Tag Archives: barack obama

Romney Wins Florida But Newt Makes It Clear That There are “46 More States to Go”

Bookmark and Share As is the norm for Florida, the Sunshine State has again made electoral history. For the first time, the Republican winner of the South Carolina primary, lost the Florida primary. What it means in the long term is uncertain, but what it means in the short term is quite apparent. Nationally, Republicans have no real clear favorite for President yet.

Still, Mitt Romney’s win was significant and he deserve credit for orchestrating it. He spent $17 million to do it, but he did it and in the end, especially with 50 delegates now in his column, that is all that matters. However, while Romney once again becomes the frontrunner for the nomination, you will have to forgive me if do not declare this race over yet.

With little more than 5% of the delegates allocated so far, there is no denying that the race is not over yet, but it was made even more obvious to me after hearing Romney deliver his victory speech, and after Gingrich and Santorum gave their concession speeches.

In his speech, Mitt Romney rose to the occasion and sounded enthusiastic, but humble, and most of all, he sounded presidential. He delivered a speech that allowed people to truly begin to get comfortable with the idea of him being the candidate who can take the fight to President Barack Obama and beat him. He didn’t seal the deal, but his Florida victory speech helped make people more willing to accept the now almost inevitability of his being nominated for president. And now back in the frontrunner position, Romney offered not only a brief glimpse of the potential that exists in his carrying the Republican banner, he even took some steps to put the ugliness of the intraparty battle for the nomination behind him by eloquently making the point that “a competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us.”

But in his facing the fact that he came in second place to Romney with at least 15% less of the vote than Romney, Newt Gingrich offered a speech which oozed of defiance and held a true thirst for not just beating Barack Obama, but for bringing about the type of reforms that Americans want, but as of late, have not often come to see in either Republicans or Democrats. He also provided some of the best reasons for his candidacy to date.

While limiting his negative attacks to calling Romney a Massachusetts moderate, Newt introduced what was seemingly a very heartfelt, personal contract with the American people, a spin on the now famous 1994 Contract With America that he spearheaded and guided through Congress.

Newt’s personal contract consists of two parts. The first part is conditional and it requires that the people elect conservatives to Congress. If they do that, Newt promises that before he takes office, he will request that on January 3rd, 2013, the new Congress stays in session and immediately repeals Obamacare, Dodd-Franks, and Sarbanes Oxley, three bills that are being viewed as among the most detrimental legislative initiatives effecting our economy. Gingrich vows that if the American people elect strong conservative majorities to Congress, those three measures can be repealed by Congress and on the day of his inauguration, he will sign the legislation to rid us of those massive government burdens. The problem there is that unless it is veto proof majority, President Obama will have the opportunity to veto it before Gingrich has the opportunity to sign it. So Newt might want to hold back on his request for january 3rd vote on those issues.

The rest of Newt’s personal contract is a promise to promptly enact a series of constitutional executive orders that will consist of immediately abolishing the existence of all White House czars, an immediate order to commence construction of the Keystone Pipeline project, an executive order opening the American embassy in Jerusalem and essentially acknowledging that divided city as Israel’s capital, another executive order which would reinstate the Reagan policy that did not allow federal money to fund any abortions, anywhere in the world, and last but not least, he promised to enact an order that repeals any and all of the anti-religious acts enacted by the Obama Administration in what Newt described as the President’s war on religion.

Newt’s speech was far from a concession speech, but what it did do was offer voters some good reasons for why Newt should not give up. With a room full of supporters waving signs that reminded voters that there are 46 more states which have yet to vote, Newt demonstrated that he still has what it takes to continue contesting this election.

The other speech of note came from third place finisher Senator Rick Santorum.

Even though Santorum placed a very distant third with only 13% of the vote in Florida, his speech actually provided a good rationale for his own continued participation in this race.

Knowing full well that he was not going to have a strong showing in Florida, Santorum elected to make his primary night remarks from Nevada, where he is campaigning in advance of that state’s Caucus which takes place this Saturday.

Taking advantage of the very rarely traveled high road in their primary contest, Santorum exploited the bitter battle between Romney and Gingrich by looking like the adult in the room who had his eye on the real prize…….defeating President Obama.

He stated that he was not going to criticize the personal and public successes achieved by both Gingrich and Romney as they have done to one another. Instead he declared that republicans deserve better, and that he was going to focus on the issues important to the American people. However, Santorum did argue that Newt failed at taking the momentum he had coming out South Carolina and converting it in to establishing himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. According to Santorum, Newt proved to make himself the issue and the American people do not need a President who is the issue, but rather a President who can address the issues and solve the problems surrounding them.

All three speeches were actually quite good and they all provided a solid foundation and legitimate reasons for this nomination contest to remain competitive. The problem is that Santorum and Gingrich will still have to find the resources it takes to convince voters that it really isn’t over. If Newt can finally stick to the themes he struck in his speech in Florida, themes based on his being the anti-establishment candidate and a true conservative leader capable of achieving very real and very bold reforms, he can survive long enough to see another victory, but it may not happen for another month or more and the longer he goes without a victory, the harder it will be for him to achieve one.

Right now, the only thing we can be certain of is that Mitt Romney is the one in the catbird seat tonight. The real problem I see here though is that Romney is still the candidate which for numerous reasons, many Republicans seem to be settling for. Such uninspired support makes it quite possible for someone like Newt to turn things around by actually inspiring people and causing voters say, you know what? I don’t have to settle for Mitt. We can do better.”

Until Mitt Romney is willing to stop playing it safe, and proves that he too can be a bold leader, he will remain vulnerable to being overshadowed by the boldness of Newt Gingrich’s vision and red meat agenda. For Mitt it is now a judgement call and a gamble. Does he continue to play it safe and rely on his giant campaign war chest to suppress the amount of support Gingrich and risk the possibility of Newt turning things around again? Or does he step out of his safety zone and make an attempt to prove that he is more than just a wealthy Republican establishment candidate?

My experience with Romney leads me to believe that he will continue to play it safe with the expectation that Newt will be do just the opposite and a loss it all by taking one too many risks.

On a final note, yes I know that I did not mention Ron Paul and that I did not include his concession speech. And no it is not because I am afraid that if I give him any ink, people will flock to his side and elect him President. The reason I did not include Ron Paul is because he has yet to become a significant factor in this election and because he said absolutely nothing new in his speech following his single digit, last place showing in Florida.

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

Changing the Liberal Mindset that Americans Have Unwittingly Come To Accept

Bookmark and Share I have spent a lot of time listening to Democrats and President Obama in particular, preach about fairness and making people pay their fair share. I have listened to an endless stream of liberals position themselves as federal cherubs who are trying to be little government sponsored guardian angels who just want to make sure that everyone is treated equally and that everyone gets what they deserve. Sometimes I swear I am listening to Tinkerbell talking to Peter freaking Pan, or listening to Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, tell me that if I click the heels of my ruby red slippers together, I will suddenly find a magical rainbow that will lead me to a government provided pot of gold.

