Pravda, yes that Pravda, ran a story (an opinion piece really), lecturing the Obama administration on its' embracement of a state run economy and extolling the virtues of Putin's pro free market policies. It goes on to explain this is only possible (Obama's rcent win) with an "illiterate electorate."
Read the full story HERE. Sounds like an SNL bit - Pravda lecturing a US president on the dangers of a planned economy - but that's where we find ourselves these days.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Nap time...
It's 4 PM EST...
An oven-roasted turkey, pot of garlic mashed potatoes, Brussel sprouts with hollandaise sauce, green bean casserole, sweet potato casserole, crab-stuffed mushrooms, giblet stuffing, biscuits, and turkey gravy... topped with home-made pumpkin pie and whip cream.
God almighty, I'm so full I could die.
An oven-roasted turkey, pot of garlic mashed potatoes, Brussel sprouts with hollandaise sauce, green bean casserole, sweet potato casserole, crab-stuffed mushrooms, giblet stuffing, biscuits, and turkey gravy... topped with home-made pumpkin pie and whip cream.
God almighty, I'm so full I could die.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm thankful for my wife and children... for my family and friends... for my home, the food we eat and the job that pays for it all. I'm thankful that I live where I do, where opportunity still exists for anyone willing to try, where barriers that once existed continue to fall away with each passing year, and were I am able to say what I feel without fear of oppression or retribution. I'm thankful for the men and women that have stood up and defended this country and its people without regard for the risk to themselves, past and present.
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Call of Duty Black Ops "who?"
So I purchased my sons each their own copy of the new Call of Duty game, Black Ops II. We did the midnight release, the whole 9 yards. Something interesting... the game's campaign storyline is set in the year 2025, and guess who's the Secretary of Defense (identified by name and likeness) in the not too distant fictionalized future? If you said David Patraeus, you win the kinky officer award.
I like Patraeus. I think the PhD holding, author of the military anti-terrorism manual (literally the author), former commander of the Airborne, Uday and Qusay Heussein killing, architect of the surge, former CentCom commander, former 4-star general, and now former CIA director is the natural Sec-Def choice, fiction or non fiction. So despite his sex scandal I have no problem with him playing the role of "good guy" in my sons' video game. However, what I find utterly unbearable is that Patraeus' most prominent few minutes in the game depicts him accepting custody of a terrorist on board an aircraft carrier... the "USS Barack Obama."
UGHHHHHHH!
I like Patraeus. I think the PhD holding, author of the military anti-terrorism manual (literally the author), former commander of the Airborne, Uday and Qusay Heussein killing, architect of the surge, former CentCom commander, former 4-star general, and now former CIA director is the natural Sec-Def choice, fiction or non fiction. So despite his sex scandal I have no problem with him playing the role of "good guy" in my sons' video game. However, what I find utterly unbearable is that Patraeus' most prominent few minutes in the game depicts him accepting custody of a terrorist on board an aircraft carrier... the "USS Barack Obama."
UGHHHHHHH!
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Patreaus, the timeline...
Wow, this is the most bizarre story. What we must keep in mind throughout this is the 4 dead Americans in Bengahazi, Libya. THAT is what's at the heart of this whole scandal, not sex under a desk or Generals being lead around by their privates. The only upside is now that this involves sex, affairs, inappropriate emails and the like, the press may by accident get to the heart of the Benghazi scandal. Here's what I know, so far (source):
Spring 2006:
Biography of Petraeus co-authored by Broadwell, “All In: The Education of General David
Petraeus,” is published (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
Spring 2012:
TWO POINTS, as it pertains to the POTUS, and Benghazi.
1.) The POTUS
As an intelligent, informed, high end consumer of news and information, the White House would have me believe the following: the FBI only learned of the affair after Kelley went to them in the Spring of 2012, and NOT during the Summer 2011 FBI vetting of Patraeus for the position of CIA director; that the president's own top terrorism advisor, John Brennan, knew about the affair as early as the summer of 2011; that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about it as early as July 2012; that GOP Majority Whip Eric Cantor knew about the affair in October of 2012; and that National Intelligence Director James Clapper not only knew about the affair, but on Nov 6th, 2012 met with and essentially fired Patraeus, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION?
Come on. Clearly he knew. I'd be shocked if he didn't know prior to referring him as Director of Central Intelligence.
2.) Benghazi
Not as widely reported as "sex under the desk" is the fact that Patraes went to Tripoli and Benghazi at the end of October/early November 2012 (read: right before the election). He conducted interviews with the CIA station chief, with the quick reaction force, and other principles in the Benghazi attack. Think about this - the Director went and did a personal investigation into what happened. He did the interviews himself. He was set to testify, before the Senate, on Tuesday, November 13th (today) on what he found. Think about that - the election was November 6th. His testimony was set for November 13th. there was one week only, one very specific week, that the Patraeus affair/resignation could go public and it not effect the election yet come before his testimony. And MIRACULOUSLY he "resigned" that very week!
I don't know what Patraeus discovered in Benghazi or what he was prepared to divulge to the Senate. Were we supplying Al Qeada types with heavy weapons to overthrow Qaddafi? Were those same weapons then used against us in the Benghazi attack? Was the "stand down" order issued from the White House situation room? Broadwell has since publicly claimed (apparently inadvertently) that the CIA had two "persons of interests" being "interrogated" at that CIA safe house and that was the impetus behind its' attack. Of course, such "interrogations" would not fly with Obama's executive order on torture.
The bottom line (as F. Ryan sees it): One, the POTUS put Patraeus in as CIA director knowing about the affair. I assume they saw that bit of info as a card they could play if necessary, so the affair was a plus, not a minus - this is the Chicago style. And two, clearly the administration was seeking to prevent Patraeus' testimony. They probably (my conjecture) offered to keep the affair quiet if he would tow the administration line on Benghazi, under oath, before congress. He refused, resigned, and publicly acknowledged the affair to take their play away. So the only play the administration has left is to delay Patraeus' testifying for as long as possible as they leak out one perverted detail after another so by the time he testifies his credibility is shot and any damning statements will be chalked up to sour grapes. And that play could work given the Press core contains some of Obama's most devout cult members.
If I'm right, Patraeus should go nuclear now and divulge everything he knows short of national secrets act violations. At this point his credibility still retains enough respect for people to believe him. If he waits, who knows.
One last thing.... yes, I do believe the administration's end game in all of this is to keep the truth about Benghazi from seeing the light of day. Their many and varied stories on what happened makes that clear, as does the obvious move to prevent the Patraeus testimony. But the blade they held to Patraeus' neck before he resigned, and the club they're using to smash his credibility now, Patraeus handed those weapons to them on a silver platter. His affair left him vulnerable. I just hope he has enough honor left that he'll opt for personal shame - the public release of all the administration has on him - rather than lie to congress and the public, either directly or through omission. I think our discovering the truth on Benghazi hinges entirely on that man's honor.
Spring 2006:
- Paula Broadwell meets David Petraeus at a Harvard University function (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Broadwell decides to pursue a doctorate in public policy and conduct a case study on Petraeus’ leadership. Petraeus invites her to go on a run in Washington, D.C. (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Petraeus is put in charge of the war in Afghanistan and Broadwell would visit and observe him in Afghanistan (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Senate confirms appointment of Petraeus as CIA director (Reuters).
- Petraeus retires after 37 years in the U.S. Army (ABC).
- White House counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan reportedly became aware of a relationship between Petraeus and Broadwell, according to Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin and Adam Housley (Fox, Nov. 12).
- Petreaus sworn in as CIA director (CIA)
- At some point after taking office, Broadwell broke off the affair but Petraeus continued to pursue her “sending thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment,” according to Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler (Newsmax, Nov. 9).
- Broadwell and Petraeus extramarital affair started after he left military service and ended about four months ago. (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Sometime within the past four or five months – one official said “early summer” – a woman complained to the FBI about harassing emails that were later determined to have been written by Broadwell. In the course of investigating that complaint, the FBI discovered an affair between Broadwell and Petraeus (Reuters, Nov. 11).
