It was good. Not earth-shaking, not life-changing... but very good.
I speak, of course, of Mitt's speech. Very good. Probably the best he's given in the last two years. Certainly, the best of this campaign (to date).
Some of it was very touching, and much of it was very inspiring... but if I had to point to one thing that I think will ring out in the days, months... and dare I say, years?... to come, it was when he said:
"The America we all know has been a story of many becoming one. United to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest the economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness.
Everywhere I go there are monuments for those who have given their lives for America. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation, or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag, fighting for a single purpose. They've pledge allegiance to the United States of America. That America, that united America can unleash an economy that will put Americans back to work, that will once again lead the world with innovation and productivity, and will restore every father and mother's confidence that their children's future is brighter even than the past. That American, that united America will preserve a military that's so strong no nation will ever dare to test it. That America, that united America will uphold the rights that were endowed by our creator and codified in our Constitution. That united America will care for the poor and sick, will honor and respect the elderly and will give a helping hand to those in need. That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children. "
If he made a sale as a candidate for President, it was with that line. At least for me.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Romney has to step up...
I hope Mitt's speech is as good or better than Ryan's... cause Ryan's was damn good.
Some fluff, some party-line pandering... neither of which Paul Ryan is very good at delivering. Some hyperbole and exaggeration... neither of which I think were needed. Otherwise, a solid speech that really seemed to wake the crowd up at times.
I think his strongest points were at the end of his speech. Without coming out and listing the differences, he showed that he and Mitt were from different backgrounds, faiths and even generations, but that they were "hand-in-hand" in all that mattered politically. I'm not all that sure that is true, but it is enough to be said, I guess. He is the VP candidate, after all... his agenda isn't the one that really matters.
He brought up the salient points that I felt really needed to be touched on:
Success in business does NOT mean Romney is a bad man, or did bad things. Obama is NOT a poor man, either... and Obama didn't give half as much of his wealth to charity that Romney did over the last four years, even as a percentage of income. Dollar for dollar, even Ryan gave away more money than Obama did.
Romney got to where he is today with honesty and integrity, and he is making his run for the White House without the aid and support of people who are either avowed socialists/communists (who are antithetical to the very premise that is America), racists, or terrorist sympathizers and supporters.
Choosing to vote for Obama is choosing to vote for the "status quo"... and there aren't many people in this country that can want to see more of that. A sluggish, almost stagnant rate of economic growth; disastrous foreign affairs; nearly unlimited debt potential with no means of escape... other than higher taxes across the board. I especially liked the point he made that increased cost to business and manufacturing ONLY increases the cost to the consumer, so when corporate taxes go up, so do costs. End result: less for the tax payer to keep in his pocket and spend as he wishes.
If creating an environment in the small-business community of America could mean adding ONE MORE employee to every company that has a total staff of between 5 and 50 employees, then the unemployment problem in this country disappears entirely. It doesn't get any easier than that... but since most of the OWNERS of companies that size make between $250,000 and $1,000,000 a year, and will have to pay 30% MORE in taxes and carry a higher corporate tax rate as well, this is unlikely to happen in Obama's next term.
Some fluff, some party-line pandering... neither of which Paul Ryan is very good at delivering. Some hyperbole and exaggeration... neither of which I think were needed. Otherwise, a solid speech that really seemed to wake the crowd up at times.
I think his strongest points were at the end of his speech. Without coming out and listing the differences, he showed that he and Mitt were from different backgrounds, faiths and even generations, but that they were "hand-in-hand" in all that mattered politically. I'm not all that sure that is true, but it is enough to be said, I guess. He is the VP candidate, after all... his agenda isn't the one that really matters.
He brought up the salient points that I felt really needed to be touched on:
Success in business does NOT mean Romney is a bad man, or did bad things. Obama is NOT a poor man, either... and Obama didn't give half as much of his wealth to charity that Romney did over the last four years, even as a percentage of income. Dollar for dollar, even Ryan gave away more money than Obama did.
