JACK'S BLOG
|
|
11/10/2012 8 Comments Why are they gloating?Election 2012WHY DO THEY TAKE malignant pleasure in the defeat of Mitt Romney? Why don't they just celebrate their victory while you can. If I'm right and they're wrong, they won't be celebrating very long. Of course they think I'm wrong. They know I'm wrong. Barack Obama is a great leader. Mitt Romney is just a spoiled rich man. Our health care problems are solved. The economy is growing. Unemployment will soon be a distant memory. Terrorists are laying down their arms and flocking to embrace us.
I suspect that the Republicans who control the House of Representatives will fight them in every way they can. They will hang onto the desperate notion that they can still rescue America. Unfortunately, their efforts will only be seen as the cause of any and all failures in the coming years. They will be blamed even though the damage is already done. Honestly, I hope they step aside and grant all your wishes. I don't want them to have any excuses. Let all that is about to befall on the United States and the world land squarely on their shoulders. Will I gloat if events prove me correct and that they chose unwisely? No. I will cry with them. I simply got a head start. I awoke with a sense of dread at 3:00 am on the morning following the election. I began crying. I was crying for my nation and my children. I even cried for them. Then I prayed. I prayed that I was wrong. I prayed that the future I saw was an illusion. No other election has affected me this way. I'm sure that some of them are now laughing, just as many of them laugh at the doctored photograph of Mitt Romney as a weeping clown, the one that I found on my Facebook wall the day after the election. Do they really think that he's sad for losing? I can only imagine that he's relieved. I know that his wife is. He had volunteered for a monumental task, an almost impossible one. No, if he's sad now, I imagine that he is sharing my sadness. This election was the tipping point. Barack Obama's dream has come true. America is fundamentally changed. He had achieved his father's dream. Just as he wrote in his book, he has brought America down a notch. We will never again bully the world. However, neither will we save the world again. I hope that all our friends in other nations who are gloating will remember that when they are desperately seeking someone to bail them out. What will Mitt do now? I don't know but, if I were him, I'd clear out. Take my wealth and head for a tropical paradise. Wealth is very portable. If he hangs around, the government will eventually confiscate it. They will invest it in more bankrupt businesses like Solindra and General Motors. Do you really think that General Motors is thriving? So what if they were wrong? If things turn out as badly as I expect, they can always put them back together, can't they? Well, actually, no. They can't. Where will they find the investment capital to rebuild the health care industry? The manufacturing industry? Where will they find entrepreneurs? Why would anyone trust them and take a chance on America again? Good luck with any of that. “All the king's horses, and all the king's men...”
8 Comments
11/3/2012 4 Comments Did Barack Obama rise to the challenges of the office of President of the United States?Election 2012LET'S PUT ASIDE partisan politics and ideology for just a moment and consider the question: Did Barack Obama rise to the challenges of the office of President of the United States? No one comes to that place fully prepared for its responsibility and authority. Every person who ever held the office had to rise to it. Not all of them have, at least, not in the eyes of the people. Only about half of all Presidents have been elected to more than one term. Why would voters risk replacing the incumbent if they were only going to get another inexperienced President. Have the other half, the ones who didn't win reelection botched the job that badly? Did they fail to rise to the challenges of the office? Or, are the people simply fickle? People of good will differ over whether or not President Obama has “botched the job”. Most likely, they differ on the basis of politics and ideology. I have no political skin in this game. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. However, I confess that my ideology is the polar opposite of the President's. Regardless, I am going to put that aside for the moment. Can I? Honestly, yes. For example, I recognize that Nancy Pelosi was a surprisingly effective leader of her party and the House of Representatives while Speaker of the House, although I disagree in every respect with her ideology. Likewise, I disagree totally with President Obama's ideology. However, I cast my vote this election (early) against him, not so much because of these disagreements, but rather because of his failure “to be” the President.