Spring 2012:
- FBI starts investigation, intercepting Petraeus’ emails and reviewing older emails going back to his time in Afghanistan, where he was commander of U.S. Forces from July 2010 to July 2011 (Newsmax, Nov. 9).
- Federal investigators interview Broadwell. (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Broadwell delivers speech at University of Denver, discussing details about how Petraeus handled the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and revealing possibly classified information about alleged Libyan militia members being held prisoner at that consulate and that situation may have been a potential catalyst for the attack (Fox News, Nov. 12).
- Federal investigators interview Petraeus. Prosecutors conclude afterward they likely will not bring criminal charges. (Reuters, Nov. 11)
- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office contacts FBI to inform them about information from an FBI whistle blower who told Cantor (R-Va.) in late October that Petraeus had been involved in an extramarital affair and was potentially putting national security at risk (New York Times, Nov. 10, 2012).
- At about 5 p.m.: the FBI notifies Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who oversees the CIA and other intelligence agencies, about Petraeus. Clapper speaks to Petraeus that evening and again Wednesday and advises him to step down (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Clapper informs White House National Security Council official that Petraeus may resign and President Barack Obama should be informed. The president is told about it later that day (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- At 11 a.m. a Petraeus meeting with foreign dignitaries scheduled for 2:30 p.m. is canceled and his visitors are informed he has to go to the White House to meet with Obama. Petraeus meets with Obama at the White House and offers his resignation, explaining the circumstances behind it. Obama did not immediately accept the resignation (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- In a statement to CIA employees Friday, Petraeus said he submitted his resignation to President Barack Obama on Thursday and Obama accepted it Friday afternoon (CIA).
- Fox News reported the affair was with his biographer and was discovered during the course of an FBI investigation on an “unrelated and much broader case.” According to Fox, journalist and biographer Paula Broadwell’s name came up during the investigation, which led to uncovering the affair (Fox News, Nov. 9).
- Fox News analyst Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, speculates that Obama administration knew of the affair and waited for the right moment to “play the card” (Fox News, Nov. 9)
- A senior U.S. military official says Broadwell sent harassing emails to a woman who was the State Department’s liaison to the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, says 37-year-old Jill Kelley in Tampa, Fla., received the emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell that triggered an FBI investigation. (TheBlaze/AP).
- It has since been learned that the commander who replaced Patraeus in Afganistan as head of US Forces, Four-Star General John Allen, was also an "acquaintance" of Jill Kelley, and he too sent "thousands" of "flirtatious" emails to Kelley.
- In addition, the original FBI agent that Kelley approached to complain about the threatening emails from Broadwell also became obsessed with Kelley. The FBI discovered this about their own agent via multiple "shirtless" emails he sent with suggestive captioning.
TWO POINTS, as it pertains to the POTUS, and Benghazi.
1.) The POTUS
As an intelligent, informed, high end consumer of news and information, the White House would have me believe the following: the FBI only learned of the affair after Kelley went to them in the Spring of 2012, and NOT during the Summer 2011 FBI vetting of Patraeus for the position of CIA director; that the president's own top terrorism advisor, John Brennan, knew about the affair as early as the summer of 2011; that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about it as early as July 2012; that GOP Majority Whip Eric Cantor knew about the affair in October of 2012; and that National Intelligence Director James Clapper not only knew about the affair, but on Nov 6th, 2012 met with and essentially fired Patraeus, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION?
Come on. Clearly he knew. I'd be shocked if he didn't know prior to referring him as Director of Central Intelligence.
2.) Benghazi
Not as widely reported as "sex under the desk" is the fact that Patraes went to Tripoli and Benghazi at the end of October/early November 2012 (read: right before the election). He conducted interviews with the CIA station chief, with the quick reaction force, and other principles in the Benghazi attack. Think about this - the Director went and did a personal investigation into what happened. He did the interviews himself. He was set to testify, before the Senate, on Tuesday, November 13th (today) on what he found. Think about that - the election was November 6th. His testimony was set for November 13th. there was one week only, one very specific week, that the Patraeus affair/resignation could go public and it not effect the election yet come before his testimony. And MIRACULOUSLY he "resigned" that very week!
I don't know what Patraeus discovered in Benghazi or what he was prepared to divulge to the Senate. Were we supplying Al Qeada types with heavy weapons to overthrow Qaddafi? Were those same weapons then used against us in the Benghazi attack? Was the "stand down" order issued from the White House situation room? Broadwell has since publicly claimed (apparently inadvertently) that the CIA had two "persons of interests" being "interrogated" at that CIA safe house and that was the impetus behind its' attack. Of course, such "interrogations" would not fly with Obama's executive order on torture.
The bottom line (as F. Ryan sees it): One, the POTUS put Patraeus in as CIA director knowing about the affair. I assume they saw that bit of info as a card they could play if necessary, so the affair was a plus, not a minus - this is the Chicago style. And two, clearly the administration was seeking to prevent Patraeus' testimony. They probably (my conjecture) offered to keep the affair quiet if he would tow the administration line on Benghazi, under oath, before congress. He refused, resigned, and publicly acknowledged the affair to take their play away. So the only play the administration has left is to delay Patraeus' testifying for as long as possible as they leak out one perverted detail after another so by the time he testifies his credibility is shot and any damning statements will be chalked up to sour grapes. And that play could work given the Press core contains some of Obama's most devout cult members.
If I'm right, Patraeus should go nuclear now and divulge everything he knows short of national secrets act violations. At this point his credibility still retains enough respect for people to believe him. If he waits, who knows.
One last thing.... yes, I do believe the administration's end game in all of this is to keep the truth about Benghazi from seeing the light of day. Their many and varied stories on what happened makes that clear, as does the obvious move to prevent the Patraeus testimony. But the blade they held to Patraeus' neck before he resigned, and the club they're using to smash his credibility now, Patraeus handed those weapons to them on a silver platter. His affair left him vulnerable. I just hope he has enough honor left that he'll opt for personal shame - the public release of all the administration has on him - rather than lie to congress and the public, either directly or through omission. I think our discovering the truth on Benghazi hinges entirely on that man's honor.
On this, I can't argue...
As has been said before... Obama has all the earmarks of a true, classically defined "cult of personality". More so than any other American President ever has, including Kennedy.
Now, is this something Obama has intentionally done? I don't know. I do know he does nothing to combat it... but who would? His "fans" include some of the biggest names in the media today... and the vast majority of them work for major news outlets like MSNBC and CNN. That is what is so painful, really... Obama doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They do it all for him, every time the TV news is turned on in America.
I've always had issues with the "Reagan-ites" who drop to their knees and prostrate themselves at the mere mention of Ron Wilson's name... but I guess that can't be considered a "cult of personality" since he is no longer in office (and, in fact, no longer alive). Perhaps Ron's legacy will one day include an "ism" similar to what Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin had, so that the ideology that he espoused (or that is attributed to him today, whether he espoused it or not) can more readily associate itself with those seeking power and authority. His "partner" in the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher, already has an "ism" that is routinely associated with the "conservative" attitude in Britain that demands further separation from the EU and globalism in general. Perhaps that is more akin to "rose-tinted glasses" than personality cults, however.
Either way, objective analysis is out the window... especially in Obama's case.
Now, is this something Obama has intentionally done? I don't know. I do know he does nothing to combat it... but who would? His "fans" include some of the biggest names in the media today... and the vast majority of them work for major news outlets like MSNBC and CNN. That is what is so painful, really... Obama doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They do it all for him, every time the TV news is turned on in America.
I've always had issues with the "Reagan-ites" who drop to their knees and prostrate themselves at the mere mention of Ron Wilson's name... but I guess that can't be considered a "cult of personality" since he is no longer in office (and, in fact, no longer alive). Perhaps Ron's legacy will one day include an "ism" similar to what Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin had, so that the ideology that he espoused (or that is attributed to him today, whether he espoused it or not) can more readily associate itself with those seeking power and authority. His "partner" in the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher, already has an "ism" that is routinely associated with the "conservative" attitude in Britain that demands further separation from the EU and globalism in general. Perhaps that is more akin to "rose-tinted glasses" than personality cults, however.