Romney got to where he is today with honesty and integrity, and he is making his run for the White House without the aid and support of people who are either avowed socialists/communists (who are antithetical to the very premise that is America), racists, or terrorist sympathizers and supporters.
Choosing to vote for Obama is choosing to vote for the "status quo"... and there aren't many people in this country that can want to see more of that. A sluggish, almost stagnant rate of economic growth; disastrous foreign affairs; nearly unlimited debt potential with no means of escape... other than higher taxes across the board. I especially liked the point he made that increased cost to business and manufacturing ONLY increases the cost to the consumer, so when corporate taxes go up, so do costs. End result: less for the tax payer to keep in his pocket and spend as he wishes.
If creating an environment in the small-business community of America could mean adding ONE MORE employee to every company that has a total staff of between 5 and 50 employees, then the unemployment problem in this country disappears entirely. It doesn't get any easier than that... but since most of the OWNERS of companies that size make between $250,000 and $1,000,000 a year, and will have to pay 30% MORE in taxes and carry a higher corporate tax rate as well, this is unlikely to happen in Obama's next term.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
I haven't forgotten, you know...
Aug 29, 2005... Aug 29, 2012
As much as I am experiencing the PTSD triggers of watching Isaac barrel down on the Gulf Coast in almost the same path and on the same date as Katrina, I can't imagine what that must be like for the ones still in MS.
By all I've read and seen (and Mike Reader and the Sun Herald have been all over my 'puter since the weekend), the worst is past and the damage should seem pretty light compared to 2005. Outages seem pretty spread out, and the timeline for power restoration for those few hundred homes seems to be measured in hours rather than days.
Still, the worst must be knowing that you'll be back to work in as little as a single shift... I'd want at least a two-day break. That's just me, though.
As much as I am experiencing the PTSD triggers of watching Isaac barrel down on the Gulf Coast in almost the same path and on the same date as Katrina, I can't imagine what that must be like for the ones still in MS.
By all I've read and seen (and Mike Reader and the Sun Herald have been all over my 'puter since the weekend), the worst is past and the damage should seem pretty light compared to 2005. Outages seem pretty spread out, and the timeline for power restoration for those few hundred homes seems to be measured in hours rather than days.
Still, the worst must be knowing that you'll be back to work in as little as a single shift... I'd want at least a two-day break. That's just me, though.
Conventio-con-expo-fest-o-rama...
My thoughts....
I haven't had much time to follow the RNC at Tampa... and I know the MS contingent of the Bund probably hasn't either, what with all the Isaac preparations... but I've watched a little, and I wanted to say this.
When I first saw Ann Romney's speech, I thought she was laying on the "Mitt Praise" just a little thick... but she made one stellar point without ever coming out and saying it: Mitt holds a set of personal principles that do not allow him to indulge in self-aggrandizement the way President did from 2007 to today. For good or bad, he simply isn't the sort of man that seems capable of "tooting his own horn" in an effort to get the masses to accept him for what he purports to be.
Between his autobiography and his numerous television appearances where he explains (ad nauseum) his personal views and accomplishments and the paths that have led him there (all of which seem rather incongruent to me), we have a pretty detailed image of just who Obama is and why he does what he does. Without Ann's speech, we wouldn't have that for Mitt Romney. Now, do I think that Mitt has a solid, first-hand understanding of what it means to not be able to make his mortgage payment every month? Or not have enough in his accounts to get food AND school supplies the week before the kids go back? No, I don't. The man's father was wealthy by anyone's standards long before Mitt was old enough to understand bounced checks... and he was wealthy all his life. But does that really matter? Not at all. I don't believe he has to have experienced poverty to know it sucks... and very, very few Americans suffer from real poverty, anyway. Even the poorest Americans have cell phones, computer access, food stamps and public assistance to keep food on tables and roofs over heads.