What bothers me the most is not that these liberal leprechaun would try to convince people that their American version of socialism would make everything better, but that there are actually Americans who are really dumb enough to believe them.

But it is evidence of the fact that since the days of FDR, Democrats have come to believe not in strong economic policies for America, but rather in the kind of politics that can keep them in power by offering voters a choice between the truth of reality represented by the self determination which Republicans believe in, and the government fantasy version of reality that the left promotes. It is the kind of politics that is rooted in dependency and it is comprised of a formula which seeks to make people believe that things can be easier if they keep Democrats in power because Democrats will give the people a litany of wonderful things by declaring them rights.

They will give you government provided health care, education, food, salaries, and services, and all these gifts will make our lives easier, and better.

It is a vicious cycle which all began by exploiting dependency, a negative which Democrats now try to perpetuate. For Democrats, their formula for electoral success relies mainly upon making more people, more dependent on government goodies so that come Election Day, the voters will embrace rather than bite the liberals hands that the people have literally come to expect to feed them.

Pursuit of this political formula for electoral success has unfortunately had a big impact on many Americans. Without realizing it, many Americans have been brainwashed and come to embrace the liberal mindset which has successfully change the dynamics of American thinking.

Today, thanks to the left, the American constitutional paradigm which was a citizenry that granted limited powers to a federal government, has been forgotten and replaced with the thinking that starts from the premiss which has us now question how much power the government can give the people. It is really all quite insane.

Today we take taxes for granted so much that the debate is not how much the government should take. It is how much of what we earn can we keep. In this day an age we are grateful when a leader like Chris Christie comes along and proposes an across the board state income of 10%. Thanks to liberal propaganda and decades of liberal training, we actually believe that politicians are doing us a favor by lowering our taxes. But the truth is, that it is no favor! It is the only decent thing to do! Yet we have all fallen victim to a liberal agenda which has forced us to think backwards. Whether we realize it or not, liberal thinking has shifted our mindset and so today we thank a politician for allowing us to keep more of our own money, when what we should actually be doing is reprimanding them for not giving us back more of our own money.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that in America, the people do not exist because of government, government exists because of the people. Americans need to realize that we should not be grateful for how much the government lets us keep, it is the government that should be grateful for what we the people are willing to give to it. Until we all realize that, we will all remain slaves to our government, and nothing more than the real servants to those who are suppose to be the government servants………the elected officials who we thank for allowing us to keep more of our money, and appreciate for giving us the permit and permission s to build a deck on our own private property or to go fishing or camping.

I recently listened to the elf-like liberal Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis was discussing President Obama’s State of the Union address and he told the listening audience that he believed “the rich should pay more”. Other liberals phrase it differently. President Obama likes to say that “the rich should be forced to pay their fair share”. But what I need to know is what is fair and beyond that, who the hell has the right to tell us what is fair? Is Dennis Kucinich the Fairness Fairy?

Fairness is arbitrary and our Constitution did not address fairness. And as far as I known there is no twenty eighth amendment of the Constitution which defines fairness and articulates how government is suppose to legislate fairness. But the Constitution of the United States does address government’s place in our lives and in doing so, it clearly states that we are granted our rights from our creator. And just to make this clear, I need to tell you that the federal government did not create you or I. Barack Obama can not take credit for me. Nor can he legally take my rights away, even though several of his policies already have.

Another thing he should not be able to do is tell me how much I can earn, what I must do with my money, and who I must share it with.

Yet that is what the left has essentially lived for since the days of FDR.

They have lived for the opportunity to make me as good as the next guy by making sure that if the next guy is doing well, the government can redistribute his wealth to me. Is that a definition of fairness? Is it fair for me to profit from the work, ingenuity, work ethic, and committment of someone else?

These are the questions that President Obama and his Party have brought to the forefront in this election, more than any election we have seen in generations.

And while the economy is and should be one of the most important issues of the 2012 cycle, what America needs to really do is look at the dynamics behind the economy. Then they must decide if we want to fully invest ourselves in to reconstructing our national foundation in to one that is the world’s preeminent government sponsored welfare state, a state which is the key element to the survival of each individual American. Or do we want to strengthen the founding principles which were designed to get government and the federal bureaucracy out of the way so that we can practice the rights that we were endowed with by our creator and be free to dream well beyond the limits of the government bureaucracy?

That is the framework that this election must waged in. It is the question which the Republican nominee for President needs to condense every interpretation of each of their policies down to.

In 2012, the G.O.P. needs to remind people that dependency is not the American way and that our government was never meant to be the largest source of jobs in America. In fact the purpose of our government is not to create jobs, it was designed to make sure that American people could create jobs.

People must be made to once again learn how things really work in America.

They must be retrained to understand that government created jobs do not generate profits that sustain the costs of the salaries paid to each government employee. They need to understand that an employee of the EPA does not do create wealth, they consume wealth. The American people must be made to once again realize that when the government creates a job, the salary for that job comes not from any federal profit…..it comes from the taxpayers, and in order to keep raising the money required to pay that government salary, the government will need to continue taking taxpayers money.

However, in the free market, profits create salaries and the more profits there are, the more salaries there are.

But there is even more to it than that basic fact.

Voters need to be made aware of the fact that according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, civilian workers employed through the federal government have an average wage of $81,258. Yet at the same time, the average wage of the nation’s approximate 101 million private-sector workers is $50,462.

This means that taxpayers, the people who are making money through jobs that generate profits, are paying federal workers 25% more than they make. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is increasing federal spending through so-called economic stimulus dollars, that is creating an even larger federal workforce, one that for a while was outpacing private sector job growth. And that is a formula for further disaster.

Paying federal salaries, and more of them, that are higher than the salaries which provide the taxes that pay for those federal pay checks, is a formula that leads to paying out more than we take in. And that is just on government jobs. It has nothing to do with the other more traditional forms of federal deficit spending based on entitlements and federal dependency programs.

All of this presents the next Republican presidential nominee a with a multifaceted challenge.

They must not just provide solutions and frame them in a way that wins people over, they must also educate people. The next Republican presidential nominee must educate people on how America is suppose to work and they must teach them the reasons why the socialist model of contemporary liberal-progressivism does not work and how it is a system designed to keep the powerbrokers in power by making them the people we are dependent for our own survival.

In 2012 we make people understand that government is not a supernatural entity which can wave a magic wand over a problem and solve it without accountability and without there being future repercussions as Peter finally has to Paul.