To be the President, a person must accept the responsibilities that come with the office. Harry Truman symbolized this best when he placed a plaque on his desk in the Oval Office engraved with the homily, “The Buck Stops Here”. Fair or not, it's true. All responsibility for the protection of the people and our sovereign territory, the enforcement of all federal laws, the provision of all federally hosted public services, and the conduct of all foreign affairs is in the hands of the President. The President also sets foreign policy and makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. He may delegate authority, but he cannot delegate responsibility. That's a lot to put on the shoulders of just one person. Actually, I'm not certain that “shoulders” is where that weight is borne. There was a homily that we learned in the Army that explained the difference in the degree of authority and responsibilities an officer had to bear. The question was asked, “Why do noncommissioned officers wear their rank on their sleeves and commissioned officers wear them on their shoulders?” The answer was, “Because a person can carry a greater weight on their shoulders than in their arms.” I cannot imagine where a President bears his responsibilities. There can be no argument that President Obama has ducked and dodged his responsibilities during the past four years. He continues to blame the state of the economy on his predecessor. He blames Republicans for obstructing his plans. He brings lawsuits against governors who attempt to protect their states from the incursions of criminals while he surrenders sovereign territory to foreign drug lords. He enforces laws selectively, selecting which laws to enforce and who he will enforce them upon. He allows subordinates to throw themselves under the bus for the death of American diplomats in Benghazi. Yes, he inherited an economic mess. However, he should have thought of that before he accepted his party's nomination let alone entered the office. Once he did, the mess became his responsibility. Now, don't tell me he needs more time. Since Barack Obama accepted stewardship of the United States, the problems have worsened. Had he accepted responsibility for his mistakes as well as the problems, he might have seen the need to make adjustments that would have corrected the situation. But, by finding fault in everyone else, he has avoided recognizing his part in exacerbating the issues. Thus, he has never seen the need to alter course. He forges ahead guided only by ideology, blind to the disasters he leaves in his wake. Millions more out of work. Economic stagnation. Destabilization in the Middle East. I know it's disappointing. We all hoped that Barack Obama would succeed. We prayed that he would. It shouldn't have mattered that he was a person of color, but it did. We were proud that we had elevated a black man to the highest office in our land. Yes, there are still bigots. There always will be as long as there are idiots. But, bigotry is no longer the law of the land. It is no longer tolerated in polite society. We celebrated his election, even those of us who had not voted for him, because we saw it as a great stride towards social justice in our country. I didn't vote for him in 2008 because he had no credentials to convince me that he could rise to the challenges of the Presidency. He had no executive experience. A community organizer has no experience with authority and responsibilities. His record as a legislator was very thin. He frequently avoided making decisions by voting “Present”. My decision to vote for his opponent was made without even considering his ideology. Again, his partisan politics aren't my concern. However, once elected, he was President, my President, and I hoped, and I was disappointed. Inasmuch as his campaign demonstrates unequivocally that he continues to avoid all responsibility, I see no hope of change. Election 2012I CAN TALK to some of my friends and family about anything. Others want me to shut up if I say anything about politics. Why is that? Do they lack confidence in their beliefs or do they fear me? Okay, I get it. I'm different. I have never shied away from a good debate. I have even adopted a contrary position on occasion just because I was bored simply agreeing with everyone around me. When people who knew my attitudes and beliefs caught me playing devil's advocate, I excused myself as testing my own opinions.
I can't help but smile at the memory of the night when a friend tried to engage me in debate. Apparently I failed to rise to the bait he offered. I guess that I was distracted by my own thoughts and missed his verbal challenges. Finally, he looked me in the eye and asked what was wrong. Something had to be wrong with me to avoid a good debate. Thus, I cannot judge others by my own behavior. Not everyone enjoys conflict as much as I. However, this still doesn't satisfy my curiosity. What is wrong with people who run from it? We are about to make an important decision on November 6th. Doesn't everyone want to have the facts and make the best decision? How can they know for sure that they're making the best decision if they don't make a conscious effort to think about it, converse about it, debate it, argue it? Conservatives talk with me. Tea Partiers will go toe to toe with me. Democrats have never been shy. But liberals? Progressives? No way. Several important issues have come to light in recent days. You won't find them mentioned on the leading broadcast networks or in large city newspapers. They seem to be avoiding them. However, the blogosphere is alive with them. I'm only seeing one side of this news. I would love to talk with anyone who supports President Obama's reelection to get their side of the story. However, if I even mention these developments, they recoil in horror, accuse me of spreading malicious gossip, and threaten to “unfriend” me if I don't shut up and go away. What is their problem? What are they afraid of? What are these issues?