Either way, objective analysis is out the window... especially in Obama's case.
Monday, November 12, 2012
And they call Mormons a cult...
I've been wondering, since the President won reelection, about something. It's admittedly optimistic, but straws are all I have to grasp at while looking down the barrel of a 332-206 loss, right? Is it possible that this guy, this particular guy, Obama, was just impossible to beat? In other words, with everything that goes into his elections being "historic", the first black American elected president, his pop culture status, etc, etc, has it created a cult of personality that was incapable of defeat?
Lets consider these few explanations of his victory that may give us some hope that our fellow Americans aren't just butt-stupid...
1.) The popularity surrounding the personality of such cults is based on charisma, not results. This is the one politician that can can hang out with Jay-Z and George Clooney and still be the coolest guy in the room.
2.) An off-shoot of this personality cult theory - people voted for Obama for the same reason people drive hybrid or electric vehicles. They couldn't care less about performance, they like what their choice says about them... "I care", "I'm open-minded", "I'm cool too."
3.) Third, in my attempt to explain why he won without condemning 63 million Americans to embracing a socialist ideology, is our underestimation of the power of incumbency. In the last 100 years we (Republicans) have unseated a Democrat president only once, when Reagan beat Carter in 1980. Think about George W. Bush (by the way, Titus, he is not a "Jr."). The hatred for him in 2004 was vehement on the Left. Yet he won. And not only did he win, two years later in 06' his Party was demolished in congress. Which does not portend this overwhelming like of Republicans in general throughout the mid 2000's. Incumbents are tough to beat. In fact they have an impressive record, regardless of Party affiliation. The upside of that historical trend is we should do extremely well in the 2014 mid-terms.
Perhaps. and most probably, Obama's victory was a combination of all three. If you doubt it, ask yourself if the average, white, un-hip politician could have won reelection with these economic numbers. Does a Kerry, a Gore presidency survive the last four years? Like SNL said in their post election Obama parody, "Republicans, I can't believe you couldn't beat me. Unemployment is 8%, gas is $5, and I gave you a one debate head start." It's funny because it's true. Bare in mind that the same SNL episode portrayed Mitt Romney quailing his depression by going on a milk-drinking binge.
I said before the election that my only reservation about Romney's prospects was that this is now a nation which employs Paris Hilton via her popularity, purely via her popularity (I've also heard Obama called "President Kardashian"). And we just reelected the Paris of politics Commander-in-Chief.
But to be frank, I actually prefer to think 63,286,423 of my fellow Americans embraced Obama's "coolness" rather than his ideology. Under that scenario all we have to do is run a cool, suave, hip, good-looking conservative and we're a lock.
WOAH! ... I better clear my schedule!
Lets consider these few explanations of his victory that may give us some hope that our fellow Americans aren't just butt-stupid...
1.) The popularity surrounding the personality of such cults is based on charisma, not results. This is the one politician that can can hang out with Jay-Z and George Clooney and still be the coolest guy in the room.
2.) An off-shoot of this personality cult theory - people voted for Obama for the same reason people drive hybrid or electric vehicles. They couldn't care less about performance, they like what their choice says about them... "I care", "I'm open-minded", "I'm cool too."
3.) Third, in my attempt to explain why he won without condemning 63 million Americans to embracing a socialist ideology, is our underestimation of the power of incumbency. In the last 100 years we (Republicans) have unseated a Democrat president only once, when Reagan beat Carter in 1980. Think about George W. Bush (by the way, Titus, he is not a "Jr."). The hatred for him in 2004 was vehement on the Left. Yet he won. And not only did he win, two years later in 06' his Party was demolished in congress. Which does not portend this overwhelming like of Republicans in general throughout the mid 2000's. Incumbents are tough to beat. In fact they have an impressive record, regardless of Party affiliation. The upside of that historical trend is we should do extremely well in the 2014 mid-terms.
Perhaps. and most probably, Obama's victory was a combination of all three. If you doubt it, ask yourself if the average, white, un-hip politician could have won reelection with these economic numbers. Does a Kerry, a Gore presidency survive the last four years? Like SNL said in their post election Obama parody, "Republicans, I can't believe you couldn't beat me. Unemployment is 8%, gas is $5, and I gave you a one debate head start." It's funny because it's true. Bare in mind that the same SNL episode portrayed Mitt Romney quailing his depression by going on a milk-drinking binge.
I said before the election that my only reservation about Romney's prospects was that this is now a nation which employs Paris Hilton via her popularity, purely via her popularity (I've also heard Obama called "President Kardashian"). And we just reelected the Paris of politics Commander-in-Chief.
But to be frank, I actually prefer to think 63,286,423 of my fellow Americans embraced Obama's "coolness" rather than his ideology. Under that scenario all we have to do is run a cool, suave, hip, good-looking conservative and we're a lock.
WOAH! ... I better clear my schedule!
Man... enough with the doom-and-gloom!
Seriously, there are TOO many pundits out there ready to jump in front of traffic at the prospect of four more years of Obama... and FAR TOO many are actively contesting the election.
Please, people. It's over, and Obama won. Frankly, he won big. That's what happens in elections: someone wins, someone loses. Don't like it? Campaign harder next time.
This is NOT the most divisive campaign in US history... not by a long shot. Nothing was "stolen" from the American people and the country is not "ending", "over", or "dead".
1800. Jefferson/Adams... ugliest campaign season in US history. So ugly, that the incumbent (Adams) signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it illegal to write bad things about a sitting President or Senator.
1860. Lincoln/Douglas-Breckenridge-Bell: a divided Democratic vote leads to a Republican victory and the Civil War erupts. THAT was as close as we've come to an "end to America" people...
1876. Democrat Samuel Tilden has the election "stolen" from him (literally) by the GOP and it is handed to R.B. Hayes. This is as shady as it gets... Obama and Bush Jr. aren't even close.
Since 1912, and the defeat of Teddy Roosevelt by the GOP machine that wanted the more pliable Taft rather than the more popular Roosevelt, things have run pretty smoothly. It doesn't always go the way we want... but it does always go.
Please, people. It's over, and Obama won. Frankly, he won big. That's what happens in elections: someone wins, someone loses. Don't like it? Campaign harder next time.
This is NOT the most divisive campaign in US history... not by a long shot. Nothing was "stolen" from the American people and the country is not "ending", "over", or "dead".
1800. Jefferson/Adams... ugliest campaign season in US history. So ugly, that the incumbent (Adams) signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it illegal to write bad things about a sitting President or Senator.
1860. Lincoln/Douglas-Breckenridge-Bell: a divided Democratic vote leads to a Republican victory and the Civil War erupts. THAT was as close as we've come to an "end to America" people...
1876. Democrat Samuel Tilden has the election "stolen" from him (literally) by the GOP and it is handed to R.B. Hayes. This is as shady as it gets... Obama and Bush Jr. aren't even close.
Since 1912, and the defeat of Teddy Roosevelt by the GOP machine that wanted the more pliable Taft rather than the more popular Roosevelt, things have run pretty smoothly. It doesn't always go the way we want... but it does always go.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
332-206
The AP has officially called Florida for Obama. So that is the fnal electoral college count. Obama won the sunshine state by just 74,000 votes and a final tally of 50% to 49.1%. And essentially that"s the story here - Obama sqeezed out every close state he needed to, and a few he didn't need. Look, we can go on and on about how close the popular vote was at 60.2 million to 63.2 million (that includes Florida), but when you take 8 of the 11 swing states, end up in the 300's electorally, and outpace your opponent's popular total by seven figures, by all rights you can claim a "mandate." I sure as hell would. And what's more scary is the blue that covers the two coasts on the electoral map is inching closer and closer in, sqeezing heartland and southern red.