I certainly don't feel Obama has any more of a "handle" on my situation as a lower-middle-class wage earner in America because of his disjointed stories of his stepfather, Lolo, and the adventures they had in Indonesia from '67 to '71. No, even as a Democrat, I can't say I feel any "closer" to Obama through what I know of his early life and accomplishments than a do any other politician in America.
So, now that the "background" of Mitt has been delivered, the last days of the convention need to focus on the "message" that the ticket will be taking to the street: HERE are the solutions to the problems facing America, and HERE are the means by which Romney/Ryan will achieve those solutions once elected.
I haven't had much time to follow the RNC at Tampa... and I know the MS contingent of the Bund probably hasn't either, what with all the Isaac preparations... but I've watched a little, and I wanted to say this.
When I first saw Ann Romney's speech, I thought she was laying on the "Mitt Praise" just a little thick... but she made one stellar point without ever coming out and saying it: Mitt holds a set of personal principles that do not allow him to indulge in self-aggrandizement the way President did from 2007 to today. For good or bad, he simply isn't the sort of man that seems capable of "tooting his own horn" in an effort to get the masses to accept him for what he purports to be.
Between his autobiography and his numerous television appearances where he explains (ad nauseum) his personal views and accomplishments and the paths that have led him there (all of which seem rather incongruent to me), we have a pretty detailed image of just who Obama is and why he does what he does. Without Ann's speech, we wouldn't have that for Mitt Romney. Now, do I think that Mitt has a solid, first-hand understanding of what it means to not be able to make his mortgage payment every month? Or not have enough in his accounts to get food AND school supplies the week before the kids go back? No, I don't. The man's father was wealthy by anyone's standards long before Mitt was old enough to understand bounced checks... and he was wealthy all his life. But does that really matter? Not at all. I don't believe he has to have experienced poverty to know it sucks... and very, very few Americans suffer from real poverty, anyway. Even the poorest Americans have cell phones, computer access, food stamps and public assistance to keep food on tables and roofs over heads.
I certainly don't feel Obama has any more of a "handle" on my situation as a lower-middle-class wage earner in America because of his disjointed stories of his stepfather, Lolo, and the adventures they had in Indonesia from '67 to '71. No, even as a Democrat, I can't say I feel any "closer" to Obama through what I know of his early life and accomplishments than a do any other politician in America.
So, now that the "background" of Mitt has been delivered, the last days of the convention need to focus on the "message" that the ticket will be taking to the street: HERE are the solutions to the problems facing America, and HERE are the means by which Romney/Ryan will achieve those solutions once elected.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sweet, a new fight!
F.Ryan writes:
Really? Please tell me this was just unfortunate sentence structure in an otherwise defensible rant:
"FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?"
Setting aside whether or not the GOP's unwillingness to even touch Social Security (et al) constitutes "following FDR's example," the gist of this paragraph communicates, as I read it, the opinion that the dynamic duo's "statist" domestic agenda both won WWII & ushered in economic "boom" times. Please tell me I've misinterpreted or you miswrote.
Really? Please tell me this was just unfortunate sentence structure in an otherwise defensible rant:
"FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?"
Setting aside whether or not the GOP's unwillingness to even touch Social Security (et al) constitutes "following FDR's example," the gist of this paragraph communicates, as I read it, the opinion that the dynamic duo's "statist" domestic agenda both won WWII & ushered in economic "boom" times. Please tell me I've misinterpreted or you miswrote.
Man, this is like old times... me pouring my heart out to the blog-o-sphere and you completely misunderstanding everything I write. Good times, good times...
I've said that I'm done trying to explain my position on New Deal (and all it encompasses) with you. I'm only stating the obvious here: FDR and Truman were "statists" (according to the Levin/Limbaugh/Ryan definition of the term), and while they were in office, we won a world war, won back all that was lost in the Korean conflict and enjoyed the largest "boom" period in modern history. Every President EXCEPT Reagan has followed the New Deal paradigm almost to the letter, especially the last two.