All of these issues, and others, are being presented with highly credible evidence from highly credible sources. I'm sure there are opposing viewpoints, but the people I expect to present them, especially those who support President Obama assiduously, won't even discuss them. They attempt to distract me with specious attacks on Mitt Romney. They complain that George Bush is responsible for all the ills that face America. The President himself deflects blame on others. Whatever happened to the sign that Harry Truman used to keep in the Oval Office when he was President, “The Buck Stops Here”? I don't need people who agree with me. I need my friends and family who support the President to challenge me, to show me, with credible evidence, the error of these assertions. Or, if they accept these charges as true, do they not care and support the President in spite of them? Maybe they think I shouldn't care either. Why won't they tell me? Why won't they even talk to me? Election 2012I STILL HAVE doubts that Romney is truly committed to becoming President of the United States. He didn't display any real passion for it until his first debate with President Obama. The Republican debates during the primary season found Romney awash in conflicting ideas on how to best deal with America's issues. He didn't so much win the nomination of his party, but rather outlasted his opposition as, one-by-one, they fell by the wayside. Mitt Romney's résumé is impressive. He has a long history of resuscitating lost causes: businesses, governments, and the modern Olympics. Some may cry foul at the mention of the Olympic Games inasmuch as he took public funding to help finance them. So what? Some will have to explain to me how that diminishes his accomplishment. The Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City that he managed was well organized and the city didn't go bankrupt by hosting them. Now, look at how many businesses have received public funding through Obama, and gone bankrupt. Yes, some businesses that Romney took on ultimately failed, and there are those who quickly point to these failures as reason to discredit his other accomplishments. However, those making this case are only belying their own ignorance of entrepreneurship. Most new businesses fail, as many as ninety percent of them. Romney is remarkable in having a far higher rate of success. The President's record of picking losers is stunning. Does experience as a business executive qualify anyone to be a government executive? Hardly. We can find many examples of successful businessmen and women failing when they attempted to translate their business skills to governing. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a prime example. Many don't realize just how intelligent Arnold is, or how successful he was in business. Unfortunately, he had no experience in politics prior to becoming governor of California. Mitt Romney has no such problem. He has been a successful governor as well as a successful businessman. One thing worries me about Romney. He was challenged in the second debate with President Obama to differentiate himself from former President Bush, and was fairly successful in his response. However, there is one weakness that he shares with Bush. He is equally deluded in the belief that he can “reach across the aisle” to create bipartisan consensus. Both men had experience working with state legislatures dominated by Democrats. Bush came to Washington thinking he could do the same in dealing with Congress. I can still see in my mind's eye, the image of Bush, shortly after his inauguration, standing arm-in-arm with Senator Teddy Kennedy, who quickly began inserting knives into Bush's back at every opportunity. I can imagine the same happening if the Democrats retain control of the Senate, and Romney attempts to get a budget through Congress. . As the candidates discuss government spending during the debates, I can't help but think how futile it all will be if the Democrats continue to stand in the way of any budget that the Republicans attempt to craft. They even rejected the budget plan that Obama submitted. Why would any sane person want to deal with that mess?