Let's face it boys, either he succeeded in fundementally changing our country or he was simply smart enough to recognize it had already changed. Half of Americans want garuntees in life. And if the GOP thinks the lesson here is to "out garuntee" the Left via amnesty or state benefits, then they'll become a regional Party, at best. The only possibility is to offer a clear, bold alternative. And we have an ace in the hole - our math works, their's does not. We need only someone with the guts to say it, WITH PARTY BACKING. Look, the Romney-Ryan ticket won the popular vote among ages 40 and over, and particularly showed well in the 65 plus group. I think that shows a willingness to consider a Ryan-esque plan to make these entitlements solvent by incorporating the private sector as part of the rememedy. But the fact that we know it as the "Ryan budget" is exactly the problem in my estimation. The Party has to have the guts to say to the nation via an actual plan, what it portends to believe ideologically. Two or three bright Tea Party types left out in the cold to defend their individual plan is not enough. It should be a Party plank. You want to rebrand the GOP so that a majority of Americans will trust you with leadership? Be known as the Party with measurable and specific alternatives.
Unfortunately I have no faith whatsoever that the GOP will embrace my message. Which means the nation will only turn to Tea Party-like solutions (or just plain common sense) after we have a nationwide fiscal calamity on par with Great Depression numbers. And as we all agreed on the phone, that now seems inevitable at some point in the not too distant future. And as a patriot I am heart broken that my nation must endure such misery before it makes a course correction.
Batton down the hatches gents... something wicked this way comes. And that's not conspiracy theory talk, that's just math.
Let's face it boys, either he succeeded in fundementally changing our country or he was simply smart enough to recognize it had already changed. Half of Americans want garuntees in life. And if the GOP thinks the lesson here is to "out garuntee" the Left via amnesty or state benefits, then they'll become a regional Party, at best. The only possibility is to offer a clear, bold alternative. And we have an ace in the hole - our math works, their's does not. We need only someone with the guts to say it, WITH PARTY BACKING. Look, the Romney-Ryan ticket won the popular vote among ages 40 and over, and particularly showed well in the 65 plus group. I think that shows a willingness to consider a Ryan-esque plan to make these entitlements solvent by incorporating the private sector as part of the rememedy. But the fact that we know it as the "Ryan budget" is exactly the problem in my estimation. The Party has to have the guts to say to the nation via an actual plan, what it portends to believe ideologically. Two or three bright Tea Party types left out in the cold to defend their individual plan is not enough. It should be a Party plank. You want to rebrand the GOP so that a majority of Americans will trust you with leadership? Be known as the Party with measurable and specific alternatives.
Unfortunately I have no faith whatsoever that the GOP will embrace my message. Which means the nation will only turn to Tea Party-like solutions (or just plain common sense) after we have a nationwide fiscal calamity on par with Great Depression numbers. And as we all agreed on the phone, that now seems inevitable at some point in the not too distant future. And as a patriot I am heart broken that my nation must endure such misery before it makes a course correction.
Batton down the hatches gents... something wicked this way comes. And that's not conspiracy theory talk, that's just math.
Friday, November 9, 2012
short answer: NEVER
I'm not being trite. I assume you mean the personal income tax and I am an advocate of a Flat Tax.
Let me explain...
I believe that history bares out that what markets and businesses from Main Street to Wall Street loathe above all is uncertainty. Specifically uncertainty in economic policy from their government. I posed (near the end of our New Deal debate) the theory that perhaps FDR's death ended the economic woes of the Great Depression era more than anything else. His year to year new proposals, the previous one's needing annual renewal, guessing what portion of the private sector he might wade into next, business didn't know what to expext. I dub it a policy of "systematic uncertainty."
What is its' opposite? A policy of systematic certainty. And nothing is more certain than a flat income tax. And as a means of getting the camel's nose in the tent, I'd even compromise to a three tier flat tax: 5% for $1 above the Poverty Line to $50k (incomes below the Poverty Line pay zero); 10% for $50k to $250k; and 15% for those at $250k plus. No deductions. Your tax returns are essentialy done on one peice of paper. To that, if we're talking what to do right now, I'd add a cut in the corporate tax rate, from 28% to 15%; and a cut in the Capital Gains tax rate, from 15% to 5%. Implement that and its morning in America again, on steroids.
Of course, I'd get hammered for, "Raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich!", so I'm only talking about what could be done if adults ran Washington... which isn't the case..
Let me explain...
I believe that history bares out that what markets and businesses from Main Street to Wall Street loathe above all is uncertainty. Specifically uncertainty in economic policy from their government. I posed (near the end of our New Deal debate) the theory that perhaps FDR's death ended the economic woes of the Great Depression era more than anything else. His year to year new proposals, the previous one's needing annual renewal, guessing what portion of the private sector he might wade into next, business didn't know what to expext. I dub it a policy of "systematic uncertainty."
What is its' opposite? A policy of systematic certainty. And nothing is more certain than a flat income tax. And as a means of getting the camel's nose in the tent, I'd even compromise to a three tier flat tax: 5% for $1 above the Poverty Line to $50k (incomes below the Poverty Line pay zero); 10% for $50k to $250k; and 15% for those at $250k plus. No deductions. Your tax returns are essentialy done on one peice of paper. To that, if we're talking what to do right now, I'd add a cut in the corporate tax rate, from 28% to 15%; and a cut in the Capital Gains tax rate, from 15% to 5%. Implement that and its morning in America again, on steroids.
Of course, I'd get hammered for, "Raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich!", so I'm only talking about what could be done if adults ran Washington... which isn't the case..
WTF?
I go online today only to find the news everywhere that ONE WEEK before he is slated to testify before congress on Benghazi, CIA director David Patraeus has resigned. The word is that the famous general turned director of central intelligence walked into the West Wing today and tendered his resignation because of an extramarital affair, and the president accepted that resignation. Umm, may I say... WTF?
First off, the Democrat Party doesn't force anybody to resign over affairs, that we already know. Secondly, the White House had to know this was coming before election day, and this is two days after news broke that Iranian missles were shot at one of our drones over the Gulf 5 days before voting day.
FOX News is now reporting that this resignation does in fact mean he will not be called to testify. My question is, why the hell not? Congress, in this case the Senate, has the power to subpoena any living soul within US juridstriction. Harry Reid is CLEARLY involved here. By the way, the DOJ leaked that Holder is stepping down asap as well. And Hillary has already flatly said she won't be part of a second term.
So let me get this straight, the man with the most direct knowledge of Fast and Furious - GONE. The woman with the most direct knowledge of Benghazi - GONE. Iran fires on a US drone - HIDDEN. And now the man who is unquestionably in a position to enlighten the rest of us on all three (to varying degrees) is also now - GONE. Okay, nothing fishy there. Please allow me a second, WTF?
Most disturbing to me is how plausible the Patraeus conspiracy theory, that I immediately jumped to, seems. Axelrod, et al, find a chink in the Patraeus armor, an affair. He is instructed to tow the administration line on Benghazi or risk exposure. He tells the administration to piss off, prefering to face personal shame rather than bring dishonor to the sacrafice of 4 dead Americans.
To my 60 million Obama-voting fellow Americans I offer today's third and final, WTF?
First off, the Democrat Party doesn't force anybody to resign over affairs, that we already know. Secondly, the White House had to know this was coming before election day, and this is two days after news broke that Iranian missles were shot at one of our drones over the Gulf 5 days before voting day.
FOX News is now reporting that this resignation does in fact mean he will not be called to testify. My question is, why the hell not? Congress, in this case the Senate, has the power to subpoena any living soul within US juridstriction. Harry Reid is CLEARLY involved here. By the way, the DOJ leaked that Holder is stepping down asap as well. And Hillary has already flatly said she won't be part of a second term.
So let me get this straight, the man with the most direct knowledge of Fast and Furious - GONE. The woman with the most direct knowledge of Benghazi - GONE. Iran fires on a US drone - HIDDEN. And now the man who is unquestionably in a position to enlighten the rest of us on all three (to varying degrees) is also now - GONE. Okay, nothing fishy there. Please allow me a second, WTF?
Most disturbing to me is how plausible the Patraeus conspiracy theory, that I immediately jumped to, seems. Axelrod, et al, find a chink in the Patraeus armor, an affair. He is instructed to tow the administration line on Benghazi or risk exposure. He tells the administration to piss off, prefering to face personal shame rather than bring dishonor to the sacrafice of 4 dead Americans.
