about free birth control than they do about finding fullfillment in a meaningful career, family life, or single life.
Why on earth did we not overwhelmingly win over the elderly with the reality that Obama gutted Medicare (put it on the road to extinction by robbing it of $716 billion)? Maybe it is because we assumed they would all tune in to Fox News and watch Paul Ryan explain it to them with his flawless, logical exposition. Why didn't we go to knocking on their doors at their homes and nursing homes, bingo clubs, and other venues? Why didn't we throw our arms around their shoulders and listen to their concerns? The simple answer is, we didn't care enough about them. We thought facts and logic communicated on TV was enough to get their votes. We were wrong!
Why don't we fan out across college campuses and shake hands with the future entrepreneurs of this country, listen to their concerns, and explain to them how joblessness and college debt-default stares them in the face because of Obama's scornful policies toward business, big and small.
Step 8: Watch our mouths
Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the Missouri and Indiana U.S. Senate races with their foolish explanations of their pro-life stances by making it sound like God intends for women to get raped and how raped women do not get pregnant! Thanks to these amateurs, the GOP missed the best chance in a long time to capture control of the U.S. Senate!
Mourdock and Akin have the right to believe what they want, but they deserved to lose. Contrary to what some people believe, Abraham Lincoln was a life-long opponent of slavery. As president of the United States, he put slavery on the road to extinction, not by going after it full-speed ahead, running his mouth about it all day long. Rather, he did it by holding his tongue when he needed to, and by pursuing the goal through patience and cautious statecraft. Let us learn from Lincoln, Mourdock, and Akin alike. With this eight-step ground game, we can't lose in the future.
Jason A.
The first two entries in this series began with a warning not to draw the wrong lessons from Romney's loss of the election. They continued with an admonishment to avoid thinking the way to win in the future is mainly a matter of finding the perfect candidate. Finally, the entries advanced a recognition that Romney's loss and Obama's win was overwhelming attributed to the latter's superior ground game and the advantages of incumbency, namely, time to campaign and a united party base. This entry focuses on recommending a new, winnable ground game for taking back our country back from the leaders who continue to lead it toward financial, economic, and international ruin.
Step 1: Recognize that we can all make a difference
Think back to 2004 when the Democrats lost their bid for the presidency and the Republicans kept control of both houses of Congress. Did they despair? Did they think the future was out of their hands? Did they give up and crawl into a hole? If they had done any of those things, how does one explain their win of the presidency and both houses of Congress (the House in 2006) in 2008? Was this all the work of a conspiratorial network of billionaire donars (like George Soros) and the mainstream media? I'll tell you this, they did conspire and they do continue to conspire.
Step 2: Understand that the secret to winning elections is not "the economy, stupid" it is "turn out, stupid"
Yet, no amount of conspiring would have mattered if the Democrats were unable to turn out the vote. Working beneath the liberal elite are the masses of local offices and political action groups pumping out literature and advertisements in the media their constituents read and watch. At the ground level, there are the foot soldiers who make phone calls, knock on doors, shake hands, listen to the concerns of the people, and persuade them to go out and vote for their candidates. Finally, the people themselves come out in droves and cast their ballots. Many of them are even transported to the polling places by the foot soldiers themselves.
Throughout the recent campaigns we heard stories of the Obama foot soldiers busing people to the polls directly from the Obama rallies. I can not recall similar stories of the Romney campaign rallies. Instead, the Romney team was heavy on donations and speeches from wealthy sponsors. They made scant effort to tap into grassroots support from 'we the people'. If Soros money didn't elect Obama on its own, Trump money didn't get Romney to Washington.
For all the advantages the Republican party has in ideas and solutions, it remains a party that is frustratingly hierarchical. It has changed little in functional outlook and outreach since the 1950's. The Republican playbook for 2012 relied heavily on the following assumptions:
- that Obama's failures and leadership deficiencies were understood and obvious to a majority of the electorate;
- that the power of conservative ideas and solutions communicated through televised speeches and debates was watched, understood, and accepted by a majority of the electorate;
- that the polls conducted by Democrat-leaning pollsters oversampled Obama-leaning likely voters;
- that there was no way Obama voters would turn out in anything approaching the same level as in 2008;
- that campaign stops and rallies featuring Romney and Ryan in key cities amounted to outreach;
- that money and other support from wealthy sponsors amounted to a functional ground game.
Tell me how this playbook has changed from the 1950's, 60's, or 70's? How is this any different from Richard Nixon's 'silent majority' strategy that got him elected and re-elected, in 1968 and 1972 respectively?
Step 3: Realize that blaming demographics is a mistake
The Republicans have a demographic problem with winning over minorities and single, white women, but the Democrats have a demographic problem too: white Democrats are a dying breed. Whites are still a racial/ethnic majority in this country. If the Democrats think they no longer need white voters, they are making a mistake. (However, I have no idea whether or not they are thinking that way.)
The point is, both sides have demographic advantages and challenges. The way to increase the advantages for either side is through outreach. The way for conservatives to win is to pay no attention to the derisive "soul searching" the Democrats recommend of us, and instead copy their innovations in social media and voter turn out.
Step 4: Throw out the old, twentieth century playbook and embrace the outreach innovations the other side has made in social media technology
We need to make more use of internet media and social networking through the web. This is an arena beyond the control of the mainstream television and newspaper media. Freedom Works is a wonderful network to connect conservatives, but we need to use it more. I see too many groups and discussions on there that haven't said or done anything since March or April: tax time. If the Democrats can't afford to stop networking and campaigning, neither can we.
Step 5: Keep the base together...
The grueling Republican primary campaign for the presidency of fall 2011 and spring 2012 was a display of just how knit-picky, petty, and small, conservatives have become in their thinking of what kind of candidate we needed.
- Gingrich was not faithful-enough in his marital history, but we weren't trying to marry the guy.
- Santorum was too religious, but we didn't need him to be our pastor.