What more "statist" policy could there be than consumer rationing? Our entire economy, and every facet of our society that was effected by it, was geared around priorities and agendas set by the Federal government from Jan of 1942 until late into 1948, as the last of the Marshall Plan funds poured into Europe... and both the country and the Constitution not only survived, but thrived. Surely, you don't feel that we WON WWII in spite of the "total war" effort, as you do the Great Depression and New Deal? Is the rationale now that we'd have won the war faster had there been no rationing? No confiscation of resources? No eminent domain seizures? Surely not...
My comments, and specifically my "question", were rhetorical in nature. Big Government doesn't equal dismantled Constitution... otherwise we'd have fallen apart numerous times in our history, beginning with the Civil War.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
I'll say this much...
If this isn't the most important election in the last 100 years, then it is certainly the most entertaining one we've had since I started watching them.
The hyperbole is so outrageous on both sides of the card that it almost makes the whole thing look ridiculous. One side is promising that another four years of the current leadership will "destroy" America as we know it, while the other keeps making the claim that a change in leadership will "return" America to some imaginary Dark Age of the 1980s, when blacks were "in chains" and had no opportunity to make their lot better and the poor were used exclusively for the footstools of the super-rich.
Just look at the headlines... forget the articles, just the headlines... and see the verbiage employed to catch the attention of the public. An article I read this morning headlined the "Top 10 Biggest Lies" Paul Ryan has made since his pick as running mate to Romney. #5 on that list is the LIE that one of Ryan's favorite bands is "Rage Against the Machine", which is a LIE because Ryan is part of the machine they are raging against. Seriously? Where is the logic in that? Another article I read this morning said that at no point in our nation's history have we faced an "ideological crisis" the likes of the one we now find ourselves in, with a Progressive President systematically dismantling the country and leading it into a socialist model that puts government first and foremost in every respect. Really? This is the greatest ideological crisis in our history? The "slave vs free" ideologies didn't take the nation into a four year civil war that destroyed 40% of the nation's infrastructure and killed or wounded more than one million Americans? Progressives like FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?
I hear Glenn Beck and Mark Levin "promise" that the USA will not survive another four years of Obama, should he win in November, and I recall back to the days when the same was promised of the Clinton Administration as Bob Dole tried to rest the reigns from the "liberal elitists" running the show. I hear Arriana Huffington compare Paul Ryan to the Nazi regime in 1933, as she quotes Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
As I see it, the truth is nowhere near either of those extremes. Liberals in 1994 "promised" that the Pay-As-You-Go" Act would take 25 years to end deficit spending, and it took less than five. They said it would bankrupt the government and increase poverty and unemployment, and it did neither. No matter how BIG the debt load is right now (and it is at its biggest, ever), most of that debt is "imaginary" at best. We only owe the debt if we spend the money over the course of the next 13 years, so reducing spending in the next four years will dramatically reduce what is "owed" long-term.
I also don't see Obama "destroying" America. His vision for the nation is not mine, and I disagree with almost every portion of his political platform... but he is NOT re-writing or dismantling the Constitution any more than Bush did, or Johnson did, or Wilson did, or Lincoln did, or Jefferson did, or Washington did. He is pushing an agenda for the country that he feels will work... and if it doesn't, then he'll be voted out of office and probably take the Senate majority with him.
Paul Ryan does not oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest, he opposes the use of Federal funds to pay for those procedures. Yes, he is pro-life to the core, and I am sure that he DOES, morally, oppose abortion of any kind... but he can't refuse someone the "right" to choose simply because he disagrees with the choice, as long as the choice is legal. In that sense, he and I are on the EXACT same page.
Obama has stated that he will not enforce in-place laws and regulations concerning illegal immigration and the detention and deportation of said illegals, and I feel this is wrong. However, he is not doing something that has never been done before, is he? Disregarding established laws is a habit that many Presidents have taken up, going all the way back to Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act and following all the way up to George W. Bush (who also didn't enforce established immigration policy). This list of Presidents includes some GOP favorites, with Ronald Reagan topping the list.