To my 60 million Obama-voting fellow Americans I offer today's third and final, WTF?
This reminds me...
Ryan's comments on the Speaker's words made me think of something we "beefed" about a long time ago.
When are higher taxes "acceptable" in the eyes of the GOP?
If, correction pending as both Ryan and I suspect it is, we could mitigate the damage such a correction could do by increasing taxes by as little as a point or two before the correction occurs... would it be okay then?
My argument for Keynesian spending (oft used during the New Deal debates) falls apart when faced with a wall of debt already large enough to impede deficit spending during fiscal meltdowns. We weren't there in 1932. We weren't there in 1982. We ARE there in 2012... more debt than we can sustain, and no room for higher taxes if the economy is to grow.
I'm asking, not arguing... so please consider: When is higher taxes acceptable? Are we there yet?
When are higher taxes "acceptable" in the eyes of the GOP?
If, correction pending as both Ryan and I suspect it is, we could mitigate the damage such a correction could do by increasing taxes by as little as a point or two before the correction occurs... would it be okay then?
My argument for Keynesian spending (oft used during the New Deal debates) falls apart when faced with a wall of debt already large enough to impede deficit spending during fiscal meltdowns. We weren't there in 1932. We weren't there in 1982. We ARE there in 2012... more debt than we can sustain, and no room for higher taxes if the economy is to grow.
I'm asking, not arguing... so please consider: When is higher taxes acceptable? Are we there yet?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
A bit of politics...
Nice couple of posts there. You could make it easier on yourself and move into a neighborhood full of Mormons, hehe. I know Beck keeps advocating Texas and Oklahoma as self sufficient/minimum government states, but it occurs to me that rural Utah will have food and fuel for years after the Romulans blow up our sun.
Essentialy, we agree. Now perhaps to talk in terms of "the end of America" is the wrong phrasing and a bit extreme. But certainly, CERTAINLY, it's now prudent to talk (and prepare for) in terms of a major, sharp "correction" on par with the Great Depression. As we discussed, at some point the math wil kick in, and that "at some point" will likely look very, very ugly.
The politics I eluded to in my title: I found this shocking... 3 millon LESS Republicans turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain. I couldn't believe this at first. Now remember, Obama beat Romney in the popular vote by 2.8 million. Those 3 mil were registered Republicans. Romney didn't close the deal with his base, let alone Independents. Why? I have long thought that the man best able to turn out our base was President Obama. Is it possible that because the GOP nominated another moderate the base was supressed? Titus mentioned on the phone that had that been a Ryan-Romney ticket we would have done better, that we have to stop giving the nomination to the guy who came in second the last time. I think that 3 million number proves him right. A stark choice, a bold contrast instead of pale pastels as Reagan said. How often do you hear the word "Libertarian" these days? When we were growing up that word was non existent in everyday conversation. These are ex Republicans, fed up with the GOP. And now John Boehner, arguably the most powerful Republican in office now as Speaker of the House, says that they will consider tax hikes when negotiating with the PoTUS, "under the right circumstances."
Wow. Nice John. That's sure to roust those 3 million Republicans off the couch.
Essentialy, we agree. Now perhaps to talk in terms of "the end of America" is the wrong phrasing and a bit extreme. But certainly, CERTAINLY, it's now prudent to talk (and prepare for) in terms of a major, sharp "correction" on par with the Great Depression. As we discussed, at some point the math wil kick in, and that "at some point" will likely look very, very ugly.
The politics I eluded to in my title: I found this shocking... 3 millon LESS Republicans turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain. I couldn't believe this at first. Now remember, Obama beat Romney in the popular vote by 2.8 million. Those 3 mil were registered Republicans. Romney didn't close the deal with his base, let alone Independents. Why? I have long thought that the man best able to turn out our base was President Obama. Is it possible that because the GOP nominated another moderate the base was supressed? Titus mentioned on the phone that had that been a Ryan-Romney ticket we would have done better, that we have to stop giving the nomination to the guy who came in second the last time. I think that 3 million number proves him right. A stark choice, a bold contrast instead of pale pastels as Reagan said. How often do you hear the word "Libertarian" these days? When we were growing up that word was non existent in everyday conversation. These are ex Republicans, fed up with the GOP. And now John Boehner, arguably the most powerful Republican in office now as Speaker of the House, says that they will consider tax hikes when negotiating with the PoTUS, "under the right circumstances."
Wow. Nice John. That's sure to roust those 3 million Republicans off the couch.
Images my wife likes...
Liz seems to be developing a rather nostalgic appreciation for JFK. She's "liked" and posted these images on her Facebook page.
Again, I ask... How many Democrats today would listen to the words of JFK, without knowing their source, and accept them as the "platform" of the DNC in the modern era? How many liberals would read or hear read Kennedy's Inaugural Address and think it was something they could embrace today as representative of the Democratic Party's goals?
I'm constantly asked by my wife how I can still consider myself "Democrat"? Truth is, I can't. That's why I haven't been able to vote for a Democratic candidate since 2000... and why I firmly believe that someone standing up today and saying the same things Kennedy said in 1960 would NEVER even be considered for the Democratic nomination... more likely, he'd become a Republican and win a ticket.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
A talk with F. Ryan...
So, Ryan calls me... and we'd still probably be talking had Jacob not come home and needed help with homework.
Jist of it was that he's wondering if the Obama re-election means that America has proven that it is now dependent on a welfare state system. I'm inclined to think it is.
More than 58% of America is now, or will be soon, retired and thus, dependent on Social Security for their livelihood. Love it or hate it, SSI is a fact, and can't be ignored. We can argue and debate what it will take to keep it solvent, but whatever happens, the tax remains for those that are nearing retirement, and those that are decades away from even thinking about it. Someone has to foot that bill.
47% of America (according to Romney's now famous line) is dependent on some form of assistance from the Fed, in the form of food stamps, WIC, unemployment, etc. and that number is expected to grow (by both parties) over the course of the next 6 years. Someone will have to foot that bill, too.
Nothing about the Federal Government is going to "shrink" in the next four years... not the rate it grows, not its size or cost, and certainly not is ability to intrude on our daily lives. We can expect government regulation of business, finances, environmental issues and educational matters to probably increase substantially over the course of the next four years, and YES, someone will have to pay for that, too.
As has been said hundreds of times on this site alone... you could take ALL THE MONEY that the top 1% of Americans make (and have in savings) and it wouldn't run the government for 30 days. A 100% tax rate for the top 10 percent of wage earners will only feed the beast for three fiscal quarters... leaving a fourth quarter unpaid for each and every year the nation operates. The math simply doesn't add up, yet the American people want more and more of what Obama has been promising.
The rights and liberties of the individual have now become secondary to the needs and wants of the majority. This is the direction that we have chosen. I, personally, think it is the wrong choice... but that is just me.
Am I worried about the situation? Frankly, yes... but not to a point where I'm ready to panic, or declare the United States "dead in the water" as some pundits are doing. This current trend towards a more liberal (I think that means "European socialist") model of government is doomed to fail from the very start. Catch phrases like "wealth redistribution" and "progressive fiscal agendas" are more than simply words thrown about in heated political debates... they are milestones on the road to socialism in America, and as I have said a thousand times before: Socialism cannot work in a macro setting without lowering every facet of society to the lowest possible denominator.
I can tell you this, right now, officially and with great personal conviction: I think that when the time comes for the "correction" to occur (and a correction is coming, one way or another), it is going to be every bit as painful and costly as the correction that we now refer to as the Great Depression. I am obligated to my family and my children to ensure that all that I can do to prepare for this and mitigate the problems that will arise from such a situation are done well in advance of it actually occurring. If I learned anything from my experiences during the single largest crisis in my life (Katrina and the three years of financial disaster that followed) it is simply that counting on the Federal Government to do ANYTHING to help or support you in a time of need is taking the biggest gamble of your life. Not only will no help come when it is actually needed, it couldn't be provided to most people in serious need across vast regions even if it was available. The Supreme Court of the United States has already determined that there is no "obligation" for assistance or aide from the government (or any agency or institution therein) to the individual... only to the general population.