- Bachmann was too whiny, but we didn't need to hang out with her.
- Romney was too Mormon (costing him more than 20% of evangelical voters in the general election); too stiff; too rich; the list goes on.
- None of the candidates were Reagan-enough, but there has only been one Reagan, and he's been dead for a while.
Step 6: ... and reach out to Libertarians
Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984 and won 49 states. Just look at this electoral map:
map is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1984.svg
Can you imagine a Republican presidential candidate winning New York, California, and nearly every other blue state, today? We may not see that happen again, but Reagan didn't do it by appealing mainly to conservative, Republican voters. He won an awful lot of liberal voters as well. Let's build a strategy based on a coalition of conservatives, moderates, libertarians, and blue-dogs (fiscally conservative Democrats, how ever many of them are still around). How do we do this? We don't do it by creating third, fourth, and independent parties, each with separate candidates; that way, the Democrats would always win through plurality.
Instead, we come together by setting priorities like Reagan did. We don't campaign on the issues that divide us (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). We must recognize that this country is in grave danger fiscally, economically, and internationally. First, we secure the safety and prosperity of the country. The other issues can be discussed later or sorted out through other cultural actors.
We have to understand that politics is a game of give and take. We have to give a little ground to gain a litttle ground. Reagan would not have gotten his tax cuts if he hadn't assured Senate ruler Ted Kennedy he wouldn't go after entitlements. We have to do something about entitlements today, but the point I'm making is that we can't dig-in our heels and expect to get everything we want. This is not a plan for moderating our views or sacrificing our principles. We can still pursue all our causes through non-governmental entities like churches, educational institutions, and so on; how is that not a conservative position? Let's leave certain things to private actors, not government!
Step 7: Pour time, research, and money into demographic outreach
Let's reach out to Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians (and every other racial/ethnic) minority. Let's stop categorically assuming minorities are lazy and want government to rule their lives. This assumption has never done conservatives any good. This assumption has only thrown red meat to the other side and made the charge of racism and snobbiness seem plausible. Let's stop assuming single, white women, care more about free birth control than they do about finding fullfillment in a meaningful career, family life, or single life.
Why on earth did we not overwhelmingly win over the elderly with the reality that Obama gutted Medicare (put it on the road to extinction by robbing it of $716 billion)? Maybe it is because we assumed they would all tune in to Fox News and watch Paul Ryan explain it to them with his flawless, logical exposition. Why didn't we go to knocking on their doors at their homes and nursing homes, bingo clubs, and other venues? Why didn't we throw our arms around their shoulders and listen to their concerns? The simple answer is, we didn't care enough about them. We thought facts and logic communicated on TV was enough to get their votes. We were wrong!
Why don't we fan out across college campuses and shake hands with the future entrepreneurs of this country, listen to their concerns, and explain to them how joblessness and college debt-default stares them in the face because of Obama's scornful policies toward business, big and small.
Step 8: Watch our mouths
Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the Missouri and Indiana U.S. Senate races with their foolish explanations of their pro-life stances by making it sound like God intends for women to get raped and how raped women do not get pregnant! Thanks to these amateurs, the GOP missed the best chance in a long time to capture control of the U.S. Senate!
Mourdock and Akin have the right to believe what they want, but they deserved to lose. Contrary to what some people believe, Abraham Lincoln was a life-long opponent of slavery. As president of the United States, he put slavery on the road to extinction, not by going after it full-speed ahead, running his mouth about it all day long. Rather, he did it by holding his tongue when he needed to, and by pursuing the goal through patience and cautious statecraft. Let us learn from Lincoln, Mourdock, and Akin alike. With this eight-step ground game, we can't lose in the future.
Jason A.
Friday, November 9, 2012
A Conservative Road Map To Winning In Future Elections (Part 2)
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just announced that if we lower taxes on all taxpayers making $200,000 a year or less, like the president wants, it will grow GDP by 1.25%. The CBO went on to say, if we lower taxes on everyone (including the rich) it will grow GDP by 1.50% a year. Liberals (Chris Matthews, for one) often claim tax cuts do not generate revenue, but the single highest revenue-generating year the federal government experienced was 2007, under the Bush tax cuts.
With that piece of thought food, let us contniue our road map for winning back our country's future. For all you Republicans and Libertarians who are ready to throw up your hands and give up, you will do well to remember one thing. Eight years ago, it was the Democrats who were in the dumps. Republicans had solid control of Congress from 1994 to 2007, and they held the presidency from 2001 to 2009.
What were the Democrats doing in those years? Were they feeling powerless and sorry for themselves? No. On the contrary, they came together (instead of throwing each other under the bus) and began making their ground game. Did they moderate their views in order to win? Not at all.
Meanwhile, Republicans were becoming complacent. They assumed the electorate was on their side because of their past successes. They assumed the facts, the debates, and the logic of their policies would carry the day, without mounting a serious ground game. Their 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, embodied this attitude. He compaigned on little else besides his own record of military and public service. But voters are not interested in rewarding public figures for their life accomplishments. Voters are interested in what elected officials will do for them. McCain was soundly defeated by Barack Obama.
This year, Mitt Romney ran a classy campaign and presented himself as a capable aspirant for the presidency, but time was against him and he suffered from a conservative movement that sat back and assumed Obama would defeat himself. The facts of Obama's amateurish, incompetent, narcissistic, hypocritical, and unpatriotic leadership were indeed visible for all who wanted went out of their way to discover them.
The only problem was, CNN, NBC, ABC, and others covered-up, made excuses for, and ignored the inconvenient truths of the Obama catastrophe. At this late stage, how many people know about the Benghazi cover-up that the media and the president have been engaged in for nearly two months - in the full blaze of the presidential campaigns? Not many. Several of my closest friends are hazy on the details of it.