Ultimately, Romney probably will fail to deliver on his campaign promises if he is saddled with the Democrats in control of the Senate. He won't be able to rescind Obamacare, revise the tax code, or get government spending under control. Unless, of course, Romney is able to marshal the American electorate to apply enough pressure on the Senate to approve his proposals. Few Presidents have had this ability, and I'm not sure that I see it in Romney as yet. He may surprise me. First, he will have to convince me that he really wants the job Election 2012YOU MAY HAVE missed it as you watched the Vice Presidential debate. Behind all that laughter, Joe Biden was angry. Go ahead, Google the event, and look at the images that were captured. Most of those that focus on Vice President Biden clearly show microexpressions displaying anger. Granted, the study of microexpressions is a controversial theory that we betray our real emotions involuntarily in brief flashes during stressful situations, especially when we are under intense scrutiny. There's no question that was the case during the Vice Presidential Debate. Obama was beaten in his opening debate with Romney; he's admitted as much. The smart money was on Ryan to beat Biden inasmuch as he is much better prepared to argue the economy, and Biden has a well-earned reputation for putting his foot in his mouth when he gets excited. Yes, Joe Biden was under a lot of stress and his microexpressions were definitely revealing his discomfort. But, it wasn't just his face that gave Biden away. He also laughed almost constantly, inappropriately, as serious topics were discussed. He was rude. He interrupted his opponent and the moderator repeatedly, more than 80 times in 90 minutes. Joe Biden isn't that type of person ordinarily. Vice President Biden is, by my calculation, one of the most decent men serving in elected office today. He is gracious and considerate to a fault. What else but anger could drive him to react improperly in the midst of a public forum? I'm not so much concerned with who won or lost the debate as I am in unraveling this mystery: Why was Joe Biden so angry? We could argue until the cock crows in the morning over who won or lost. There are plenty of pundits already focusing on that issue. The polls seem to favor Ryan in measures of likability and clarity, and yet there are plenty who are proclaiming Biden the winner. Those who listened to the debate on the radio scored it in Ryan's favor. They didn't see the maniacal expression on Biden's face. I have my own opinion, but it fades to insignificance as I study Biden's emotional reactions. Obviously, Ryan's verbal punches hurt. When President Obama debated Governor Romney, he reacted to his opponent's jabs by looking down and flinching away as though he were physically struck. In this debate between the Vice Presidential candidates, Joe Biden's reaction was similarly painful. He too flinched but masked it with a smile. When the pain became unbearable, he began talking over Ryan. How could they not be hurt? They have no factual evidence to refute the claims that their policies have failed. More than once, Biden accused Ryan of lying. You may agree. However, that assertion is in and of itself more evidence of anger, especially when he cast his anger at the moderator. Everyone lies. People seem to accept lying by politicians as the norm. However, I don't think that either Biden or Ryan lie more than the average person. I didn't hear Ryan lie. He is renowned for his storehouse of facts and figures, and he used them appropriately. Unfortunately, Joe Biden was forced to lie. It was painfully obvious when he announced that the Administration didn't provide adequate security for the American Embassy in Benghazi because of faulty intelligence. Both the State Department and the White House admitted almost two weeks ago that they knew the Ambassador and three others were murdered in a terrorist attack. Sadly for Biden, his Commander-in-Chief has been repeating the lie despite his own staff's revelations. Biden's loyalty overcame his honor and he parroted Obama's lie. Of course, it made him angry. Joe Biden is a decent man. I have no question that is true. Unfortunately, the Administration in which he has been participating over the past four years, was elected on nothing more than good intentions. Yes, I know, they and their supporters have compiled lists of accomplishments for your consideration. But, the objective truth is that the economy has shrunk in every one of the past four years. Unemployment has only shown a gasp of recovering in the last month, and only after the Labor Department adjusted the method of calculation. All of which goes to prove that good intentions aren't enough. They result is bad outcomes when good intentions are not accompanied by wise decisions. That's why I think that Joe Biden is angry. He wanted to help fix America's problems. He wanted to get people back to work. He wanted the economy to grow. Like the rest of us, he was led to believe that Barack Obama would lead us to prosperity, and he supported his Commander-in-Chief to the best of his ability. Unfortunately, the President led us the wrong way and, despite all his good intentions, Joe Biden is complicit in the results.