Once people can be made to realize that, I mean really realize that, half the battle will be won.

Once that is achieved we then need to confront Democrats and tell them that if they want change the purpose of government, they, like President, should come right out and admit it.

When he was running for President in 2008, then Senator Obama declared that he wanted to “fundamentally change America”. But few took him at his word. And those that did, didn’t think he really meant he wanted to fundamentally change the constitutional responsibilities of government. But now it is quite obvious that that is exactly what he meant.

In 2012 we must challenge Democrats to be truthful to the American people and force them to come before voters and admit that they want the federal government to have more control over our lives. We must challenge them to be honest and admit that they do not like the fact that some people can be financially wealthier than others. We must make the left come before the American electorate and let them know the America that liberals envision, is one in which everyone is made equal by lowering the overall quality of life rather than providing the type of environment which creates more opportunities for people to improve their quality of life.

We know for certain that class warfare is the name of the liberal game in 2012. It’s nothing new. But what Republicans must do now is reeducate the American people and make them realize why it is class warfare. And we must then ask the American people to decide once for all, if they believe dependency on the federal bureaucracy is the best foundation for them to build their lives upon and for our nation to grow on, or is the independence behind our reason for being the more solid choice for the future of our nation and its people.

Bookmark and Share

6 Comments

Filed under politics

Poll Proves President Obama to Be Weak Where He Should Be Strong

Bookmark and Share    A new Quinnipiac Poll shows that 52% of New Jersey voters disapprove of the job that President Obama is doing and 43% approve of his job performance.  It is his lowest approval rating in the Garden State yet.  A breakdown of the polls shows that  Democrats approve of his job performance 77% to 19% percent. Disapproval is 88% – 10%  among Republicans, and the most important and lethal number is his 60% – 34% disapproval rating among independent voters.

Quinnipiac also notes that there is a large gender gap as women have a 50% to 45% approval rating of the Presidents job performance, while men disapprove  60%  to 36%.

Still though, the poll finds that voters are split 47% to 48% on whether President Obama deserves reelection.

However; one should take note of the polling history pertaining to New Jersey’s 2009 gubernatorial election.

At this same point in that election, almost a year before it took place,  a similar Quinnipiac Poll found that New Jersey voters disapproved of Governor Jon Corzine’s job performance by 51% to  40%.  It was his fourth negative score that year. Democrats approved of the Governor 60% to  31, while Republicans disapproved 75% to 19%,  and independent voters gave him a thumbs down by 52% – 38%.

Those numbers are better than President Obama’s number are and Jon Corzine went on to be  soundly defeated by Chris Christie.

The only difference is that President Obama’s job approval among Democrats is higher than Jon Corzine’s approval was at this same point in his election.  That shows that New Jersey Democrats are still more enthusiastic about Obama than they were of Corzine.  But aside form that, President Obama’s disapproval among New Jersey Republicans, and more importantly, New Jersey Independent voters, is substantially higher than Corzine’s were.

All of this simply confirms that at the moment, President Obama is indeed in trouble.

These poll numbers come from a very blue state that is in the bluest region of the nation for…….. the Northeast.  If the majority of voters  in a state like New Jersey disapprove of the job that the President  is doing, than you can rest assured that similar sentiments exist throughout the region.  So it only follows that President Obama will have to actually spend time and money campaigning in state’s like, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and even New York.  That will give the President less time and resources to dedicate to winning battleground, or swing states, like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

The last time a Republican presidential candidate won New Jersey was in 1988, when George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis.

With 14 electoral votes, if New Jersey does not soon be safely in President Obama’s column, it will dramatically increase the number of electoral college equations needed for Republicans to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.  Following conventional wisdom, giving Democrats and Republicans the state’s they traditionally win and leaving states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and several others undecided, if New Jersey is a tossup,  President Obama will have 15 different ways to reach a winning combination of electoral votes.  Republicans would have 45 winning combinations available to them.  And for those who really like suspense, there would be 7 scenarios whereby there could be a tie in the electoral college.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

President Reacts To Election Defeat & Shows He Just Doesn’t Get It

Bookmark and Share   President Obama just doesn’t get it.

In his usual arrogance, he addressed the beating that he, his policies and his Party took in the midterm elections by declaring that the way he sees it , while he made great progress over the past two years, he failed to do a good enough job at proving and explaining it to the people. His explanation for the historic losses of his Party makes clear that what the President really failed at, was to accept the real message the voters sent him last night.

Last night, voters did not tell the President that he hasn’t communicated well enough with them. They told him that they do not want endless spending, out of control government growth and, a massive new government bureaucracy that runs healthcare. Yet President Obama dismisses these conclusion by declaring;

“I don’t think the American people want to see us re-litigate the fights of the past  two years”.

On that, the President is wrong. 

A majority of voters have made it clear that they want Obamacare repealed and replaced.  A majority of voters have made it clear that they do not want anymore government stimulus packages that line the pockets of big union bosses and spend billions on temporary jobs that cost more money to create than they generate.

Voters told the President and his Party that they rejected the policy choices that they rammed through Congress. Voters told him and his Party that they did not like the exaggerated manipulation and abuse of the legislative process that they led. Yet President Obama refuses to accept that and in doing so, despite his once famously telling Senator John McCain that “elections have consequences” , he apparently does not believe those consequences apply to him.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that President Obama feels much more confident talking down to the American electorate than with them. Apparently President Obama is not willing to accept the will of the people and although he now claims to want to work with the new Republican majority in the House, one can’t help but wonder why he wishes to do so now and refused to sincerely do so in the past. Just days ago he called those who oppose his ideas “enemies” and then further offended any sense of bipartisanship by

declaring that Republicans and Democrats can work together but that the Republicans will have to sit in the backseat.

This did not lay the groundwork for a promising working relationship with the new Republican majority, a majority that has stated that their responsibility now is to “to listen to the American people” and carry out their will. If President Obama is unwilling to face the facts, this will put him at odds with the new working majority in the House and at odds with the overwhelming working majority of states and statehouses that a plurality of Americans have given the G.O.P. control of.

As such if President Obama refuses to acknowledge the real message handed to him by the American electorate during the 2010 elections, he risks becoming the individual most responsible for gridlock and a continued tone of divisive partisan politics. What President Obama must realize, and hopefully what the G.O.P. understands, is that when it comes to big government and big spending, Republicans can not compromise. This was the loudest message delivered by the voters on November 2, 2010. Thos issues are the ones which voters gave the G.O.P. a second chance to prove themselves to be true to and for Republicans to compromise on these issues would be a betrayal of the general mandate which produced a record number of Democrat defeats in the House and in statehouses. Republicans have seemingly accepted that and so should President Obama.