The blame lies with us, though... not the campaigns or the press. We, the voting public, have become so immune to the hyperbole and exaggeration that it is simply accepted... even expected. If we really cared, we wouldn't allow it. We'd demand answers, not fluff. We'd ask questions about policy and agendas that mattered, not what music is on a candidate's iPod.
Sad, isn't it?
The hyperbole is so outrageous on both sides of the card that it almost makes the whole thing look ridiculous. One side is promising that another four years of the current leadership will "destroy" America as we know it, while the other keeps making the claim that a change in leadership will "return" America to some imaginary Dark Age of the 1980s, when blacks were "in chains" and had no opportunity to make their lot better and the poor were used exclusively for the footstools of the super-rich.
Just look at the headlines... forget the articles, just the headlines... and see the verbiage employed to catch the attention of the public. An article I read this morning headlined the "Top 10 Biggest Lies" Paul Ryan has made since his pick as running mate to Romney. #5 on that list is the LIE that one of Ryan's favorite bands is "Rage Against the Machine", which is a LIE because Ryan is part of the machine they are raging against. Seriously? Where is the logic in that? Another article I read this morning said that at no point in our nation's history have we faced an "ideological crisis" the likes of the one we now find ourselves in, with a Progressive President systematically dismantling the country and leading it into a socialist model that puts government first and foremost in every respect. Really? This is the greatest ideological crisis in our history? The "slave vs free" ideologies didn't take the nation into a four year civil war that destroyed 40% of the nation's infrastructure and killed or wounded more than one million Americans? Progressives like FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?
I hear Glenn Beck and Mark Levin "promise" that the USA will not survive another four years of Obama, should he win in November, and I recall back to the days when the same was promised of the Clinton Administration as Bob Dole tried to rest the reigns from the "liberal elitists" running the show. I hear Arriana Huffington compare Paul Ryan to the Nazi regime in 1933, as she quotes Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
As I see it, the truth is nowhere near either of those extremes. Liberals in 1994 "promised" that the Pay-As-You-Go" Act would take 25 years to end deficit spending, and it took less than five. They said it would bankrupt the government and increase poverty and unemployment, and it did neither. No matter how BIG the debt load is right now (and it is at its biggest, ever), most of that debt is "imaginary" at best. We only owe the debt if we spend the money over the course of the next 13 years, so reducing spending in the next four years will dramatically reduce what is "owed" long-term.
I also don't see Obama "destroying" America. His vision for the nation is not mine, and I disagree with almost every portion of his political platform... but he is NOT re-writing or dismantling the Constitution any more than Bush did, or Johnson did, or Wilson did, or Lincoln did, or Jefferson did, or Washington did. He is pushing an agenda for the country that he feels will work... and if it doesn't, then he'll be voted out of office and probably take the Senate majority with him.
Paul Ryan does not oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest, he opposes the use of Federal funds to pay for those procedures. Yes, he is pro-life to the core, and I am sure that he DOES, morally, oppose abortion of any kind... but he can't refuse someone the "right" to choose simply because he disagrees with the choice, as long as the choice is legal. In that sense, he and I are on the EXACT same page.
Obama has stated that he will not enforce in-place laws and regulations concerning illegal immigration and the detention and deportation of said illegals, and I feel this is wrong. However, he is not doing something that has never been done before, is he? Disregarding established laws is a habit that many Presidents have taken up, going all the way back to Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act and following all the way up to George W. Bush (who also didn't enforce established immigration policy). This list of Presidents includes some GOP favorites, with Ronald Reagan topping the list.
The blame lies with us, though... not the campaigns or the press. We, the voting public, have become so immune to the hyperbole and exaggeration that it is simply accepted... even expected. If we really cared, we wouldn't allow it. We'd demand answers, not fluff. We'd ask questions about policy and agendas that mattered, not what music is on a candidate's iPod.
Sad, isn't it?
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
What about principles?