Yes, Biden was under great pressure to score one for his team after last week's embarrassing loss by Obama to Romney, a loss even the President has been forced to concede. However, as Ryan observed, his repeated interruptions interfered with the event. Even worse, it left him appearing, as one pundit commented, “looking like a drunken lout.” I wouldn't go that far, but I don't believe Biden helped himself or his team. Whether he won or lost is insignificant. 10/6/2012 8 Comments Did something more important than winning & losing happen at the first Presidential #Debate?Election 2012MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE that President Obama lost the first Presidential debate. Polls show it. Pundits announced it. Even his most ardent supporters are bemoaning it. They're rushing to provide excuses for his loss. “The air in Denver was too thin.” “He was too busy governing to prepare properly.” “He was distracted by his wedding anniversary.” “He looked tired.” Funny, he didn't look tired to me. One even played the racism card: “He had to be careful not to appear as an angry black man.” In truth, I was surprised by how well he debated. President Obama has never before shown a flair for extemporaneous speaking. Each time he turns away from the teleprompter, we are drawn into an adventure filled with malaprops and misstatements, much like George Bush. However, during the debate, he remained focused and stated his case with authority. I recorded and studied the event carefully, and never saw him falter. Tired? He never yawned. He didn't look at his watch. He was attentive and reacted instantaneously when something humorous occurred. He never once missed a comment or a question, and never asked for anything to be repeated. Still, everyone seemed to think that he was tired. Why? That was the question that plagued me as I studied the debate and reviewed audience Tweets or listened to the post debate commentaries. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the President and his supporters were confronted with something far worse than a personal loss. They were confronted with the fact that they have no record to run on. They have no message except to blame their predecessor or attempt to libel their opponent. The moderator attempted to help the President by phrasing every question in a way that invited him to define his opponent's positions and proposals and then differentiate his. He began each topic saying, "What are the differences between you and your opponent." How else could anyone respond but by first defining the opposition? Obama used this opportunity to misstate Romney's proposals in the same terms that have been used in his attack ads. Much to his credit, Romney didn't attack Obama, he attacked his record. He cited irrefutable facts that clearly demonstrate that Obama's progressive principles have failed as when he stated that "Trickle down government is the flood of your failed policies." When Obama complained that subsidies to "fat cat" corporations, such as $2 billion per year to oil companies, indicate misplaced priorities and that budgets reflect "where your heart is", Romney correctly observed that his Administration has invested "$90 billion in green jobs - that's the equivalent of 45 years of oil subsidies." In the past, debate moderators have protected Obama from such attacks. Jim Lehrer tried it just once in the beginning and Romney brushed him aside to press his attack. Throughout the debate, the President looked away from the audience and his opponent, as Romney attacked other failures of this Administration. We didn't need anyone else's opinion of who won or lost the debate. Obama's look told the story. He didn't lose, he surrendered. I wonder if he fails to be reelected, we will at last repudiate his ideas and the progressive ideology that drives them.
Election 2012MOST PEOPLE SEEM to think that the election on November 6th is a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It isn't, not really. Some think that it's Democrat vs. Republican or Conservative vs. Liberal. A good argument could be made that we're supposed to vote either for or against Obama. A few idiots even go so far as to suggest that it's the racists vs the blacks. Pundits can be found debating the election from all of these points of view. I'm not buying any of them. What I wish we were all talking about is simply this: What is the legitimate role of government? If we could agree on that, making compromises here and there as needed, it would be easy to select our law makers and our Chief Executive. We would simply vote for those who are best equipped to perform that role and commit to it. The problem is that we the people are not in agreement on this most fundamental issue.