So while I urge the new Republican majority to use their first hundred days in office to reach out to Democrats, sincerely find those issues where they share common ground and move on them, I also urge the President and his Party to follow the Republican lead and listen to the people. It is time for him to stop being so doctrinaire and prove that as our President, he is not tone deaf to his fellow Americans.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

The Year of “The Angry Voter” and the Future of the G.O.P.

As Election Day approaches, American voters are not in a good mood. More than 64% agree that the nation is heading in the wrong direction. On the economy, consumer confidence is consistently at one of its lowest points in years, unemployment continues to rise, and more than ever before, Americans are finally believing the issue of our nation’s debt is at a crisis level.

As a result, the Party which controls every legislative chamber of federal government is now facing one of the most abrupt falls from political power that we have ever seen. In 2008, Democrats rode a wave of change. Creating that wave was Barack Obama, a new presence in politics who convincingly argued that with him at the helm, he would lead Democrats in “transforming America”. From Berlin, Germany to Bayonne, New Jersey, Senator Obama traveled the globe and the nation and painted a picture of a new and improved America, an America that was loved by all the world and that lifted the quality of all our lives. He promised to provide us all with better healthcare, financial wealth, inexpensive, cleaner energy, the best education and a less partisan political atmosphere that would unite us rather than divide us.

Instead what they got was not just the opposite, it was so antithetical to that promise that people are not just angry, they are offended.

Instead of real bipartisanship, the nation has seen the major issues of the day turned into  an audaciously corrupt and intensely partisan process that closed it doors to any differences of opinion. Instead of financial wealth, they have seen less business growth, less jobs, increased federal spending, higher prices, economic uncertainty and by year‘s end, record tax increases. And in the case of healthcare instead of seeing any meaningful reforms, they have seen it turned into a government bureaucracy that is raising costs more than lowering them. In fact, on virtually every signature issue of President Obama and the Democrat Congress, such as stimulus spending, the healthcare law and the bailouts, most voters oppose reelecting anyone who supported them.

In general, Democrats have done nothing to instill confidence in their leadership and vision for America. In fact, it is just the opposite and it happens to be their ‘signature’ issues, their top priorities, which have produced not only a lack of confidence in them, but a backlash of anger against them.

The healthcare bill, and the way in which Democrats rammed it through, highlighted all that Americans hate about politics and all that they feel is wrong with how business is done in Washington, D.C.. It was a process that revealed how the bills they vote on, go unread and how it closed the door to the Republicans, and even went so far as to shut down opposing views by asking Americans to report to the names and sources behind arguments which refuted the Democrat’s position on the issue. They asked that such dissention be reported to them at flag@whitehouse.gov, an assault on freedom eerily similar to that of the German National Socialist Party as it began to takeover Germany.

The process also highlighted numerous backroom deals that bought the votes of wavering Democrats at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars each. And in perhaps what was one of the most astonishing shows of just out of touch Democrats are, they spent an entire year focusing on ramming through their unpopular government takeover of healthcare, at a time when the economy was the top issue on the minds of Americans.

Today, the economy is still the top issue in the minds of most, but as demonstrated by their focus on healthcare reform, the White House and Democrat led Congress, nproved themselves to be out of touch and ineffective on. But even more than that, the one solution that they consistently offer to solve our economic troubles is turning out to be a another problem of its own which they fail face up to…… spending.

To every issue, their solution is spending. But spending has now gotten so obviously out of control that average Americans who understands that 2 plus 2 equals 4, have become offended by this liberal mentality that hopes people will believe that more money out of their pockets will allow government to put more money into their pockets. This offensive notion has only been compounded by the Democrat approach to all issues and problems which also calls for more government.

People are waking up to the realization that more government costs more money. They understand that a healthcare bill which creates over 127 new government agencies, department and bureaus does little to drive down healthcare costs and much to, among other things, increase costs.

Combined with that fact that the exaggerated growth of government and government spending is doing nothing to improve the economy and in fact is doing just the opposite, what you have is a new voter demographic. It is not a demographic identified by race, religion, or geographic region. It is not a demographic identified by age, or life conditions. It can’t be described as “Soccer Moms”, “Reagan Democrats” or “Yuppies”. It is a demographic that crosses all divides and unites a profoundly large portion of the electorate in 2012. It is the demographic of “Angry Voters”.

In the Republican Revolution of 1994, credit for the political turnaround of that time was credited to what pundits penned as “Angry White Men”. They claimed that white men were fed up and felt threatened by the rise of women and minorities in society and took it out on democrats. These pundits were as wrong then as those who try to play the race card anytime President Obama must face legitimate criticism today. In ‘94, the revolt away from Democrats largely began when President Clinton gave First Lady Hillary Clinton the responsibility for reforming healthcare with a plan that would have government take it over. That move did not suddenly unite white men again Democrats and it did not motivate African-Americans to come out and support them. It had nothing to with sex or color and everything to do with federal overreach.

Fast forward 16 years and history is repeating itself.

In 2010 Americans are seeing a dramatically exaggerated display of government largess which is leading to a government that is growing too much, spending too much, controlling too much and failing too much. It is the failings and the overreach of Democrats which is what is behind the Republican Rejuvenation of 2010. In 2008, politicos and the left wing of American politics touted the demise of the G.O.P.. Some political prognosticators claimed that the Republican Party was dead for a generation or more. Others claimed it had gone the way of the Whigs. As usual, they were wrong. But this is not to the credit of Republicans. The Republican bounce back has less to do with them and everything to do with Democrats.

Democrats have so offended the senses of rational thought in mainstream America, that the average person has become “angry”. So much so that even those who care little for Republicans, are willingly holding their noses to vote the Republican ticket, simply to register their disgust with government and the Democrats controlling it. And all of these people have become the “Angry Voter” demographic that is about to undo the liberal overreach of the past 20 months which has simply highlighted and brought to the forefront, all that Americans see wrong with government.

I would suggest that I could be wrong, but if I were, Republicans would not be preferred over Democrats by 48% to 39% of likely voters, a dramatic turnaround from 2008. If I was wrong, voters would not be trusting Republicans more than Democrats on 8 out of 10 key issues. If I was wrong, 78% of mainstream voters would not be claiming that they prefer fewer services and lower taxes.

If I was wrong. West Virginia’s overwhelmingly popular Democrat Governor would be far ahead of his Republican opponent in the race replace the late Robert Byrd in the Senate. However, despite the fact that voters in West Virginia love Governor Manchin, they are skeptical of sending another Democrat to Washington, D.C., where the last thing they want is to provide additional support to take the nation in the wrong direction that they feel Democrats are leading us in.