If you want to be sure you are adequately protected from hardships, deprivation, disaster or disease... then you had better protect yourself. I promise you, no one else will. That includes Barack H. Obama.
Jist of it was that he's wondering if the Obama re-election means that America has proven that it is now dependent on a welfare state system. I'm inclined to think it is.
More than 58% of America is now, or will be soon, retired and thus, dependent on Social Security for their livelihood. Love it or hate it, SSI is a fact, and can't be ignored. We can argue and debate what it will take to keep it solvent, but whatever happens, the tax remains for those that are nearing retirement, and those that are decades away from even thinking about it. Someone has to foot that bill.
47% of America (according to Romney's now famous line) is dependent on some form of assistance from the Fed, in the form of food stamps, WIC, unemployment, etc. and that number is expected to grow (by both parties) over the course of the next 6 years. Someone will have to foot that bill, too.
Nothing about the Federal Government is going to "shrink" in the next four years... not the rate it grows, not its size or cost, and certainly not is ability to intrude on our daily lives. We can expect government regulation of business, finances, environmental issues and educational matters to probably increase substantially over the course of the next four years, and YES, someone will have to pay for that, too.
As has been said hundreds of times on this site alone... you could take ALL THE MONEY that the top 1% of Americans make (and have in savings) and it wouldn't run the government for 30 days. A 100% tax rate for the top 10 percent of wage earners will only feed the beast for three fiscal quarters... leaving a fourth quarter unpaid for each and every year the nation operates. The math simply doesn't add up, yet the American people want more and more of what Obama has been promising.
The rights and liberties of the individual have now become secondary to the needs and wants of the majority. This is the direction that we have chosen. I, personally, think it is the wrong choice... but that is just me.
Am I worried about the situation? Frankly, yes... but not to a point where I'm ready to panic, or declare the United States "dead in the water" as some pundits are doing. This current trend towards a more liberal (I think that means "European socialist") model of government is doomed to fail from the very start. Catch phrases like "wealth redistribution" and "progressive fiscal agendas" are more than simply words thrown about in heated political debates... they are milestones on the road to socialism in America, and as I have said a thousand times before: Socialism cannot work in a macro setting without lowering every facet of society to the lowest possible denominator.
I can tell you this, right now, officially and with great personal conviction: I think that when the time comes for the "correction" to occur (and a correction is coming, one way or another), it is going to be every bit as painful and costly as the correction that we now refer to as the Great Depression. I am obligated to my family and my children to ensure that all that I can do to prepare for this and mitigate the problems that will arise from such a situation are done well in advance of it actually occurring. If I learned anything from my experiences during the single largest crisis in my life (Katrina and the three years of financial disaster that followed) it is simply that counting on the Federal Government to do ANYTHING to help or support you in a time of need is taking the biggest gamble of your life. Not only will no help come when it is actually needed, it couldn't be provided to most people in serious need across vast regions even if it was available. The Supreme Court of the United States has already determined that there is no "obligation" for assistance or aide from the government (or any agency or institution therein) to the individual... only to the general population.
If you want to be sure you are adequately protected from hardships, deprivation, disaster or disease... then you had better protect yourself. I promise you, no one else will. That includes Barack H. Obama.
A long, dark night...
That was my feelings about last night.
I read F. Ryan's prediction, and I spoke with Jambo about his thoughts on a "forty-State sweep", and I tried to be positive, but I really didn't have a good feeling yesterday at all.
I got to the polls yesterday at just about 9 AM, and there must have been a line of 80 people spilling out of the station doors and across the parking lot. The temp was only 30 degrees... pretty cold, really, but the turn out was a strong as I had seen since living in NEPA. My initial surprise was tempered while standing in that line for 40 minutes, listening to everyone around me talk about how excited they were to vote for Obama.
If memory serves, most were blue-haired women, stoop-shouldered old men, and a couple of "couples" (two of them with very young babies in their arms). Were these retirees supporting Obama because of the Medicare scare propagated by the Left? Did they actually think Romney would leave them homeless and shivering with no access to food, water or doctor's care? I can imagine that the two couples with the babies were (understandably) immersed in such programs as WIC and (statistically speaking) probably some form of welfare assistance... so their enthusiasm for "four more years" was almost understandable, if not entirely admirable. Did these several dozen people actually think the were better off today then they were in 2006? Or even later?
Saddest of all... and I almost hesitate to bring this up because of the volatile nature of topic... was the 65-year-old woman standing behind me in line. She never asked me who I was voting for, and she never told me that she was voting for Obama. What she did tell me was that she couldn't stand the thought that "women's rights" might be taken away if the election went one way rather than the other. "My body, my choice" was a term she used twice... even in the brief time we spoke. I did consider telling her that, since 1972 (when Roe v Wade became defacto law), there had been 24 years of Republican Presidential leadership in this country, and abortion was still available as a "choice" in all 50 States. I did think that perhaps I could explain to her that the GOP contention is NOT to end abortion as a choice in America, but to ensure that Federal funds do not pay for them... individuals do. In the end, I did nothing but smile and wish her a good day. Her choice was made, she had decided her course of action.
In the end, short on sleep and deeply frustrated, I guess I'd have to venture the opinion that Romney-Ryan failed to get the "message" of their platform out as clearly and plainly as Obama and the Dems did. If an otherwise bright and communicative retiree failed so completely to grasp the actual fundamentals of a topic like Federally funded abortions and the GOP's position on them, then I can't blame her, can I? It must have been a failure in getting that point across on a national level.
Watching the frustration and anger surface during the FOX News coverage was painful, but was nothing compared to the gloating and self-congratulation that was going on at the MSNBC coverage rooms. I'll give both their time to take in the event... neither is unbiased and both had a lot at stake and even more invested in the election... so both are allowed their "moment". The same can be said for both Parties. The GOP got spanked (speaking in relative terms, of course... it was a close race everywhere)... the Dems won two more seats in the Senate and four more years in the White House. I have to give the President credit... I listened to his "victory" speech last night at about 1:30 AM, and (without giving too much attention to what was undoubtedly pat, rhetorical phrasing) his words rang terribly, terribly true. The GOP will have to find a way to pick up the pieces and continue to effort, or nothing will change. The Dems will need to avoid the "end-zone celebrations" that will do nothing but further the rift between the two sides and work to accomplish something meaningful in the next two years (midterms) or face another Congressional upset.
Conservatives can't afford to be petulant and liberals can't afford to be "sore winners", or both sides lose in the long run. Time to pony-up and soldier on.
I read F. Ryan's prediction, and I spoke with Jambo about his thoughts on a "forty-State sweep", and I tried to be positive, but I really didn't have a good feeling yesterday at all.
I got to the polls yesterday at just about 9 AM, and there must have been a line of 80 people spilling out of the station doors and across the parking lot. The temp was only 30 degrees... pretty cold, really, but the turn out was a strong as I had seen since living in NEPA. My initial surprise was tempered while standing in that line for 40 minutes, listening to everyone around me talk about how excited they were to vote for Obama.
If memory serves, most were blue-haired women, stoop-shouldered old men, and a couple of "couples" (two of them with very young babies in their arms). Were these retirees supporting Obama because of the Medicare scare propagated by the Left? Did they actually think Romney would leave them homeless and shivering with no access to food, water or doctor's care? I can imagine that the two couples with the babies were (understandably) immersed in such programs as WIC and (statistically speaking) probably some form of welfare assistance... so their enthusiasm for "four more years" was almost understandable, if not entirely admirable. Did these several dozen people actually think the were better off today then they were in 2006? Or even later?
Saddest of all... and I almost hesitate to bring this up because of the volatile nature of topic... was the 65-year-old woman standing behind me in line. She never asked me who I was voting for, and she never told me that she was voting for Obama. What she did tell me was that she couldn't stand the thought that "women's rights" might be taken away if the election went one way rather than the other. "My body, my choice" was a term she used twice... even in the brief time we spoke. I did consider telling her that, since 1972 (when Roe v Wade became defacto law), there had been 24 years of Republican Presidential leadership in this country, and abortion was still available as a "choice" in all 50 States. I did think that perhaps I could explain to her that the GOP contention is NOT to end abortion as a choice in America, but to ensure that Federal funds do not pay for them... individuals do. In the end, I did nothing but smile and wish her a good day. Her choice was made, she had decided her course of action.