The reality is, only Fox News gave adequate coverage of this most shameful scandal in presidential history. Benghazi-gate makes Watergate look like a Boy Scout event. Nobody died in Watergate. Nobody died in the Valerie Plame scandal. But the media obsessed over those shenanigans because Republican administrations were responsible for them! In Benghazi-gate, four Americans were butchered by terrorists in cold blood after they were refused help after three, desperate pleas. One of them, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, ignored stand-down orders and saved thirty lives before dying like a hero, for his country!
Instead of telling the American people the truth about Bengazi, President Obama, Secratary of State Clinton, and UN Secretary Rice spent weeks blaming an American-made youtube video for this calamity and have now made a political prisoner of its maker. How is that for upholding the rule of law? How is that for upholding Constitutional liberties? How is that for democracy? It's more like thugogracy.
The Romney campaign was cowed into silence about this by the media. As their poll numbers grew, they chose to play it safe and run on positive messages. Was this a mistake? Who knows.
Romney ran on fundraisers from wealthy donars and campaign stops in key cities, but where was the get-out-the-vote drives? All along, the Democrats were busing people to the poll stations. They were inserting their advertisements in the magaizines, newsletters, and television channels of their constituencies. They were barnstorming the college campuses.
Where were the grassroots conservatives during all this? For crying out loud, where was the Tea Party? It melted away from the scene after the (successful) 2010 midterm elections, and let Occupy-Wall Street step into the vaccum, the following summer. Where were the evangelicals? Romney only won 73% of them. We now know that 3 million (2008) McCain voters stayed home and denied Romney crucial votes that could have come close to defeating Obama. Romney was a fine candidate, but one man does not make a campaign succeed. If conservatives want to win, they must ditch an outdated and wimpy playbook, and build a permanent ground game. My next post will focus on what this ground game ought to look like.
Jason A.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just announced that if we lower taxes on all taxpayers making $200,000 a year or less, like the president wants, it will grow GDP by 1.25%. The CBO went on to say, if we lower taxes on everyone (including the rich) it will grow GDP by 1.50% a year. Liberals (Chris Matthews, for one) often claim tax cuts do not generate revenue, but the single highest revenue-generating year the federal government experienced was 2007, under the Bush tax cuts.
With that piece of thought food, let us contniue our road map for winning back our country's future. For all you Republicans and Libertarians who are ready to throw up your hands and give up, you will do well to remember one thing. Eight years ago, it was the Democrats who were in the dumps. Republicans had solid control of Congress from 1994 to 2007, and they held the presidency from 2001 to 2009.
What were the Democrats doing in those years? Were they feeling powerless and sorry for themselves? No. On the contrary, they came together (instead of throwing each other under the bus) and began making their ground game. Did they moderate their views in order to win? Not at all.
Meanwhile, Republicans were becoming complacent. They assumed the electorate was on their side because of their past successes. They assumed the facts, the debates, and the logic of their policies would carry the day, without mounting a serious ground game. Their 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, embodied this attitude. He compaigned on little else besides his own record of military and public service. But voters are not interested in rewarding public figures for their life accomplishments. Voters are interested in what elected officials will do for them. McCain was soundly defeated by Barack Obama.
This year, Mitt Romney ran a classy campaign and presented himself as a capable aspirant for the presidency, but time was against him and he suffered from a conservative movement that sat back and assumed Obama would defeat himself. The facts of Obama's amateurish, incompetent, narcissistic, hypocritical, and unpatriotic leadership were indeed visible for all who wanted went out of their way to discover them.
The only problem was, CNN, NBC, ABC, and others covered-up, made excuses for, and ignored the inconvenient truths of the Obama catastrophe. At this late stage, how many people know about the Benghazi cover-up that the media and the president have been engaged in for nearly two months - in the full blaze of the presidential campaigns? Not many. Several of my closest friends are hazy on the details of it.
The reality is, only Fox News gave adequate coverage of this most shameful scandal in presidential history. Benghazi-gate makes Watergate look like a Boy Scout event. Nobody died in Watergate. Nobody died in the Valerie Plame scandal. But the media obsessed over those shenanigans because Republican administrations were responsible for them! In Benghazi-gate, four Americans were butchered by terrorists in cold blood after they were refused help after three, desperate pleas. One of them, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, ignored stand-down orders and saved thirty lives before dying like a hero, for his country!
Instead of telling the American people the truth about Bengazi, President Obama, Secratary of State Clinton, and UN Secretary Rice spent weeks blaming an American-made youtube video for this calamity and have now made a political prisoner of its maker. How is that for upholding the rule of law? How is that for upholding Constitutional liberties? How is that for democracy? It's more like thugogracy.
The Romney campaign was cowed into silence about this by the media. As their poll numbers grew, they chose to play it safe and run on positive messages. Was this a mistake? Who knows.
Romney ran on fundraisers from wealthy donars and campaign stops in key cities, but where was the get-out-the-vote drives? All along, the Democrats were busing people to the poll stations. They were inserting their advertisements in the magaizines, newsletters, and television channels of their constituencies. They were barnstorming the college campuses.
Where were the grassroots conservatives during all this? For crying out loud, where was the Tea Party? It melted away from the scene after the (successful) 2010 midterm elections, and let Occupy-Wall Street step into the vaccum, the following summer. Where were the evangelicals? Romney only won 73% of them. We now know that 3 million (2008) McCain voters stayed home and denied Romney crucial votes that could have come close to defeating Obama. Romney was a fine candidate, but one man does not make a campaign succeed. If conservatives want to win, they must ditch an outdated and wimpy playbook, and build a permanent ground game. My next post will focus on what this ground game ought to look like.
Jason A.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
A Conservative Road Map To Winning In Future Elections (Part I)
So the 2012 presidential election is history and it didn't turn out well for conservatives or Republicans. For the disappointed, it is crucial to draw the correct lessons from this defeat in order to come roaring back in the midterm elections of 2014 and in the elections thereafter. Mitt Romney did not lose because he was too liberal or too conservative. Michelle Bachmann could not have won on Tuesday. Newt Gingrich (however much I love him) could not have won either. Forget Rick Santorum. Back in the primary, he stepped in every social issue-trap the media laid out for him. He would have been a crispy critter going up against Barack Obama.