Let's be honest. If we're going to expand the size and scope of government any further, we must trash the Constitution. We've already violated it many times. Ever since the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act at the end of the 19th century, we have gone well beyond the limited role of government as envisioned by the Founders. We've quibbled with the terms of the document to excuse every excess since then. Again, let's be honest. If you want this government or you want to expand it even further, you need a new constitution. You need to redefine America. It's clear that those who wish to preserve the Constitution are in the minority. It's likely that those in favor of rewriting it are also a minority. A third minority most likely doesn't care one way or the other. If there is a majority, it is composed of people who haven't given it any thought and couldn't be motivated to take an interest. However, the dissonance between our core principles and the practical application of them is creating a problem. We need to start the discussion and resolve it. President Obama is an excellent choice for those who want to rewrite the Constitution and expand the role of government. In word and action, he has chaffed under its restrictions and, on occasion, violated them. In addition to Constitutional constraints, his Administration has selectively chosen to enforce or not enforce legislative mandates. I'm not certain that Mitt Romney would fare better even if he's elected. He has spoken of the need to reduce spending, but has avoided addressing the subject of the role of government. If he were elected and wanted to eliminate programs as a method of reducing spending, he would be at odds with the convoluted legal precedents that we have contrived to justify those that are extra-Constitutional. Without eliminating programs that are beyond the scope of government envisioned in the Constitution, Romney could never reduce government spending enough to avoid the fiscal disaster that is looming in our future. Regardless of the promises that we've heard from politicians during these past one hundred years, government spending is unsustainable at its current rates. Thus, as we enter the debate season in these coming weeks, I'm going to be listening for this discussion: What is the legitimate role of government? If no one addresses it, I believe that we are going to descend into an abyss regardless of who is elected. Election 2012WE THE PEOPLE are fast approaching a tipping point. We are about to relinquish political power to those who seek equality. People living on the government dole will soon outnumber those who pay for it. They will be in the majority and able to elect whomever they want. Is there any doubt that they will only want to elect those who redistribute wealth from the wealth producers to them? Once they dominate, is there any reason to believe that they will elect leaders who would reverse that trend? These two graphs show our government at work attempting to create equality. They're taking from tax payers and giving to non-payers. Even though there are still more households paying taxes than there are collecting benefits, the system is unsustainable. Imagine how bad it will be when the balance tips the other way and there are more non-payers than payers. Now imagine candidates running for office in an attempt to pull the country back from the brink of financial ruin. Obviously, most voters on the public dole will be inclined to vote for their opponents, especially if the opponents disclaim any problem and promise to continue redistributing the wealth. How should the candidates for fiscal responsibility appeal to the beneficiaries of government largess? Or, should they focus their attention on those who are footing the tax bill and looking for relief? Interestingly, Candidate Romney raised this issue, and has been castigated for dissing the American people – well, at least those Americans who don't pay taxes. This country was not founded on the principle of equality. The Declaration of Independence professes that all men are created equal, however, it then explains that equality refers to everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What each of us does with those rights is in our own hands. It does not state either explicitly or implicitly, that anyone of us is responsible for anyone else's life, liberty, or happiness. The word “equality” does not even appear anywhere in the Constitution or its Amendments. “Equality” is a progressive concept, popularized around the start of the last century. Every attempt by progressives to attain equality has diminished the United States. We the people have suffered. Our economy has suffered. Our liberties have suffered for the following reasons:
I do know that President Obama and many of his party have not only championed progressive ideals, but also promise to continue to do so if re-elected. It seems that a fair percentage of those polled wish to return the progressives to office. It's interesting that their popularity in the polls almost equals the percentage of people on the public dole. This brings me back to my opening statement: “We the people are fast approaching a tipping point.” They are approaching a majority, but have not yet reached it. There is still time to turn back the tide of progressivism. This opportunity may not exist in the next election if we fail to turn back the momentum of progressivism in this election.