Americans are fed up. They feel hoodwinked by a President who promised to unite us but has only successful polarized us. They feel swindled by a Congress that promised a healthcare bill that would lower costs, but is already raising premiums. They feel swindled by a government that is taking more freedoms away than they are protecting. They feel betrayed by a federal government that will sue a sovereign American state in order to allow the free flow of illegal immigration in America. They are angered by a White House that promised to not conduct business as usual, only to demonstrate that they are conducting business worse than usual.

These are the reasons why Democrats are losing voters since 2008. It is why more voters are again beginning to identify themselves as Republicans than as Democrats. It is also why many Democrats are not even coming out to vote and why Democrats are on scheduled to suffer some of the most significant losses in decades. 20 months after promising the world to voters and inspiring and motivating millions of young and first time voters to the polls, Democrats under Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama, have not only disappointed them, they have embarrassed them and successfully discouraged those new voters from showing their support for Democrats again in 2010. And what’s more is, they have so alienated so many, that new group of young and first time voters are now inspired to come out to vote against them.

In 2008, Republicans presented little reason to vote for them and in many cases, were already seeing the signs of disenchantment from their own base of support. But now, in 2010, although Republicans have done little to change that, Democrats have successfully embarrassed their own base, turned disenchantment into downright anger and chased voters back into the arms of the Republican Party. From here on out it will be up to the G.O.P. to prove that they have gotten the message which they strayed away from and cost them dearly in 2008. If they fail to, I predict that a third Party will begin to rise.

From the TEA movement, arguably, the most influential political force of the last year, we will see an independent ideological division of voters significant enough to not merely influence the selection of candidates in the primary elections of both major Parties, but one so potent and so disgusted with the failure of both major Parties, that it will naturally rise to the forefront. Ultimately, this would be to the benefit of the Democrat Party, for this new breed of anger voters is united behind principles which are largely encompassed by the Republican Party but seemingly ignored by the political establishment of the Party.

These angry voters are beholden not to any Party. They are ruled by a commitment to the Constitution and three core achievements ……. less government, less spending and, more liberty. By the very nature of today’s contemporary Democrat Party, those goals contradict with the liberal faith in an activist government which seeks to regulate more, provide more services, oversee more, and spend more to do so. For that reason, if Republicans fail to represent the total opposite of what Democrats offer, this new breed of angry of voters is far too fed up to reverse the current trend, jump back to Democrats and put them back in power. Instead they will continue to reject the modern Democrat Party, turn their back on the G.O.P. once and for all, draw votes away from them and make it possible for the smaller number of left leaning supporters to build up a coalition of enough votes to compromise slim electoral victories for Democrats in local, state and national, three way elections.

For this reason, it is with trepidation that I look forward to November 2nd. I fear that the G.O.P. may not fully be ready to lead as it should. Thanks to Democrats, the Republican Rejuvenation of 2010 is coming to the the G.O.P. leadership  far too easily. I fear that the wrong leadership in the Republican Party will take this victory for granted. If they do, Democrats and the liberal ideology that most Americans do not agree with or have faith in, will once again be advanced much too far for their liking. If Republicans fail to adhere to a hard-line on states rights, a constitutional limited government, limited spending and a social agenda that does not invade privacy and individual rights, they may not go the way of the Whigs, but they could find themselves enduring many years of hard fought elections that produce the same type of electoral success that John McCain saw in 2008.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Presidential Seal Falls As Fast As President Obama’s Poll Numbers

Bookmark and Share     You just can’t create better symbolism than this,  but amid a midterm election season that is about see Democrats drop like flies and is seeing faith in President Obama and his policies drop like a ton of bricks, while delivering a speech at the Carnegie Mellon Auditorium in Washington for Fortune magazine’s “Most Powerful Women Summit” , the Great Seal of the President of the United States which adorns every podium that all Presidents speak from, fell off and crashed to the ground in a raucous clatter.  

For his part, President Obama did handle the situation quite well, especially given how there were no words on his teleprompter to dictate to him how to handle the impromptu interruption.  As the Great Seal fell off in mid sentence, President Obama  uttered an “oops” as he leaned over, looked on the ground at the fallen seal and stated, “That’s alright.  All of you know who I am”.  The President then quipped about how although it was alright, he was sure someone on staff was sweating bullets over the mishap.

The incident though brings to mind the often touted Murphy’s Law which describes the 2010 midterms for Democrats perfectly as it claims that anything that can possibly go wrong, does.  

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

The 2010 Midterm Elections Will Be Worse For Dems Than Expected

"Republican Party Elephant" logo

G.O.P.

Bookmark and Share    This November is going to be quite a dramatic reversal of fortunes for Democrats and while some on the left are trying to claim that the Republican hopes for retaking the House are unwarranted and deny that we are in a wave election, there is actually no realistic basis for such claims. The surging force behind Republicans in 2010 is undeniable.   As indicated by Gallup, the Republican Party is polling incredibly well among voters on a number of factors including  party identification, voter preferences among independents, and even candidate preferences, and the G.O.P. has also retaken the lead on the generic ballot.

Furthermore; Republicans are now either comparable with, or surpassing Democrats on everything from voter enthusiasm and an increased online presence, to fundraising and a growing number of boots on the ground, grass root volunteers. For one of the first times in recent history, young Republican voters are expected to turn out in larger numbers than young Democrat voters. College Republicans have even jumped to a point in popularity and fundraising that is allowing them to go national with ads and target several key states on 2010.

When it comes to the large gap in internet presence and fundraising that existed between the left and right in 2008, in 2010 the trend has totally reversed. The first signs of this became evident 11 months ago when Scott Brown raised nearly $10 million online in all of 18 days. Now, we have seen other examples of internet success in such candidates as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell who raised more than $1 million online in the 24 hours after their primary wins. All of this is a sign of two things. The G.O.P. has finally gained parity with the Democrats in the use of the internet and that the collective strength of the G.O.P.‘s grassroots is becoming increasingly more important than any strengths of particular candidates or their campaigns.

All of this points to a shifting of the political earththat is far greater than we saw in 1994.

Rarely has a political Party comeback as quickly as the Republican Party is poised to do this November. Normally, it takes much more than two years to bounce back from the type of  losses that they suffered first in 2006 and then again in 2008.

It is accurate to say though, that the climb back to power for the G.O.P. is based less on the voters goodwill towards Republicans and more on the ill will that they have come to feel towards Democrats. Which leads me to wonder about something.

 Between 2006 and 2010, neither Party seemed to be held in any great esteem, yet why was there not any great move to finally create that perennially promised, almighty, and perfect third Party that we always hear dissatisfied voters talk about?

Although there has so far been a strong ripple of anti-incumbent sentiment out there,  we did not see the rise of that much hoped for third Party alternative. We did however see a powerful anti-big government movement infiltrate the process and greatly influence the field of Republicans running in 2010.