Driving home from work last night, I was listening to the last half hour of the Levin show on the radio. He had the Chairman of the RNC on as his guest (don't recall his name), and when I dialed in the radio, the discussion was about Todd Akin.
The Chairman seemed adamant that the RNC and the Republican Party's national body distance itself ("divorce itself" was the term he used) from anything to do with Akin... for obvious reasons. His ignorant statement about a woman's ability to "shut down" conception at will, coupled with the outrageous statement that there are acceptable forms of rape (those that aren't "legitimate" seemingly) have brought a firestorm of heat from the press and public quarters in a race that is already very, very heated.
Levin seemed utterly ready to dedicate himself to voting for Akin, or anyone else sporting a GOP label, as long as it means we win the needed majorities in the House and maintain and extend the Senate majority, as well as gaining the White House.
I don't think Akin is going to win his race... not after the gaff. Let's assume I'm right, for just a minute.
Is Levin right? Do we continue to feed money, time and effort into a campaign that might very well be lost from the start... just to ensure the widest possible margin of victory across the national landscape?
Or is the Chairman right? Is putting national funds and efforts behind the Akin race simply throwing good money away?
I'm going with the Chairman on this one. The GOP is in a pinch... but it can't hope to win anything substantial if the standards set by the national GOP platform aren't met by the candidates running, and Akin did NOTHING to make me think he understands those standards or is willing to apply them to his personal or campaign performance.
In short, the GOP determined that "an abortion is an abortion" and that all life is sacred and worth protecting, period. That means they are NOT trying to qualify when life is sacred and when it isn't. Why then should we compromise conservative principles by saying that some "rapes" are legitimate and others are not? Do we, as conservatives, not rail against the Dems and libs when they try to qualify terms and actions like "terrorist" versus "extremist"? Do we not hate the fact that they live to "qualify" the means by which wealth, property and prosperity are measured and meted out according to their (the liberals) agendas, rather than the agendas of the individuals?
Akin stepped on his proverbial member, and should answer accordingly. We hold the Democrats accountable for their gaffs and ignorant rants, do we not? Akin should expect no better treatment from his own party than that.
The Chairman seemed adamant that the RNC and the Republican Party's national body distance itself ("divorce itself" was the term he used) from anything to do with Akin... for obvious reasons. His ignorant statement about a woman's ability to "shut down" conception at will, coupled with the outrageous statement that there are acceptable forms of rape (those that aren't "legitimate" seemingly) have brought a firestorm of heat from the press and public quarters in a race that is already very, very heated.
Levin seemed utterly ready to dedicate himself to voting for Akin, or anyone else sporting a GOP label, as long as it means we win the needed majorities in the House and maintain and extend the Senate majority, as well as gaining the White House.
I don't think Akin is going to win his race... not after the gaff. Let's assume I'm right, for just a minute.
Is Levin right? Do we continue to feed money, time and effort into a campaign that might very well be lost from the start... just to ensure the widest possible margin of victory across the national landscape?
Or is the Chairman right? Is putting national funds and efforts behind the Akin race simply throwing good money away?
I'm going with the Chairman on this one. The GOP is in a pinch... but it can't hope to win anything substantial if the standards set by the national GOP platform aren't met by the candidates running, and Akin did NOTHING to make me think he understands those standards or is willing to apply them to his personal or campaign performance.
In short, the GOP determined that "an abortion is an abortion" and that all life is sacred and worth protecting, period. That means they are NOT trying to qualify when life is sacred and when it isn't. Why then should we compromise conservative principles by saying that some "rapes" are legitimate and others are not? Do we, as conservatives, not rail against the Dems and libs when they try to qualify terms and actions like "terrorist" versus "extremist"? Do we not hate the fact that they live to "qualify" the means by which wealth, property and prosperity are measured and meted out according to their (the liberals) agendas, rather than the agendas of the individuals?
Akin stepped on his proverbial member, and should answer accordingly. We hold the Democrats accountable for their gaffs and ignorant rants, do we not? Akin should expect no better treatment from his own party than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