On the flip-side, a more liberal Republican could not have won either. Suppose you had a liberal Republican on the debate stage with Barack Obama. Do you really think a liberal or a liberal-leaning independent voter is going to vote for a watered-down liberal-Republican when they can get the real thing by voting for Barack Obama?
If Republicans think the way to win in 2014 and 2016 is to roll out the most conservative candidate they can possibly find, they will lose in a landslide of Goldwater proportions. Ronald Reagan was a great candidate not because he was more conservative than everyone else, but because he only talked about the most pressing issues everyone cared about: inflation, job growth, military preparedness, lower taxes, and greater pride in the spirit of patriotism that made this country great to begin with. Reagan had a winning smile and was quick with a story and a joke. Reagan avoided speaking on the most controversial issues. He just wouldn't talk about it. The Santorum's, Aken's and Mourdock's of the world lose elections because they can not control their tongues.
This does not suggest conservatives should compromise their values and become Democrats in order to win elections. But, we do not need to blab all day long about every single issue that is important to us in the name of outspoken-ness. Abraham Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, claimed that Lincoln's winning virtue was that he knew when to keep his mouth shut.
In Tuesday's election, the most readily offered answer from the demographics of the popular vote was that Republicans did poorly among every group in society except for white men and married, white women. However, it would be a mistake to think conservativism is unattractive to minorities and the young. In both his elections, George W. Bush did quite well with Hispanics. Let's not forget, joblessness stares the college youth in the face.
The Romney campaign largely ignored the Hispanic community. Romney said little about them other than his pledge to crack down on illegal immigration - not a winning issue with that demographic. He made some soft comments about the Republican party being the "natural home" of Hispanics in light of their conservative stances on religious issues and family, as well as the value of hard work. But slogans are no substitute for outreach. By contrast, the Democrats did huge, systemic, get out-the-vote drives in those communities and they were able to define Romney negatively for Hispanic voters.
Time was never on Romney's side. After a grueling primary campaign, he had scarcely more than six months to build his ground game. Obama had been building his for five years or more. In fact, since 2010 the president has done little more than campaign. He is the chronic campaigner. This gets to the heart of why Romney lost. It wasn't conservative values that did him in. Demographics did him no help, but the fact that looms larger than everything else is a simple truism - it is hard to defeat an incumbent president. Romney stood a chance, but it was a long shot.
In the more than two hundred years this country has had presidents, only nine presidents who sought re-election were defeated. Nine presidents in two hundred years. Think about it. Of those nine, eight were defeated because of primary challenges from their own party. Jimmy Carter was defeated as much by Ted Kennedy as from Reagan. George H.W. Bush faced a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and then had to run against Ross Perot (a strong, independent conservative) and Bill Clinton, at the same time.
So what do we do now, abandon conservatism? Hardly. Let's not forget the groundswell victory conservatives won against Obamism in 2010. Republicans captured solid control of the House of Representatives, and have increased that House majority in last Tuesday's election. How could that have happened in two consecutive elections if conservative values were out of fashion? The truth is, there are plenty of people out there who understand fully well that only conservative solutions work against the biggest challenges our country faces: debt, inflation, joblessness, taxation, entitlements, and military preparedness.
Republicans assumed that Obama's failures spoke for themselves and that the public was ready to throw him out. Unfortunately for the GOP, facts, values, and good debates are not as strong as building a ground game, knocking-on doors, shaking hands with people, and listening to their concerns. This is the work that lay ahead if conservatives want to make a comeback. They can do it, because the solutions are on their side.
Democrats are not just unwilling, but they are unable to provide solutions to the nation's problems because they are elected by constituencies who are demanding more and more of the services that exacerbate these problems. Democrats do not even pretend to care about these issues. The day after the election, when asked by a reporter if the debt ceiling will need to be raised another $3 trillion by the spring, Senate ruler Harry Reid, said "Sure. If it needs to be raised, we'll raise it." If Reid gets his way the national debt will soon be $19 trillion. Only conservatism can turn this country away from the debt bomb that stares us in the face. Sooner or later, more than 50% of the public will cry out for real leadership on this menace.
For now, conservatives, feel good about who you are. Get back on your feet, dust off your shoulders, and keep fighting. The country needs you. We may lose elections from time to time, but we are never defeated unless we quit.
Jason A.
So the 2012 presidential election is history and it didn't turn out well for conservatives or Republicans. For the disappointed, it is crucial to draw the correct lessons from this defeat in order to come roaring back in the midterm elections of 2014 and in the elections thereafter. Mitt Romney did not lose because he was too liberal or too conservative. Michelle Bachmann could not have won on Tuesday. Newt Gingrich (however much I love him) could not have won either. Forget Rick Santorum. Back in the primary, he stepped in every social issue-trap the media laid out for him. He would have been a crispy critter going up against Barack Obama.
On the flip-side, a more liberal Republican could not have won either. Suppose you had a liberal Republican on the debate stage with Barack Obama. Do you really think a liberal or a liberal-leaning independent voter is going to vote for a watered-down liberal-Republican when they can get the real thing by voting for Barack Obama?
If Republicans think the way to win in 2014 and 2016 is to roll out the most conservative candidate they can possibly find, they will lose in a landslide of Goldwater proportions. Ronald Reagan was a great candidate not because he was more conservative than everyone else, but because he only talked about the most pressing issues everyone cared about: inflation, job growth, military preparedness, lower taxes, and greater pride in the spirit of patriotism that made this country great to begin with. Reagan had a winning smile and was quick with a story and a joke. Reagan avoided speaking on the most controversial issues. He just wouldn't talk about it. The Santorum's, Aken's and Mourdock's of the world lose elections because they can not control their tongues.