I believe that this is all largely due to the efforts of the Democrat Party more than the Republican Party.

The Party in power has overreached the mandate they thought they had in 2008. They even misread their significant wins in 2008 and assumed that the nation was actually desirous of an aggressive big government agenda. But in fact, they weren’t. The reason for the 2008 victory, led by the top of Democrat ticket with Barack Obama, was a phenomenon similar to the one that is giving rise to the Republican resurgence of 2010. Voters were voting against the Party in power.

This is what happens when voters are dissatisfied. They seek change……..the very same theme that candidate Obama successfully banked on in ’08.

Another key to the Democrat victories of 2008 was the excitement over the novelty of the historic chance to elect the nation’s first partially black President.  And last but not least was the fact that the G.O.P. ran a weak nominee at the top ticket who failed to energize the base and failed to prove that republicanism under him, would be any different from the republicanism seen under G.W. Bush and the existing Republican leadership in Congress.

So change was born. But as we have come to see, the change that Democrats have run with, is not the change that Americans are satisfied with. As a result, the political pendulum is now swinging back in the opposite direction. But it is swinging with a vengeance. Between incredible Democrat overreach, and an explosion of exaggerated government growth, spending and deficit increases, Democrats have polarized the electorate far more than did the Republicans who after a few years in power, slowly but surely forgot their commitment to limited government and less spending.

But it is clear now that most Americans believe in the basic Republican ideology of less government, less taxes and less spending. That is why rather than seeing a surge for third Party candidacies, you have seen a rush towards cleaning out the Republican Party of those whom have drifted away from those principles and failed to stand up for them responsibly and consistently.

We are now seeing one of those rare occasions when a large majority of voters are actually pushing an ideology more than a candidate. That is what the TEA Party movement is all about. They are pushing a cause more than Party politics and as such they are helping to return the G.O.P. back to its true conservative roots by ridding it of so-called RINO’s.

But if the G.O.P. is to continue its rise back to power into 2012 and beyond, they will have to prove to the voters that some lessons have been learned. 

Given that President Obama will still be President on the morning after November 2, 2010, and that the Senate will likely still be in Democrat control, albeit with a new Majority Leader, the G.O.P. House will have to hold firm in rejecting any compromises that err on the side of increased spending, and increased government overreach.

This will prompt charges of being obstructionists and cries that attempt to describe Republicans as the “Party of no” by those on the left, but it is important to remember that those initiating such remarks are not likely to ever support Republicans anyway. But if the G.O.P. aggressively offers solid alternatives while rejecting the President’s, and the Senate’s big government, liberal agenda, people will maintain faith in the new face of the G.O.P. and that ‘Party of no” description will continue to fall on deaf ears.

When the G.O.P takes back the House, they will have to prove that they are actually ready to fight for the values that are providing them with the momentum that they currently have behind them. This will especially be the case in matters of spending and the budget, since the House, more so then the Senate controls the purse strings of the federal government.  If they flinch, and if they fail to keep their noses clean and deliver on their promised commitments, their will be little enthusiasm from the grassroots to maintain the level of support that they are currently placing behind the G.O.P..

Republicans will also have to remember a few things. First they must make sure that each issue is connected to government’s role in the everyday lives of Americans. They need to consistently demonstrate how big government is expanding its control over our personal lives but at the sake of properly dealing with its actual responsibilities such as providing a secure border and finally developing comprehensive immigration reform or balancing the federal  budget. And they must keep each of these messages simple. The same way Ronald Reagan did in both 1980 and 1984, as demonstrated in the following 1984 Reagan campaign campaign ad:

 

Keeping it simple brings it home and in 1984 Reagan brought it home with a sweep of 49 states to Mondale’s 1.

But before we get to presidential politics as it pertains to 2012, we have to establish the point from which the G.O.P. will start from after 2o10.  At the moment it looks like Republicans could far surpass the expectations of many in both the House and the Senate .

Based upon the circumstances that exist today and my own estimation of how things will play out in the individual landscapes of several hotly contested states, I see the senate tied at with 50 Republicans and the 48 Democrats plus the two left leaning Independents who caucus with the Democrats.  This includes Retaining seats in Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah while picking up seats in;

  • Arkansas   (John Boozman over Blanche Lincoln)
  • Colorado    (Ken Buck over Mike Bennet)
  • Illinois       (Mark Kirk over Alexi Giannoulias)
  • Indiana      (Dan Coats over Brad Ellsworth)
  • Nevada       (Susan Angle over Harry Reid)
  • North Dakota    (John Hoeven over Tracy Potter)
  • Pennsylvania     (Pat Toomey over Joe Sestak)
  • Washington     (Dino Rossi over Patty Murray)
  • Wisconsin      (Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold)

However; there are several possibilities which increase the likelihood of a Republican takeover of the Senate.

Any one of three races could keep Joe Biden from breaking any tie vote.  Delaware, West Virginia and/or California could very easily go Republican. 

With the surprise win by a rather large margin of Christine O’Donnell over heavily favored Mike Castle, it is not of the question to believe that under the existing anti-left atmosphere and prevailing momentum,  O’Donnell could pull off another surprise and take the seat away from the media annointed frontrunner Chris Coons.  But even more possible than a Republican upset in delaware are the possible ones that are in the making inCalifornia and surprisingly, West Virginia.

In West Virginia, popular Democrat incumbent Governor Joe Mancin was originally seen as a shoo-in. He is one of those truly rare relative moderate Democrats and as a long serving Governor of the state he has done well by its voters and bonded with them extensively. Especially after a string of mining disasters that hit this coal mining state pretty hard and very personally. But it would seem that winds of disenchantment with anything relating to Democrats are blowing so strongly against them that even Mancin’s personal relationship with voters is being severely curtailed when it comes to sending him to Washington, D.C.. For that reason, his Republican opponent John Raese went from nearly 33% at the end of July to 48% at the end of September while during that same time period, the popular Mancin went from 54% to 46% where he currently stands 2% behind underdog Raese.

The race is sure to be close and right now it can easily go either way but I believe the Republicans can pull this one off and at the moment I believe they will squeak it out.

In California, I can’t underestimate Barbara Boxer.

In her last race for the Senate, back in 2004, she beat her Republican opponent by 20% and became the holder of the record for the most popular votes in a statewide contested election in California. But this time around, things are not so easy and she wont be breaking any records with her popular vote this time around.

She currently has a disapproval rating higher than her approval rating, one of the largest newspapers in the state has refused to endorse because they believe that after 18 years in the Senate she has failed to distinguish herself in any meaningful way and that they see no reason to believe that she will do with another 6 years in office.