In the end, short on sleep and deeply frustrated, I guess I'd have to venture the opinion that Romney-Ryan failed to get the "message" of their platform out as clearly and plainly as Obama and the Dems did. If an otherwise bright and communicative retiree failed so completely to grasp the actual fundamentals of a topic like Federally funded abortions and the GOP's position on them, then I can't blame her, can I? It must have been a failure in getting that point across on a national level.
Watching the frustration and anger surface during the FOX News coverage was painful, but was nothing compared to the gloating and self-congratulation that was going on at the MSNBC coverage rooms. I'll give both their time to take in the event... neither is unbiased and both had a lot at stake and even more invested in the election... so both are allowed their "moment". The same can be said for both Parties. The GOP got spanked (speaking in relative terms, of course... it was a close race everywhere)... the Dems won two more seats in the Senate and four more years in the White House. I have to give the President credit... I listened to his "victory" speech last night at about 1:30 AM, and (without giving too much attention to what was undoubtedly pat, rhetorical phrasing) his words rang terribly, terribly true. The GOP will have to find a way to pick up the pieces and continue to effort, or nothing will change. The Dems will need to avoid the "end-zone celebrations" that will do nothing but further the rift between the two sides and work to accomplish something meaningful in the next two years (midterms) or face another Congressional upset.
Conservatives can't afford to be petulant and liberals can't afford to be "sore winners", or both sides lose in the long run. Time to pony-up and soldier on.
how?
Here`s my trilevel gut response to the reelection of Barack H. Obama:
1.) I am floored at how badly I, personally, misjudged my fellow Americans. I truly didn't grasp that my ideology is in the minority until tonight.
2.) It's possible we've witnessed the American Idol-ization of the office of president. Obama is a celebrity. He's cooler. Who needs low unemployment when you've got Jay-Z and Springsteen?
3.) And this is most dangerous of all. It's possible that we`ve changed as a people. More than half of the states in this Union currently believe that healthcare and housing are a Right. In other words, from medicine to retirement a majority of Americans now believe that government, not the individual, has a moral imperative to provide life`s basic needs, wants, and desires. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are no longer sufficient. Collectivism is caring, individualism is greed.
If that's true, we've lost more than an election.
1.) I am floored at how badly I, personally, misjudged my fellow Americans. I truly didn't grasp that my ideology is in the minority until tonight.
2.) It's possible we've witnessed the American Idol-ization of the office of president. Obama is a celebrity. He's cooler. Who needs low unemployment when you've got Jay-Z and Springsteen?
3.) And this is most dangerous of all. It's possible that we`ve changed as a people. More than half of the states in this Union currently believe that healthcare and housing are a Right. In other words, from medicine to retirement a majority of Americans now believe that government, not the individual, has a moral imperative to provide life`s basic needs, wants, and desires. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are no longer sufficient. Collectivism is caring, individualism is greed.
If that's true, we've lost more than an election.
Monday, November 5, 2012
286-252
Romney wins. That's my prediction out of the 538 Electoral College votes available. No need to hold the election, I have come out from on high and dispersed my wisdom... hehe.
As we all know, the first to 270 wins. Michael Barone, the Right-leaning gold standard of county by county election cycle science, went on record yesterday to say he's predicting Romney at 315 due to party identity, independents breaking, and enthusiasm. He's no political hack. He looks and talks like a scientist, a pure researcher. The only reason I gauged it closer (clearly he knows more than I) is my natural pessimism kicking in. In my opinion the bottom line is Ohio. If Romney wins its' 18 Electoral votes he's a lock. If Obama wins Ohio Romney still has a path to victory, but not an easy one (including Iowa and New Hampshire). I think the dark horse GOP state to win is Titus' stomping ground, PA. It's just possible the social issues combined with Obama's energy policy (coal etc) could tip this state to Mitt.
Now for something borderline delusional. I'm talking Mad Hatter, butterfly net territory. President Obama was in Madison, WI today (by the way, his need to defend Wisconsin should give us all hope - that Scott Walker recall was a major boon for the GOP), and when speaking to the gathered crowd he said the following (this is a direct quote): "This shouldn't be that complicated. We tried our ideas. They worked. We grew the economy, created jobs, and the deficit went down. We tried their ideas. The economy didn't grow. Not as many jobs were created, and the deficit went up."
Holy delusions of grandeur Batman!
Do you think he really believes this? Is the teleprompter guy just messing with him? I mean not even Democrats dispute the deficit nearly doubled, they just don't care. I assume he means George W. Bush when he says "their way." However, Bush's overall average numbers on unemployment; GDP growth; GDP to debt ratio; food stamp participants; gas prices; deficit spending - even including the second half of 2008 when the economic collapse occurred - were provably better than the last four years. It's not even close. What is he talking about then? George H. Bush? Reagan? Their numbers (in particular Reagan's) dwarf him in every category. President Obama is the first CIC in American history to have annual Trillion dollar deficits. He hasn't even passed a budget during his entire term, and that's with controlling both houses of congress during half of it. On the day he took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Tomorrow, on election day, it will be 7.9%. Again, I ask, is he delusional?
By the way, have you ever heard of the "Redskins Rule" of politics (I mean the NFL team, obviously)? I heard today that for the last 19 elections, whenever the Skins win on the Sunday before election day, the incumbent president wins. When they lose, the incumbent loses. The Skins lost yesterday.
As we all know, the first to 270 wins. Michael Barone, the Right-leaning gold standard of county by county election cycle science, went on record yesterday to say he's predicting Romney at 315 due to party identity, independents breaking, and enthusiasm. He's no political hack. He looks and talks like a scientist, a pure researcher. The only reason I gauged it closer (clearly he knows more than I) is my natural pessimism kicking in. In my opinion the bottom line is Ohio. If Romney wins its' 18 Electoral votes he's a lock. If Obama wins Ohio Romney still has a path to victory, but not an easy one (including Iowa and New Hampshire). I think the dark horse GOP state to win is Titus' stomping ground, PA. It's just possible the social issues combined with Obama's energy policy (coal etc) could tip this state to Mitt.
Now for something borderline delusional. I'm talking Mad Hatter, butterfly net territory. President Obama was in Madison, WI today (by the way, his need to defend Wisconsin should give us all hope - that Scott Walker recall was a major boon for the GOP), and when speaking to the gathered crowd he said the following (this is a direct quote): "This shouldn't be that complicated. We tried our ideas. They worked. We grew the economy, created jobs, and the deficit went down. We tried their ideas. The economy didn't grow. Not as many jobs were created, and the deficit went up."
Holy delusions of grandeur Batman!
Do you think he really believes this? Is the teleprompter guy just messing with him? I mean not even Democrats dispute the deficit nearly doubled, they just don't care. I assume he means George W. Bush when he says "their way." However, Bush's overall average numbers on unemployment; GDP growth; GDP to debt ratio; food stamp participants; gas prices; deficit spending - even including the second half of 2008 when the economic collapse occurred - were provably better than the last four years. It's not even close. What is he talking about then? George H. Bush? Reagan? Their numbers (in particular Reagan's) dwarf him in every category. President Obama is the first CIC in American history to have annual Trillion dollar deficits. He hasn't even passed a budget during his entire term, and that's with controlling both houses of congress during half of it. On the day he took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Tomorrow, on election day, it will be 7.9%. Again, I ask, is he delusional?
By the way, have you ever heard of the "Redskins Rule" of politics (I mean the NFL team, obviously)? I heard today that for the last 19 elections, whenever the Skins win on the Sunday before election day, the incumbent president wins. When they lose, the incumbent loses. The Skins lost yesterday.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Coast Bound....