Election 2012WHAT ARE THE DUTIES of the President of the United States? When you vote in November, you will be choosing the person best qualified to perform the duties of that office. How can anyone choose well if they don't know what those duties are? Simply put, the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States and its chief diplomat as well as the Commander in Chief of its armed forces. Although that's just three basic duties, each entails tens of thousands of detailed tasks that require staffs of tens of thousands organized into departments and bureaus, and the President is responsible for supervising them all. Although there were far fewer laws to enforce when George Washington became the first President, he understood intuitively that he needed help. He fell back on his experience as a military commander and delegated his authority to a staff, a Cabinet of Secretaries. No, the Constitution didn't specify the President's Cabinet, it was Washington's own contrivance. However, inasmuch as the President was delegating executive authority to unelected individuals, who were, in effect officers of the United States, Congress held the right to evaluate and approve his appointments. Did you notice that I said that Washington delegated executive authority only. He did not, he could not delegate executive responsibility. Thus, all blame as well as all fault for the conduct of the Executive Branch of government falls on the shoulders of the President. Indeed, as Harry Truman discovered, all credit and all blame for virtually everything that happens in the United States, even things over which he has no responsibility or authority – such as the economy – fall on the President's shoulders. That is why he had a brass plate engraved and placed on his desk stating that “The Buck Stops Here.” Truman had broad shoulders. No President has ever ducked responsibility with as much alacrity as Barack Obama. He and his supporters have attempted to shift blame in almost every instance where things have gone wrong.
Notice, I did not say that Barack Obama is responsible for the failing economy, the rising debt, and persistent unemployment. I only mentioned that these problems have persisted and grown during his tenure in office. The truth is that the root causes of these issues go well beyond Executive authority and responsibility. Barack Obama has simply been absent as the elected leader in helping to resolve them. If anything, he has exacerbated these problems, but is not fully responsible for them In fairness to President Obama, these problems were thrust upon him, not by George Bush or Congress. We did it to him when we elected an unqualified individual to be President. If you must place blame, look into a mirror. Barack Obama was the least qualified individual ever to be elected President. He had no executive experience. His legislative credentials were sparse. Yes, he had served in the Illinois State Legislature and the United States Senate. However, he was not a sponsor of even one piece of legislation and was wont to vote “Present” when simple “Yes or No” decisions were required. Where did we expect that he might have learned leadership skills? He never owned, operated, or managed anything other than his own time. He never even served as a Boy Scout or a military leader. If you owned or were an executive in a business, and Barack Obama applied for a management position, would you have hired him after looking at his resume? Only a fool would answer yes. How then did we the people decide that he was qualified to be President? Of course, his resume has a little more meat to it now. He has served one term as President. Is there any indication that he learned anything on the job? Or, has he ducked his responsibilities in the same manner that he ducked them as a legislator and a senator when he voted “present”? Not only has he spent more time on the golf course (600 hours) than he has in security briefings (463 hours), he ducked the first security briefing following the attacks on U.S. Embassies and Consulates in the Middle East. Most importantly, he has never learned that “the buck stops with him.” He continues to deflect blame for every untoward occurrence. He threw Hillary Clinton under the bus for apologizing to Muslims for a film that inspired them to attack U.S. Missions and murder U.S. Diplomats, while he has set the gold standard for apologizing to Muslims. A recent statement by his Press Secretary would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. In it he averred that the Muslim attacks on U.S. Embassies and diplomats aren't attacks on the United States. Rather, they are attacks on a film. Really? So the buildings they burned weren't really sovereign institutions of the United States, they were Hollywood props? The persons they murdered weren't really American diplomats, they were simply actors? On November 21, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama, campaigning to be President, promised that Muslim violence would end if he were elected President. I didn't expect him to keep that promise, did you? It was just another campaign promise by a politician, or did you hope there was going to be a change and campaign promises would be kept? Can we survive another four years with an unqualified President?
Election 2012IT CAN'T BE DONE. I've gotten trapped into political arguments on Twitter a couple of times these past few weeks. It's my own fault. I blog periodically on political topics. I'll be doing more of it in the coming weeks, until the November election. A blog is an appropriate place for this sort of thing. I have enough space to state my opinion and readers have room to reply. But, in a Tweet? No way. I've had to block a couple of Tweeple. I don't mind that they disagree. That's what politics is all about. It's just that they were frustrated by their inability to sway me and became insulting. That sort of behavior gets you blocked.