This does not suggest conservatives should compromise their values and become Democrats in order to win elections. But, we do not need to blab all day long about every single issue that is important to us in the name of outspoken-ness. Abraham Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, claimed that Lincoln's winning virtue was that he knew when to keep his mouth shut.
In Tuesday's election, the most readily offered answer from the demographics of the popular vote was that Republicans did poorly among every group in society except for white men and married, white women. However, it would be a mistake to think conservativism is unattractive to minorities and the young. In both his elections, George W. Bush did quite well with Hispanics. Let's not forget, joblessness stares the college youth in the face.
The Romney campaign largely ignored the Hispanic community. Romney said little about them other than his pledge to crack down on illegal immigration - not a winning issue with that demographic. He made some soft comments about the Republican party being the "natural home" of Hispanics in light of their conservative stances on religious issues and family, as well as the value of hard work. But slogans are no substitute for outreach. By contrast, the Democrats did huge, systemic, get out-the-vote drives in those communities and they were able to define Romney negatively for Hispanic voters.
Time was never on Romney's side. After a grueling primary campaign, he had scarcely more than six months to build his ground game. Obama had been building his for five years or more. In fact, since 2010 the president has done little more than campaign. He is the chronic campaigner. This gets to the heart of why Romney lost. It wasn't conservative values that did him in. Demographics did him no help, but the fact that looms larger than everything else is a simple truism - it is hard to defeat an incumbent president. Romney stood a chance, but it was a long shot.
In the more than two hundred years this country has had presidents, only nine presidents who sought re-election were defeated. Nine presidents in two hundred years. Think about it. Of those nine, eight were defeated because of primary challenges from their own party. Jimmy Carter was defeated as much by Ted Kennedy as from Reagan. George H.W. Bush faced a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and then had to run against Ross Perot (a strong, independent conservative) and Bill Clinton, at the same time.
So what do we do now, abandon conservatism? Hardly. Let's not forget the groundswell victory conservatives won against Obamism in 2010. Republicans captured solid control of the House of Representatives, and have increased that House majority in last Tuesday's election. How could that have happened in two consecutive elections if conservative values were out of fashion? The truth is, there are plenty of people out there who understand fully well that only conservative solutions work against the biggest challenges our country faces: debt, inflation, joblessness, taxation, entitlements, and military preparedness.
Republicans assumed that Obama's failures spoke for themselves and that the public was ready to throw him out. Unfortunately for the GOP, facts, values, and good debates are not as strong as building a ground game, knocking-on doors, shaking hands with people, and listening to their concerns. This is the work that lay ahead if conservatives want to make a comeback. They can do it, because the solutions are on their side.
Democrats are not just unwilling, but they are unable to provide solutions to the nation's problems because they are elected by constituencies who are demanding more and more of the services that exacerbate these problems. Democrats do not even pretend to care about these issues. The day after the election, when asked by a reporter if the debt ceiling will need to be raised another $3 trillion by the spring, Senate ruler Harry Reid, said "Sure. If it needs to be raised, we'll raise it." If Reid gets his way the national debt will soon be $19 trillion. Only conservatism can turn this country away from the debt bomb that stares us in the face. Sooner or later, more than 50% of the public will cry out for real leadership on this menace.
For now, conservatives, feel good about who you are. Get back on your feet, dust off your shoulders, and keep fighting. The country needs you. We may lose elections from time to time, but we are never defeated unless we quit.
Jason A.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Price-Gouging: Is It Really Wrong?
Capitalism is a continuing education that steam-rolls everything I was taught by my liberal professors in college. When gas prices rise, everyone screams for price controls. Sometimes state governments cave into the pressure and implement price controls. When they do, they make the problem worse them ever. The price stays exactly where the cap is placed (because demand is unchanged), the resource runs out (empty gas stations), and people suffer from lack of accessibility (think Soviet Union).
The laws of supply and demand are remarkably predictable. They are also incredibly resilient against government meddling. It's like trying to change a stone pillar by punching it with your fist. The stone pillar stays the same, your fist is the only thing changed. And the change is not what you wanted (think Barack Obama).
This goes against the grain of what we emotionally feel is right and wrong. But what we emotionally feel is right and wrong is not the same thing as what is factually right and wrong. Price-gouging is a case in point. Doesn't it just seem wrong for the price of gas to suddenly go up 300% in the middle of a storm, or perhaps in the anticipation of an approaching storm? How about when hotel prices go up 200% in the aftermath, or in the approach of, a hurricane? It seems sneaky, doesn't it? It seems greedy, doesn't it? Well, let's consider the options.
Scenario #1: The price of a hotel room at the Holiday Inn in Marietta, Georgia gets capped at the normal rate of (hypothetically) $100 per night. Suddenly, there is an influx of Floridians in the area, looking for shelter to escape the latest hurricane bearing down on their state. A car pulls-up with a family of four. The Dad or Mom asks the price of a room. At $100 for one night, they take two rooms, one for them, the other for the kids. More cars come. Within hours, all rooms are booked and everyone else who comes gets turned away. Shelter is no longer available for those who need it. The price has been capped. Shortage is the consequence.
Scenario #2: The price of a hotel room at the Holiday Inn in Marietta, Georgia rises to $300 per night in the anticipation of the approaching hurricane in Florida. The first car carrying the family of four pulls-up. The Mom or Dad asks the price of a room for one night. The clerk tells them it will be $300. They scratch their heads and decide they will take only one room instead of two. The family of four crowds into one room for one night. Four hours later, another car bearing a family of four pulls-up. The first question they ask the clerk is, "Do you have any available rooms?" With an ear-to-ear grin, the clerk responds, "We sure do. It will be $300 for one night." The car parks in the lot. The ignition turns off.