Obviously with this being a public forum Im not inclined to be much more specific than that, but suffice it to say I put a deposit down today and as of 12/1 we will be residents of the MS Gulf Coast. I may end up sitting box 2 days a week to augment my income while I attend scool (starting in February), but with family all within driving distance (including a Bund brother), acceptance to a local university, my casino time diminished if not completely done away with, and the assurance that my sons wont spend their teenage years in Sin City, Im loads better off than I was in the desert oasis of Las Vegas. Now, if I can just avoid any Cat 5's in the near future I might just have a good shot at success in Act II.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Jobs...
The new jobs report came out today. We all know that when it comes to unemployment data the White House has the power to manipulate more zeros than a playmate at a scifi convention. But last month's (actually September's) drop from 8.2 to 7.8 was as shameless as it gets. For example they added, for the first time, part time employees, the "under employed" to the primary number of employed workers. There are something on the order of 8 different final unemployment numbers to represent formulas that include under employed, workers whom left the workforce, etc, all coded U6, U7, and so on, some of which have the total unemployment rate as high as 14.7%. And even the normally apolitical renowned former GE CEO, Jack Welch, was prompted to write an oped last month condemning the formula used as the primary unemployment number. He noted that if we used the formula of just the Clinton era the unemployment rate would be over 10%. If you use the formulas employed under JFK the real number is over 13%. They have simply changed the way the unemployed are counted.
But here's the bottom line of today's (October's) unemployment number. It's 7.9%. That's a tenth of a percent higher than September, and it has come out 3 days before the election. It's also a tenth higher than January 2009. What does this mean? That his "last" unemployment number as president is higher than his his first... if history tells us anything its that you don't get reelected when the unemployment rate is higher on election day than on your first day in office. Or lets count Obama's jobs record this way - since January of 09, for every 1 job created, 75 people were added to the food stamp roles.
By the way - with food and fuel shortages abound in NYC the question is being raised, where is the National Guard? They could do air lifts if nothing else. I vividly remembered the Guard everywhere after Katrina when we were finally allowed to return. Here's your answer: Bloomberg said the NYPD is the only one he wants with guns on the streets of his city. Apparently governor Cuomo is honoring that sentiment. Bloomberg's anti-Second Amendment, anti gun policy apparently knows no sane boundary.
But here's the bottom line of today's (October's) unemployment number. It's 7.9%. That's a tenth of a percent higher than September, and it has come out 3 days before the election. It's also a tenth higher than January 2009. What does this mean? That his "last" unemployment number as president is higher than his his first... if history tells us anything its that you don't get reelected when the unemployment rate is higher on election day than on your first day in office. Or lets count Obama's jobs record this way - since January of 09, for every 1 job created, 75 people were added to the food stamp roles.
By the way - with food and fuel shortages abound in NYC the question is being raised, where is the National Guard? They could do air lifts if nothing else. I vividly remembered the Guard everywhere after Katrina when we were finally allowed to return. Here's your answer: Bloomberg said the NYPD is the only one he wants with guns on the streets of his city. Apparently governor Cuomo is honoring that sentiment. Bloomberg's anti-Second Amendment, anti gun policy apparently knows no sane boundary.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The liberal "disconnect"...
The famous (and now rather old) Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) wrote an article yesterday, and I read it. I wanted to share my thoughts on Mr. Bernstein's story...
What a load of crap.
Common, Carl... seriously? Romney is the latest "puppet" of the great and evil GOP machine? Enslaved by the "radical" Tea Party faction of the conservative movement? A true moderate that cannot but dance to the tugging of the Party strings?
I'll give you this much, Carl... Romney is a moderate at heart, no question. So was Bush Jr. and John McCain was damn near a card-carrying Democrat.
So, even if the entire scope of your story is true (and I'm not suggesting it is, by any stretch), can you honestly tell me Obama hasn't made promises he'd rather not have made, to get where he is now? He isn't in bed with the far-Left on such issues as ending the war in Iraq on a time table even he didn't like? Or with the unions in Detroit, were the government bail-outs have entrenched union dependency even further than it already was (which contributed to the need for the bail-outs in the first place)? Why were his opinion ratings so low (less than 45% in some areas) prior to elections in May?
Why is the simple, undeniable FACT that Kennedy's inaugural address is hand-in-glove with the entire conservative agenda today so utterly ignored by the likes of you and your friends? Your claim that everything "conservative" strikes at the heart of all that has been accomplished since 1906 is simply not true... as untrue as Nixon claiming he's "not a crook".
What a load of crap.
Common, Carl... seriously? Romney is the latest "puppet" of the great and evil GOP machine? Enslaved by the "radical" Tea Party faction of the conservative movement? A true moderate that cannot but dance to the tugging of the Party strings?
I'll give you this much, Carl... Romney is a moderate at heart, no question. So was Bush Jr. and John McCain was damn near a card-carrying Democrat.
So, even if the entire scope of your story is true (and I'm not suggesting it is, by any stretch), can you honestly tell me Obama hasn't made promises he'd rather not have made, to get where he is now? He isn't in bed with the far-Left on such issues as ending the war in Iraq on a time table even he didn't like? Or with the unions in Detroit, were the government bail-outs have entrenched union dependency even further than it already was (which contributed to the need for the bail-outs in the first place)? Why were his opinion ratings so low (less than 45% in some areas) prior to elections in May?
Why is the simple, undeniable FACT that Kennedy's inaugural address is hand-in-glove with the entire conservative agenda today so utterly ignored by the likes of you and your friends? Your claim that everything "conservative" strikes at the heart of all that has been accomplished since 1906 is simply not true... as untrue as Nixon claiming he's "not a crook".
exquisite irony
"He looks presidential." That's all I'm hearing in the mainstream press regarding the President's handling of Sandy. First off, he is the President. Secondly, if he now looks presidential how did he look Monday, waste deep in the Libya scandal? And third, the entire reason friendly news outlets are claiming this is due to his assertion of Executive Branch power/authority. How did he flex Executive muscle? He promised to cut red tape and bureaucracy to get emergency funds rapidly released and instructed that federal formula regulations on fuel standards be waived to get any and all types of gasoline into the North East. Bare in mind the New York Times editorial is claiming, "see, see, big storms require big government." And we already know the President,s position on "big" government. Yet the whole reason he "looks presidential" is he essentially stood up and declared he'd get government out of the way in order to effectively deal with an emergency. Which is EXACTLY Mitt Romney's plan to deal with the economy!
My experience with hurricanes tells me that (politically) the handling or mishandling of natural disasters can make or break local officials. Bush's Katrina critics have successfully painted his post storm efforts as a failure, but by and large presidents are reelected (or not) based on the perception of their economic record with everything else coming in a distant second. However, I would argue mayors and governors, police chiefs and even preachers, this is when their effectiveness is judged and remembered. And there was no clearer demonstration of this then the difference between post Katrina Mississippi vs Louisiana politics. Blanco and the NO mayor (I forget his name) were crucified while Barbour solidified his state legacy. Which again underscores the irony of big government advocates during natural disasters - each state dealt with the same FEMA, yet it was the local ground game, private sector, city and state that made the difference.
The bottom line is no matter how good the PoTUS looks over the next 4 days it can not eclipse how bad he has done over the last 4 years.
By the way, did you hear Leno? "Don't ask don't tell is back. It's the president's new policy on Libya."
My experience with hurricanes tells me that (politically) the handling or mishandling of natural disasters can make or break local officials. Bush's Katrina critics have successfully painted his post storm efforts as a failure, but by and large presidents are reelected (or not) based on the perception of their economic record with everything else coming in a distant second. However, I would argue mayors and governors, police chiefs and even preachers, this is when their effectiveness is judged and remembered. And there was no clearer demonstration of this then the difference between post Katrina Mississippi vs Louisiana politics. Blanco and the NO mayor (I forget his name) were crucified while Barbour solidified his state legacy. Which again underscores the irony of big government advocates during natural disasters - each state dealt with the same FEMA, yet it was the local ground game, private sector, city and state that made the difference.
The bottom line is no matter how good the PoTUS looks over the next 4 days it can not eclipse how bad he has done over the last 4 years.
By the way, did you hear Leno? "Don't ask don't tell is back. It's the president's new policy on Libya."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