I know I shouldn't argue politics. I'm not. I'm not even of a mind to debate. I don't expect to sway anyone's opinion any more than I expect them to sway mine. We've become too polarized for that. My sole objective is to motivate people to vote. They need to vote. This election is too important for people to neglect. What's so important? Listen to the new alternatives. The Democrats are not the same party I joined when I turned twenty-one and registered the first time back in 1964. Not by a long shot. I joined the party of Truman and Kennedy. (Well, to be honest, I joined them to piss off my father.) Still, they became the party of Eugene McCarthy, The Rainbow Coalition. What was that? Simply, the strategy of Eugene McCarthy and the Democratic nominees thereafter was to abandon all principles and appeal to a coalition of disparate voting blocs: Blacks, Jews, Feminists, Gays, Lesbians, Environmentalists, whatever and whomever. It didn't matter if these groups held antithetical positions, they would find something that appealed to them in the Democratic Party. Now, before you hit the “comment” button and start castigating me, please take note that I'm not too happy with the Republicans either. They aren't the party of Lincoln any more than the Democrats are the party of the Ku Klux Klan. Remember, the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1966 by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats led by a Southern Democrat, President Lyndon B. Johnson. Also, don't forget it was a Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, who opposed civil rights legislation during the 1950s. Actually, the Republicans held a majority of the Congress in just one session during my adult lifetime. They were elected on the promise, A Contract With America, to bring federal spending under control. They were able to honor that promise during just one term, and then began spending like drunken Democrats. Now, when they have the ability to take out a sitting President on just one issue, the economy, they muddy the waters with irrelevant, controversial issues: Abortion, religion, etc. Good luck with that. If you've resisted the urge to comment thus far, you've come to my real message. Every Presidential election since 1964 has been decided by those who didn't vote. During that same period, Americans have become increasingly agitated with whichever candidate was elected. In recent years, opponents have castigated Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama relentlessly. Indeed, the level of rancor has been elevated with every one of them. The bottom line is that if you didn't vote, you should have the decency to shut up! Given the declining percentage of qualified voters who actually made it to the polls, that should lower the level of vitriol significantly. I believe that the vast majority of voters have too much common sense to vote for a party that is hell bent on exacerbating the problems with the economy even further by waging class warfare and spending us into oblivion. They replaced a broken health care system with the illusion of a system, one that every competent authority predicts is bankrupt before it gets started. I also believe that they will only tolerate the Republican alternative until they either reverse the trend or can be run out of office themselves. They won't have four years to do the job. They'll only have two, until the next Congressional elections, to show progress, or out they go, too. The problem with the majority is that they simply aren't all that interested in politics. They tend to look at all of the hullabaloo over Obama and shrug. They listen to the Republican promises and say, “Yeah, sure.” They're too busy trying to circumvent government regulations, looking for a few scraps of money that the government hasn't already taxed, borrowed, or spent, to build a business. It's time that the majority wake up and take back their country. Look at the facts. It's all there in our history. Government did not build this nation. People built it. Indeed, they came to this new land to escape government. They created the greatest economy the world has ever seen. They rose into the ranks of middle class in numbers that the world has never known. They put their own interests aside when needed to win wars, and help victims of natural disasters and personal tragedies. They did it on their own and as communities. These trends have reversed ever since the government got in the way. Ever since government intruded into business and charity, both have suffered. America, once the world's most generous nation, is now ranked far down the list. Obama's campaign committee brags that they saved General Motors. The majority knows that isn't so. General Motors hovers on life support until the government runs out of money, and that won't be long in coming. You may disagree with me. I don't care. I don't expect that you will convince me any more than I will convince you. Let's just agree to disagree. However, for those of you who agree, don't stay home. Don't let the cult that worships personality choose our next President. You have to vote. You have to save this country. Please, vote. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|