But this is California, a state that President Obama won by 24% or more than 3.2 million votes. But in addition to that, something else that could work in Boxer’s favor this time around is a statewide proposition to legalize marijuana. That ballot question could draw many Democrats who otherwise were not interested in voting this time around, to the polls and while there, they just might push the button for Boxer.

For her part though. Republican Carly Fiorina is holding her own, has all the money she needs to keep pushing her message and pulling out her vote and at the moment, while she is behind Boxer, by less than 6 percent, Boxer is still under the 50% mark, a place that no incumbent should be in this close to the election.

Anyone of these three seats could easily break for the Republican and give control of the Senate back to the G.O.P. and the possibility of this happening increases each day that we get closer to Election Day. But even if neither Delaware, California or West Virginia fail to Republicans, with a 50/50 split it is quite conceivable that any one of handful of Democrats could switch Parties or in the case of Independent Joe Lieberman, decide to causcus with the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

On the House side, Republican victories are even more lopsided than they are in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives Republicans could possibly end up with the largest number of seats they have held since 1946 when the GOP won 246 seats. Currently it looks like the G.O.P. can actually win at least 62 seats, thereby breaking the House down to 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats. This projection is much higher than most estimates being publicly announced which, for the most part range in the 40’s. But my projection still falls below that of Patrick Ruffini a reputable and leading G.O.P. strategist who has been in the trenches for quite some time now. Ruffiini believes that the figure will certainly be somewhere over 50 seats but believes a 70 seat gain is not out of the question.

No matter what, the results of the midterm elections will produce profound changes in the direction of policy and at the very least change the pace of the Obama agenda .

But there remains an aspect of the 2010 midterm elections which is being overshadowed by the anticipated turnover in Congress and it could have an more even more important long term effect on politics.

That is the 37 gubernatorial elections being held throughout the nation. Of them Republicans are expected to pick up at least 8 new statehouses bringing them from 23 where they are currently at, to 31, leaving Democrats with Governors in only 19 states.

That number is profoundly important because in 2011 the once every decade census data is poured over by the states and with they draw the new the state legislative a congressional districts lines from which Americans will elect their representatives for the decade to come. Having Governors in 31 states, will give the G.O.P. an advantage in drawing districts that it will be easier to elect Republicans in.

But in addition to that, Governors can play a crucial role in presidential elections.

There ability to coordinate their states for national candidates is invaluable and having that advantage over Democrats in almost a dozen states, will give whomever the Republican presidential nominee is a leg up over President Obama in 2012. Of course if 2010 proves to be as devastating for Democrats as it is looking, President Obama may not be the Democrat nominee. I feel that if Democrat losses are as profound as they are shaping up to be, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will resign her post and in time declare that she will offer a primary challenge to President Obama in order to save the Democratic Party and the nation from him.

Of course it only takes one world event to turn things around and in politics 5 weeks is an eternity. But if things continue going as they are right now, Democrats are going to descend into the political wilderness for years to come and President Obama is going to be a one term President who Republican can thank for bringing them back to power and whom Democrats will blame for squandering their opportunity to maintain control of Washington for years to come. 

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Republicans Can’t Let Voters Forget the Other Issues in 2010

Bookmark and Share    The economy is not the only issue Republicans must raise as we embark on the closing weeks of the 2010 midterm elections.

While it is the most important issue of the day, we would be remiss to ignore that which will be important to people tomorrow. President Obama is aware of the many pitfalls that he and his Party have created and they hope to keep some seats by intentionally allowing issues other than the economy to stay on the back burner and out of everyone’s view.

For instance, not long ago President Obama’s Justice Department under the inept leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, was suppose to hand down a decision on whether or not the 9/11 five which included Khalid Sheik Mohammed, would be tried in New York City courtroom, a different federal court or in a military tribunal, the forum appropriate for such a trial of enemy combatants.

For weeks the issue raged on. New Yorkers protested against the trial being held in NYC and pundits and voters clamored about in rage over how the Obama Administartion was trying to prosecute the War on Terror. But the Obama Administration decided to run out the clock at least until the halftime buzzer went off. They have refused to make a decision and instead have joyfully allowed other issues to push it off the front page until the midterm elections are over..

The same situation exists surrounding the prison at Guantanamo Bay, a prison that President Obama promised to close down three years ago.

Furthermore; as the economy continues to frustrate people and throw many into poverty, the issue of immigration is once again losing some of the punch that it packed just a few weeks ago. Aside from a last ditch effort to entice the minority community to vote for Harry Reid with his “Dream Act”, the Obama Administration itself will not act on immigration issues during these closing weeks of the 2010 elections. They hope that voter anger the Administrations handling of illegal immigration will wind down and that people will forget how Democrats gave a standing ovation to the President of Mexico when he came to America and denounced the state of Arizona during a joint session of Congress.

President Obama and Democrats hope that you will forget about Obamacare as much as possible. That is why you will see no Steven Spielberg-like commercials produced that have inspirational music playing over scenes of Democrats triumphantly passing a government takeover of healthcare and 1/6 of the economy.

Right now Democrats are facing the fact that the economy is killing them and they are doing their best to stop the hemorrhaging based on that issue alone. But they would not be able to handle other issues that they have affected over the past few years too.

They could not withstand commercials that show the people of Arizona being sued for prosecuting immigration laws, while illegal immigrants run across the American border. They would not be able to effectively respond to ads that demonstrate how terrorists are being granted rights that they do not have by risking the lives of the people whom we are suppose to be protecting.

The opinion that social, legal and moral issues should not be a part of the existing debate in the closing weeks of this campaign season is dangerous. All of these issues are intertwined with the economy and the positions of Democrats and the Administration of President Obama. They all have a common denominator, they are all examples of freedom being taken away.

So while the G.O.P. should not lose focus on the economy, they would be doing us wrong by not explaining that the economic war on free enterprise that the President’s policies have created, are just one example of the many policies which demonstrate how out of touch Democrats are.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Barack Obama Versus FDR

 
Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four term...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Bookmark and ShareLong before Senator Obama became President Obama, I drew comparisons between him and Jimmy Carter. I felt that both men would be in over their heads and that like Carter, President Obama would be controlled by circumstances more than he would control circumstances. For the most part, I believe that assessment still holds true.

In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while President Obama disagreed with how they were being handled and called the War in Iraq a dumb one, he found himself continuing both of them and maintaining the Bush timeline in Iraq while following Bush’s Iraqi surge strategy in Afghanistan.

On the economy, after promising to get unemployment down to a low of a rather high 8%, he continues to see unemployment hover around 10%. And while everything from the housing market to consumer confidence remains low, economic anxieties continue to be high. All of this despite record federal spending that was meant to do just the opposite.

But, while the Carter comparison remains legitimate, it is becoming clear that another narrative is taking place.