In the fall of 2008, there was a massive gasoline shortage in the metro-Atlanta area. There had been a hurricane in the Gulf, which disrupted some of the pipelines metro-Atlanta draws from. The price of regular gas rose dramatically to (if my memory serves me correctly) around $4.25 per gallon. (It seemed like a lot at the time). Unbeknownst to me, a Georgia law capping the price of gas kicked-in. Soon, rumors spread of shortage. Lines of cars piled up at gas stations and in the roads leading to them. Every station in Marietta was dry. My wife, Katie, and I would leave the house at midnight sometimes, when we learned of a shipment that had just arrived at one station or another. Literally, we left the house at midnight or even at 2 a.m. to put gas in our cars.
Now, let us imagine that the price of gas had been allowed to naturally rise to about $9 or $10 per gallon. Had that been the case, you could be sure people wouldn't have run to the gas station, all at once, with all four cars and extra gas cans, and filled everything up! It is also, a reasonable possibility that the stations may not have run out of gas, even with the disrupted pipelines from the Gulf.
Prices rise and fall with the relationship between supply and demand. With an approaching hurricane, demand suddenly goes through the roof. To prevent supply from running out, prices must rise to match demand. Once demand is satisfied, prices fall just as quickly. These laws are cold, but they have a desirable logic of their own. We should keep these things in mind before we scream for price controls to combat price-gouging.
Jason A.
Capitalism is a continuing education that steam-rolls everything I was taught by my liberal professors in college. When gas prices rise, everyone screams for price controls. Sometimes state governments cave into the pressure and implement price controls. When they do, they make the problem worse them ever. The price stays exactly where the cap is placed (because demand is unchanged), the resource runs out (empty gas stations), and people suffer from lack of accessibility (think Soviet Union).
The laws of supply and demand are remarkably predictable. They are also incredibly resilient against government meddling. It's like trying to change a stone pillar by punching it with your fist. The stone pillar stays the same, your fist is the only thing changed. And the change is not what you wanted (think Barack Obama).
This goes against the grain of what we emotionally feel is right and wrong. But what we emotionally feel is right and wrong is not the same thing as what is factually right and wrong. Price-gouging is a case in point. Doesn't it just seem wrong for the price of gas to suddenly go up 300% in the middle of a storm, or perhaps in the anticipation of an approaching storm? How about when hotel prices go up 200% in the aftermath, or in the approach of, a hurricane? It seems sneaky, doesn't it? It seems greedy, doesn't it? Well, let's consider the options.
Scenario #1: The price of a hotel room at the Holiday Inn in Marietta, Georgia gets capped at the normal rate of (hypothetically) $100 per night. Suddenly, there is an influx of Floridians in the area, looking for shelter to escape the latest hurricane bearing down on their state. A car pulls-up with a family of four. The Dad or Mom asks the price of a room. At $100 for one night, they take two rooms, one for them, the other for the kids. More cars come. Within hours, all rooms are booked and everyone else who comes gets turned away. Shelter is no longer available for those who need it. The price has been capped. Shortage is the consequence.
Scenario #2: The price of a hotel room at the Holiday Inn in Marietta, Georgia rises to $300 per night in the anticipation of the approaching hurricane in Florida. The first car carrying the family of four pulls-up. The Mom or Dad asks the price of a room for one night. The clerk tells them it will be $300. They scratch their heads and decide they will take only one room instead of two. The family of four crowds into one room for one night. Four hours later, another car bearing a family of four pulls-up. The first question they ask the clerk is, "Do you have any available rooms?" With an ear-to-ear grin, the clerk responds, "We sure do. It will be $300 for one night." The car parks in the lot. The ignition turns off.
In the fall of 2008, there was a massive gasoline shortage in the metro-Atlanta area. There had been a hurricane in the Gulf, which disrupted some of the pipelines metro-Atlanta draws from. The price of regular gas rose dramatically to (if my memory serves me correctly) around $4.25 per gallon. (It seemed like a lot at the time). Unbeknownst to me, a Georgia law capping the price of gas kicked-in. Soon, rumors spread of shortage. Lines of cars piled up at gas stations and in the roads leading to them. Every station in Marietta was dry. My wife, Katie, and I would leave the house at midnight sometimes, when we learned of a shipment that had just arrived at one station or another. Literally, we left the house at midnight or even at 2 a.m. to put gas in our cars.
Now, let us imagine that the price of gas had been allowed to naturally rise to about $9 or $10 per gallon. Had that been the case, you could be sure people wouldn't have run to the gas station, all at once, with all four cars and extra gas cans, and filled everything up! It is also, a reasonable possibility that the stations may not have run out of gas, even with the disrupted pipelines from the Gulf.
Prices rise and fall with the relationship between supply and demand. With an approaching hurricane, demand suddenly goes through the roof. To prevent supply from running out, prices must rise to match demand. Once demand is satisfied, prices fall just as quickly. These laws are cold, but they have a desirable logic of their own. We should keep these things in mind before we scream for price controls to combat price-gouging.
Jason A.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The Amateur: Why Barack Obama Is Losing The Presidency
The race for the White House isn't over, but there is very little good news for the incumbent president. With Romney ahead in Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia, and tied with the president in Ohio, the writing appears to be on the wall for the Obama presidency. The president has less than two weeks to turn it around. Why has it come to this? For the last four years the United States of America has been ruled by an amateur. From the moment he took office until this very day, the actions of the 44th president have shown him to be grossly incompetent. The president has not lost yet, but he is losing.
In 2008, everyone knew Presidential Candidate Barack Obama had no executive experience. His political career consisted mainly of community organizing in Chicago, some years in the Illinois state legislature (a voting record undistinguished aside from his repeated votes to squash a bill banning partial-birth abortions, a barbaric practice that embarrasses many pro-choice advocates), and one term in the U.S. Senate. But Americans have historically shown a willingness to take a chance on an amateur. John F. Kennedy had a similarly short and undistinguished career in the U.S. Congress before making his successful presidential bid in 1960.
Amateurs make mistakes. Soon after becoming president, John F. Kennedy made a huge one. He allowed a hair-brained invasion of Cuba by fewer than 2,000 CIA-trained exiles, up against more than 25,000 Castro troops. Now, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that 2,000 is no match for 25,000 (even if Kennedy had delivered on the promised air-cover). But Kennedy had not been on the job for long, and he was intimidated by the metal-clad chests of the generals advising him to approve the mission. Such lack of astute judgment of options presented by subordinates is a sure-fire sign of amateurism. Luckily for America, John F. Kennedy learned from his mistakes and was on his way to becoming an effective president when he was assassinated in Dallas. Unfortunately for America, Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy.
Einstein's definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior expecting a different result. By that law, President Obama should have been committed to an asylum long ago. For this politician never learns from his mistakes. From the moment he took office in 2009, Obama told aides his policy toward Israel will be guided by "tough love". By this, he explained that America is likely to gain concessions from the Muslim world by giving Israel a public dressing-down. Obama continued his tough love policy toward Israel for the next four years and what has America gained from the Muslim world in terms of concessions? Let's see, perhaps in Obama's mind the following count as concessions:
In the twilight days of his re-election campaign, the president has doubled-down on amateurism. A few weeks ago, Obama told the Israeli prime minister he had no time in his schedule to meet with him. Immediately afterward, the president went to be a guest on David Letterman's comedy show. Then, there was a gathering of world leaders at the UN in New York. The president skipped it and went with Michelle to star in an episode of The View, followed by campaign fundraising with Jay-Z and Beyonce. This president does not lead, he only campaigns!
The full rankness of the president's amateurish nature was on display throughout the three presidential debates with his challenger, Mitt Romney. In the first debate, Obama seemed like he was hardly in attendance. That debate was crucial because it defeated the entire premise of the president's re-election campaign, which was "Kill Romney" from the start. For the last year, the president has shown no interest in laying out an agenda for his second term. All he has wanted us to do is hang-on and trust that the reforms of the first term will kick-in. Aside from that message, the rest of is campaign has been to scare us to death about the prospect of Mitt Romney becoming president. This image of the uncaring, cutthroat-capitalist Romney evaporated when the real Mitt Romney showed up at the first debate and showed compassion, command of the facts and issues most relevant to the country, and made himself appear a viable and attractive alternative to Barack Obama. In the three debates, Obama's attacks on Romney have consisted of the most meager substance and have instead hit at some vague target like "the rich one-percent" whom Romney has supposedly been mainly concerned with helping, and how Romney does not care about the rest of us. Such class warfare is emotional, not factual.
It is not surprising that almost overnight, following the first debate, the ground shifted in the polls from a solid Obama-lead, to a deadheat, and then to a steadily climbing Romney-lead. Obama's performance improved in tone and energy (but not in substance) in the second debate. Romney absolutely skewered the president's record on the economy with a withering barrage of facts. The president was strafed with the Keystone veto, the wasted taxpayer dollars on financially bankrupt solar companies, the AAA credit downgrade, and stagnant job growth, among other hits. Romney was moving into the kill with his interrogation of the president on the Libya embassy scandal when the moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, injected herself into the debate on the president's behalf saying, "he called it" [the embassy attack] "terrorism" in the Rose Garden speech. She turned out to be wrong.
The third debate showed the president to appear petty and peevish, making condescending remarks to Romney such as, "We're glad you think Al Qaeda's a threat." No Mr. President, we wish you could demonstrate to us that YOU think Al Qaeda's a threat, but your cover-up of the cause of death of four Americans in Benghazi with persistent remarks that a youtube video and spontaneous protests caused the event tells us you do not think Al Qaeda's a threat! Romney avoided a fight with the president in the third debate because he wanted to present himself with the confidence of being a presidential candidate who is winning. Consequently, the challenger appeared presidential and the incumbent appeared as the challenger. Since then, the Romney surge has continued in all the swing- state polling.
The president's most recent display of amateurism has come in the wake of the third debate and in the shadow of the Romney tide: the publication of President Obama's second term agenda! Yes, it is a handsomely packaged booklet entitled The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs & Middle Class Security. One has to look in vain for Obama's second term agenda in all his many speeches over the last year, and in all three presidential debates the last three weeks. With two weeks left until election day, with his campaign staring defeat in the face, Obama rolls-out his second term agenda. What does it contain? More of the same. More spending. More stimulus. Nothing new. More of Einstein's definition of insanity, with the nation teetering on a fiscal cliff. Pure amateurism - true to form.
There is no single issue defeating the president. It is not jobs or the economy. If it were, than why has he gained no traction from an unemployment figure that has dropped below 8 percent in the last few weeks? Barack Obama is losing because the public is waking up to the notion that this man has been out of his depth, in over his head, incompetent, in his performance as president of the United States. We have been ruled by an administration that is bringing the country ever closer to a run on the dollar, immeasurably more vulnerable to terroristic attacks, and to being a laughing stock among the international community. Like King Belshazar in the book of Daniel, he has seen the writing on the wall, he has been found wanting, he knows his days are numbered, his reign is coming to an end, very soon.
Jason A.
The race for the White House isn't over, but there is very little good news for the incumbent president. With Romney ahead in Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia, and tied with the president in Ohio, the writing appears to be on the wall for the Obama presidency. The president has less than two weeks to turn it around. Why has it come to this? For the last four years the United States of America has been ruled by an amateur. From the moment he took office until this very day, the actions of the 44th president have shown him to be grossly incompetent. The president has not lost yet, but he is losing.
In 2008, everyone knew Presidential Candidate Barack Obama had no executive experience. His political career consisted mainly of community organizing in Chicago, some years in the Illinois state legislature (a voting record undistinguished aside from his repeated votes to squash a bill banning partial-birth abortions, a barbaric practice that embarrasses many pro-choice advocates), and one term in the U.S. Senate. But Americans have historically shown a willingness to take a chance on an amateur. John F. Kennedy had a similarly short and undistinguished career in the U.S. Congress before making his successful presidential bid in 1960.
Amateurs make mistakes. Soon after becoming president, John F. Kennedy made a huge one. He allowed a hair-brained invasion of Cuba by fewer than 2,000 CIA-trained exiles, up against more than 25,000 Castro troops. Now, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that 2,000 is no match for 25,000 (even if Kennedy had delivered on the promised air-cover). But Kennedy had not been on the job for long, and he was intimidated by the metal-clad chests of the generals advising him to approve the mission. Such lack of astute judgment of options presented by subordinates is a sure-fire sign of amateurism. Luckily for America, John F. Kennedy learned from his mistakes and was on his way to becoming an effective president when he was assassinated in Dallas. Unfortunately for America, Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy.
Einstein's definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior expecting a different result. By that law, President Obama should have been committed to an asylum long ago. For this politician never learns from his mistakes. From the moment he took office in 2009, Obama told aides his policy toward Israel will be guided by "tough love". By this, he explained that America is likely to gain concessions from the Muslim world by giving Israel a public dressing-down. Obama continued his tough love policy toward Israel for the next four years and what has America gained from the Muslim world in terms of concessions? Let's see, perhaps in Obama's mind the following count as concessions:
- An Iran as defiant as ever in the pursuit of developing atomic weapons while calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.
- An Iran that has the gall to plot an assassination of U.S-allied foreign leaders in Washington D.C., through Latin American proxies.
- An Iraq that has told us to leave its country without a status of forces agreement, thus eliminating any material gain the U.S might hope for from the seven year-long Iraq War.
- A Libya that is crawling with Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists brave enough to launch and successfully execute an assault on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including the Ambassador.
- A Tunisia that has flag-burning marchers who chant "Obama, Obama, We Are All Osama!"
- An Afghanistan whose troops are murdering U.S. troops in growing numbers of attacks.
- An Egypt that has allowed vandalism of the U.S. embassy and a parliament whose members openly declare to the populace, "Prepare for war with Israel!"
In the twilight days of his re-election campaign, the president has doubled-down on amateurism. A few weeks ago, Obama told the Israeli prime minister he had no time in his schedule to meet with him. Immediately afterward, the president went to be a guest on David Letterman's comedy show. Then, there was a gathering of world leaders at the UN in New York. The president skipped it and went with Michelle to star in an episode of The View, followed by campaign fundraising with Jay-Z and Beyonce. This president does not lead, he only campaigns!
The full rankness of the president's amateurish nature was on display throughout the three presidential debates with his challenger, Mitt Romney. In the first debate, Obama seemed like he was hardly in attendance. That debate was crucial because it defeated the entire premise of the president's re-election campaign, which was "Kill Romney" from the start. For the last year, the president has shown no interest in laying out an agenda for his second term. All he has wanted us to do is hang-on and trust that the reforms of the first term will kick-in. Aside from that message, the rest of is campaign has been to scare us to death about the prospect of Mitt Romney becoming president. This image of the uncaring, cutthroat-capitalist Romney evaporated when the real Mitt Romney showed up at the first debate and showed compassion, command of the facts and issues most relevant to the country, and made himself appear a viable and attractive alternative to Barack Obama. In the three debates, Obama's attacks on Romney have consisted of the most meager substance and have instead hit at some vague target like "the rich one-percent" whom Romney has supposedly been mainly concerned with helping, and how Romney does not care about the rest of us. Such class warfare is emotional, not factual.
It is not surprising that almost overnight, following the first debate, the ground shifted in the polls from a solid Obama-lead, to a deadheat, and then to a steadily climbing Romney-lead. Obama's performance improved in tone and energy (but not in substance) in the second debate. Romney absolutely skewered the president's record on the economy with a withering barrage of facts. The president was strafed with the Keystone veto, the wasted taxpayer dollars on financially bankrupt solar companies, the AAA credit downgrade, and stagnant job growth, among other hits. Romney was moving into the kill with his interrogation of the president on the Libya embassy scandal when the moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, injected herself into the debate on the president's behalf saying, "he called it" [the embassy attack] "terrorism" in the Rose Garden speech. She turned out to be wrong.
The third debate showed the president to appear petty and peevish, making condescending remarks to Romney such as, "We're glad you think Al Qaeda's a threat." No Mr. President, we wish you could demonstrate to us that YOU think Al Qaeda's a threat, but your cover-up of the cause of death of four Americans in Benghazi with persistent remarks that a youtube video and spontaneous protests caused the event tells us you do not think Al Qaeda's a threat! Romney avoided a fight with the president in the third debate because he wanted to present himself with the confidence of being a presidential candidate who is winning. Consequently, the challenger appeared presidential and the incumbent appeared as the challenger. Since then, the Romney surge has continued in all the swing- state polling.
The president's most recent display of amateurism has come in the wake of the third debate and in the shadow of the Romney tide: the publication of President Obama's second term agenda! Yes, it is a handsomely packaged booklet entitled The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs & Middle Class Security. One has to look in vain for Obama's second term agenda in all his many speeches over the last year, and in all three presidential debates the last three weeks. With two weeks left until election day, with his campaign staring defeat in the face, Obama rolls-out his second term agenda. What does it contain? More of the same. More spending. More stimulus. Nothing new. More of Einstein's definition of insanity, with the nation teetering on a fiscal cliff. Pure amateurism - true to form.
There is no single issue defeating the president. It is not jobs or the economy. If it were, than why has he gained no traction from an unemployment figure that has dropped below 8 percent in the last few weeks? Barack Obama is losing because the public is waking up to the notion that this man has been out of his depth, in over his head, incompetent, in his performance as president of the United States. We have been ruled by an administration that is bringing the country ever closer to a run on the dollar, immeasurably more vulnerable to terroristic attacks, and to being a laughing stock among the international community. Like King Belshazar in the book of Daniel, he has seen the writing on the wall, he has been found wanting, he knows his days are numbered, his reign is coming to an end, very soon.
Jason A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)