Often considered one of our five greatest President’s, years of retrospect and history are proving Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s domestic record to be one unworthy of greatness. Objective historians and economists have increasingly begun to characterize FDR’s handling of the depression as unimpressive. In fact, it has largely been established that by 1937, with only the slightest signs of recovery, what little recovery that was seen, was reversed by a new recession. It has also been established that while Roosevelt was indecisive and fumbled much of his handling of the new recession, it took a dark event to finally bring the U.S. out of both the depression and the recession——-the war in Europe.

Barack Carter and Jimmy Obama

When Roosevelt embarked upon what he called the “great arsenal of democracy” new markets opened to American industry and businesses. That new market put Americans back to work and primed America’s real economic engine. But none of this had anything to do with FDR’s New Deal programs. And that is where the FDR – Obama comparison begins.

While Franklin had the New Deal, Barack has the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Both programs created massive federally funded infrastructure projects. Both programs banked on creating short term taxpayer funded federal jobs. Both programs did little to stimulate economic growth and failed to keep unemployment rates down when federal dollars ran out.

But the similarities do not stop there.

One of Roosevelt’s greatest defeats was his attempt to keep his New Deal programs intact by stacking the Supreme Court with six new pro-New Deal justices that he would appoint and subsequently use to successfully put an end to the many Supreme Court rulings that struck down many aspects of the New Deal and ruled them unconstitutional. But people saw through his “court packing plan” and Congress rejected the idea.

Presdent Obama, on the other hand, was much shrewder than Roosevelt.

Instead of “packing the court” he methodically plotted a substantial takeover of the American economy with a health care bill that would put a sixth of the American economy in federal control. In addition to that is his Cap-and-Tax plan which, if ever approved, will prove to be the greatest transfer of wealth that mankind has ever known.

Then there are the czars.

President Obama created 21 czars which amount to 21 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats whom do not answer to either the voters or Congress, thereby bypassing both in a most undemocratic and unsavory process. And more are on the way. With the passage of Obamacare dozens of new czars will be put in place to control and oversee that government takeover.

Another comparison that can be drawn between FRD and President Obama is the fascist styling’s that historians and economists have come to identify in FDR’s Administration.

Much like President Obama with banks, GM and other businesses, Roosevelt left ownership of businesses in private hands but used heavy regulation as a way to put in place centralized control of private enterprise.

Obama’s partnership with big labor unions and authority to even dictate corporate salaries and appoint federal Chairmen to the boards of corporations, creates a perfect parallel to FDR’s regulation of economic affairs which unnecessarily dragged government into many areas of our lives that it does not belong in. And while Franklin Roosevelt denounced business and its leaders as “economic royalists” Barack Obama describes big business as “unscrupulous and underhanded” and as “unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families,”.

Both Obama and Roosevelt were big defenders of redistribution of wealth. The difference though is that when Roosevelt did it, there was not that much wealth to redistribute. Now that President Obama is doing it, there is plenty of wealth to redistribute and he is doing it well. He is doing his best to insure that the wealth creators are raided and that financial success is penalized. And in the mean time, Wall Street remains combustible, wealth creators are not spreading capital, businesses are not hiring, consumers are not buying and the federal government is spending money that it doesn’t have while increasing the depth of the culture of dependency.

All things considered I am no longer sure which comparison is more relevant today.

While reenacting the helplessness of the Carter Administration, President Obama is reincarnating FDR’s economy and domestic policies. Neither performance deserves an Academy Award but I am just not sure which one deserves a nomination.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Former President Bush Welcomes Our Troops Home

Official photograph portrait of former U.S. Pr...

Image via Wikipedia

Bookmark and Share     I am often touched by the dramatic return home of our men and women who have been fighting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sensitive to the sacrifices that they and their loved ones make and by the bravery of their willingness to risk life and limb to serve this nation’s cause. The fact that I have not made the sacrifice is something that will always make me inferior to these true patriots and heroes. So my appreciation for our soldiers is sincere and profound. Which is why when ever I am privy to the scenes of our hero’s returning home, I literally begin to shed a sentimental tear of gratitude, pride and joy.

Their homecomings are a raw nerve of emotions that seem to pour out as they unfold with scenes of smiling wives and girlfriends and Moms and sisters come running to embrace their loved ones. I am always floored by the beaming smiles and wide, anxious eyes of a soldier reaching out to touch the baby, their baby, who was born while they were off at war, and have never seen met in person.

All these scenes just pull at my heart strings but the video that I present to you below had added meaning for me. It demonstrated to me, one man’s level of true sincerity and his true appreciation for the men and women who have fought in this nation’s recent wars. That man is former President George W. Bush.

Since he has left office, most all that anyone has heard about him is their belief that he is responsible for all that is wrong in the world and that he will go down in history as the worst President in history. Other than that, we hear President Obama blame every failure of his own former President Bush. Those are the sentiments that the mainstream media conveys on a daily basis. Yet they fail to point out the true reasons for the economic downturn that world economy has taken and they refuse to acknowledge how once President Obama took office, he saw fit to carry out the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in accordance with the previous Administrations handling and timelines of those wars.

The hypocrisy and illegitimacy of all the negativism directed at Bush is enough to make a lesser man bitter. But not G. W. Bush. He sits by allowing the current Administration to lead as they fit and without any opposition or tongue lashings from him and instead of countering the Democrat regime in Washington, every time they attack and slander, he simply lets it go, resigned with confidence that history will judge him properly and prove him just.

George Bush has always been a sincere man. He has always said what he believes and done what he believed to be right, regardless of credit or blame. And apparently that has not changed.

Without any fanfare or press releases, without any massive entourages or television camera and without any need for credit or public approval, President Bush and his wife, former First Lady Laura Bush, arrived at Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport last week to welcome home soldiers returning from Iraq.

A group of local citizens organize welcome home events that insures the presence of Americans at the gates that returning soldiers pass through when they come home. These people shower these soldiers, with thanks and welcomes that demonstrate their appreciation and pride in them. It is in sharp contrast to the welcome home that many Viet Nam Vets received when they returned home from war. Many them walked in to protests, where they were called names and spat on. But to insure that history does not repeat itself and that our defenders of freedom are treated with respect, tens of thousands of America coordinate efforts that offer returning soldiers a warm welcome that holds them up as heroes, not as villains.

But on this particular day, when these Iraqi soldiers stepped off their plane, at the end of the line of dozens of ordinary citizens who showered them  with thanks and praise, was President and Mrs. Bush.

It must have been a big surprise andan  incredibly fulfilling moment to be thanked by a President, especially the one whom the they were there as all the events that events that led up to their missions transpired under. 

If you have a few moments, whatch this video for yourself.  You will surely find it to be simply inspring and heartwarming.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics