Merry Christmas to All

One of the beauties of the Christmas season is that it is an annual reminder of the goodness that exists in mankind’s heart.  It is such a special time of giving, fond memories, family and love. 

For most of the year we are bombarded by the media and life’s experiences with the dark side of human nature.  (Newtown, Connecticut being a current and particularly painful example.)

Christmas is a reassurance that life has a bright side, too.

And there is another aspect to the season for those who believe (and I’m not thinking of Santa Claus).  Life is a temporal affair.  Live a good life.  Problems come.  Difficulties pass.  And always, heaven awaits. 

So, an aside to my conservative brethren, our time will come again.  Don’t give up.  Keep the faith. 

Merry Christmas.

 

Liberal Insanity

How can any sane person advocate spending money he doesn’t have?  Funds could come from one of only two sources.  Compel others to pay it (thievery) or borrow it (with no foreseeable ability to repay it, bankruptcy is inevitable). 

But, of course, different rules apply to government, don’t they?  Sure, forcing others to pay money can be called taxation and borrowing funds can be labeled fiscal policy.  And the Federal Reserve, in effect, can simply print more money.  But different names don’t change economic realities applicable to individuals and governments alike.

Increased taxation will decrease the ability of the private sector to fund economic growth.

Increased borrowing will up the national debt from already astronomical levels of $16 trillion.

Expansion of the money supply (“print it”) will eventually result in inflation.

But no matter.  This is what President Obama wants.  And that is insanity.

But why, liberals respond, fear a growing national debt?  Don’t we owe most of it to ourselves?  Yes, but 40% of the debt is owed overseas, China in particular.  Interest, of course, must be paid on 100% of the debt.

With the economy still in a rather sorry state, interest rates on the national debt are historically quite low.  But history tells us that they won’t remain so.  How are those increased interest payments to be paid? 

Let’s assume that the current interest payment is 1% on the national debt.  (It is actually less, now.)  That’s $160 billion a year.  Put the interest rate at its historical average of 4% and interest payments rise to $640 billion.  That is one half of our current annual deficit of $1.25 trillion.  How is that going to be paid? 

The downward spiral will accelerate. 

Why do liberals think [or do they even contemplate the prospect?] that we won’t share the Greek fate?

Is it possible that taxation and borrowing won’t be enough to pay our current national debt?  Printing more money wouldn’t help.  The value of the dollar relative to other currencies will drop due to inflation.  Creditors will demand even higher interest rates to compensate, as a result. 

It is insane to think that the consequences can be otherwise.

 

 

Obama and the Continuing Assault on the “Top 2%”

Those who expected President Obama to drop the class warfare rhetoric after the election were wrong.

Barack Obama’s campaign repeatedly called for tax rates to go up on the “wealthiest” two percent. 

Not coincidentally, Mitt Romney is a long time member of that select category so the Democrats’ call for a tax increase on the rich had the political benefit of highlighting the claim that the GOP nominee wasn’t “like the rest of us”. 

But for the President, it was more than politics.  He is truly a man of the Left who believes that the rich have too much (remember, “you didn’t build that”?).

How else could one claim that it is “unfair” to the rest that the top tax rate is only 36% and, therefore the top level should rise to 39.6%?  It’s not as though we don’t already have a steep progressive tax system ranging from 0-36%.  But for Obama “fairness” compels that it be steeper still!

What exactly does fairness mean if the top 1% income earners currently pay 37% of the nation’s income tax while sharing only 17% of the nation’s total income.  Maybe, to Obama, being rich itself is unfair.  So, if people are wealthy, such thinking goes, they should pay proportionally more than others not only because they can, but more importantly because it’s the right thing to do.

The Administration tries to obscure this motivation by cloaking the tax rise argument with the insistence that it’s an essential element of a deficit reduction package.

That is ridiculous.

Raising the tax rate 4% on the top 1%, would generate $88 billion* in additional revenue if high earner income did not decline from 2011 levels.  (A rate increase might very well be a strong disincentive to earn such income.)

That amount is not even 8% of the projected 2012 deficit of $1.1 trillion.  So how is the 92% of the remaining deficit to be treated? 

Reducing spending by $1 trillion by 2013 would get us there.  But, of course, President Obama has nothing of the sort in mind.  In fact, his “fiscal cliff” avoidance proposal calls for $50 billion more in stimulus money. 

No, the reality is that he will do one of the following:  increase taxes across the board (which means the other 98% - half of whom do pay some income tax) and/or continue to increase the deficit by spending money we don’t have by borrowing it from the Chinese, among others.

Neither outcome will be good for the economy.  However, that’s plainly not the President’s primary concern.  He insists that there will be no deal without the 2% paying higher taxes.

After all, isn’t fairness more important than the health of the economy?

 

 *The IRS, which is the source of the income figures recited above, does not break-out the income levels for the top 2%.  Rather, it does so for 1%, 5%, etc.  Thus, there is educated guessing involved when calculating 2% numbers.  My estimate is that the total revenue generated by a 4 point tax increase on the top 2% would equal about $150 billion, still a very small portion of the annual deficit.

 

 

 

 

 

Republicans Must Do a Better Sales Job to Win the White House

No major overhaul of the conservative agenda is called for.  Despite Obama’s campaign of distortion, class-warfare and name calling, the incumbent won by only 3%. 

Government is too large and spending needs to be cut – not merely slowed.  Obamacare is bad for the health care system and individual liberty.  America’s economy needs more freedom, not more regulation.

Yes, the candidate running on those positions lost but not because of their content.

Consider some exit poll results:

          “Government is doing too much” 

                             Agree:  50%

                             Disagree:  43%

 

          “Obamacare should be repealed”

                             Yes:  49%

                             No:   44%

 

“Should taxes be raised to cut the deficit?”

                             Yes:  33%

                             No:  63%

 

So the election results were not the result of disfavored views. 

How about the electorate’s view of the economy?

          “Current US conditions are”

                             Good and getting better:  43%

                             Poor and getting worse:  55%

          “Most important facing country”

                             Economy:  59%

                             Deficit:  15%

                             Health care:  18%

 

Sounds like Romney should have won in a walk… until you take into account other exit poll findings.

          “Who would better handle the economy?”

                             Romney:  49%

                             Obama:  48%

          “Who would better handle the deficit?”

                             Romney:  49%

                             Obama:  47%

These voters were kidding, right?

Romney, a successful businessman, was considered no more competent than the incumbent who has presided over the most anemic recovery in decades? 

And President Obama, who added 6 trillion to the National debt, is equal to the task of debt reduction?  What’s going on here?

What else can there be but a failure to communicate?

Maybe it was Romney’s sometimes awkward style and statements.   Certainly Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital played a role.  Plainly, there was a desire on the part of many voters to give the president a pass on the economy.  [Another poll result: “who is to blame for the present state of the economy?”  53% said Bush, only 38% cited Obama – after nearly four years in office?]

I suggest that 2012 was the political equivalent of a perfect storm for Republicans.  Despite all the apparent economic factors in its favor, the GOP ship of state sunk to the bottom due to the performance of its captain who confronted a surprisingly strong Obama wind generating capsizing waves. 

How can the waters not be calmer for conservatives next time when Obama finally leaves office in the wake of the debacle that will be his second term.

But caution:  We’re unlikely to win in 2016 either unless we do a better job of selling our candidate and convincing that three percent that the conservative approach is superior to the Left’s. 

 

Dumping on Romney

Ok, he wasn’t the perfect candidate and frequently displayed a tin ear in phrasing his comments (e.g. describing himself as a “severe conservative” had an inauthentic ring to it).  Yet there is no denying that he worked awfully hard to win.  He should get credit for that no matter how disheartening, for us, was his failure.

Alas, Republicans, conservatives and others retain their apparent susceptibility for joining circular firing squads.

Since the election, Romney has come under fire from such conservative publications as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, not to mention unnamed GOP operatives, etc, because the GOP standard bearer blamed his loss on the Obama’s campaign “giving a lot of stuff to groups”.

Here is a full account of Gov. Romney’s controversial remarks to a group of donors delivered a few days after the election. 

          "The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people.  In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups.”

One cannot be positive as to what exactly cost Romney the election.  But it is hardly outrageous or divisive to assign some blame to “gifts” from President Obama.  Can anyone seriously dispute that receiving something one wants (Dream Act for Hispanics or tuition aid for students) makes one more inclined to think favorably of the source?  Certainly, the Obama campaign thought so.

On the other hand, few people would admit to themselves that such presents influenced their vote.  Human nature inclines us all to think that what is objectively in our best interest is “coincidentally” the right thing to do.

Now, I also realize that we don’t like to be challenged on the legitimacy of our self-regard.   No one likes to think that he has been bought.  Rather than consider the merits of the allegation, people are more likely, in self- defense, to attack the accuser.

And so the ire directed at Romney’s political comments is understandable.  Those on the left can’t admit the motivation behind the “gifts”.  And those on the right (allowing the benefit of the doubt that they do understand that voters are influenced by government largess) are disassociating themselves not from the substance of Romney’s remarks but rather from their effect on already paltry support for Republicans among certain constituencies.

How Did Obama Win?

As discussed last week, Hurricane Sandy was a God-send to the president.  It allowed Barack Obama to act not only presidential but, thanks to Gov. Chris Christie’s bear hug, appear bipartisan, as well.  And, of course, the general media was on his team throughout the campaign.  (Remember how the final pre-election unemployment numbers were reported?  Although the unemployment rate rose from 7.8 to 7.9%, presumably a bad sign for the President, the media emphasis was on the report that more new jobs had been counted than expected.)

But some of the election and exit poll data is less obvious. 

How was it that this so-called most crucial presidential election in decades, one which would determine the path of America, attracted 4 million (3%) fewer voters than had gone to the polls in 2008?  And that the drop-off all came from Obama’s totals?

So why did the 4 million stay home?  Were they no longer enamored of the President but weren’t won over by the GOP candidate?  And why didn’t Romney gain significantly more votes than his predecessor nominee who was faced with a, then, highly popular opponent championing hope and change?

The assault on Romney in the swing states worked.  Taken together, he lost them by a 5% margin.  He lost the other states, together, by 2%.

The Republican candidate, by early campaign calculations, needed the independent vote to win.  He got it by a ten point margin (McCain had lost it by four).

The Democrats’ hope to use GOP Medicare revision proposals to scare older voters away from Gov. Romney did not work.  Exit polls from 2008 and 2012 showed a slight increase for the Republican ticket this year among those over 65! 

The gender gap cut both ways, although somewhat in Obama’s favor.  Romney had a 7% edge among men and an 11% deficit among women. 

“Hope” for Obama was very much alive, unsurprisingly, among blacks, with 93% in his corner, down slightly from last time.  (Considering that blacks, in particular, have suffered in Obama’s “recovery”, loyalty to party and race plainly trumped other considerations for this portion of the electorate.)

But the loyalty of the young voter was a surprise.  They, too, have inordinately suffered in the economy.  But they backed President Obama strongly, though support for those under thirty declined from 66% four years ago to 60% this time.  Evidently, the Obama aura, which Republicans thought had disappeared long ago, remains potent for many.  Their wish to believe obviously gave the President a pass on what others (such as this conservative) view as obvious short-comings.

Where do we conservatives go from here?  I will offer my thoughts soon.

Disappointed as we all are in the election results, we still live in a great country.  Our job continues to be to do what we can to keep it that way.  So in that spirit, I wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Is God a Liberal Democrat?

I don’t know.  But one has to wonder, for Hurricane Sandy certainly didn’t help the Republican cause.  

According to CNN exit polls, 42% of those voting considered President Obama’s response to the East Coast disaster as an important factor influencing their ballot.  And those voters favored the incumbent more than three to two. 

What did the President do to receive such high regard?  He traveled to New Jersey to be bear-hugged by Republican governor Chris Christie, made promises of federal aid, and left promptly thereafter for a campaign event.

Whether Hurricane Sandy resulted in Obama’s re-election by a 51% - 48% margin, only He knows.

I cite this exit poll result to pour gallons of water on the post-election handwringing by those on the right and the mandate claims from the left. 

Whether an act of God cost Romney the election cannot be definitively answered by us mortals.  And the same can be said about myriad factors:  immigration policy, media bias, a slight uptick in economic news, the Democratic class warfare propaganda and the GOP’s lack of an effective counter, the President’s superior get-out-the-vote effort, etc.

What we do know is that the electorate remains closely divided and has been for decades.  In 2008, the Democratic nominee received 52%; President Obama got 51% this time.  In fact, the last time the Democratic nominee received more than 52% of the national vote was in 1964 (LBJ’s landslide).

So maintain perspective when evaluating the disappointing outcome.  It is doubtful that the results were a rejection of the conservative perspective or the dawning of a leftist America.  The impact of Romney’s loss, however, should not be underestimated.

The expansion of big government of the past four years will not be undone, taxes will go up, the economy’s recovery will remain anemic due to regulatory restrictions and the implementation of Obamacare, and our dependence on foreign energy will increase. 

Have a nice day.

The Demise of the Electoral College is Long Overdue

I’m writing this before the Tuesday election so that it is clear that my viewpoint was not colored by the results. 

It is ridiculous that a national election in our Republic is not decided on the basis of “one-man, one-vote” but rather on a majority vote in the Electoral College established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution. 

In 1787, the former colonies were distinct entities very aware – and protective – of their status as sovereign states.  But for the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia that summer, it was obvious that the failures of the Articles of Confederation mandated that the individual states surrender some of that sovereignty if the United States were too survive as a nation. 

So the States agreed to a grand compromise.  Each, regardless of population size, received two votes in the U.S. Senate and was given House of Representatives and Electoral College votes geared to their respective numbers, with extra votes granted to slave-holding states as part of the compromise. 

Since then, Americans have evolved into citizens of a nation instead of being, primarily, residents of sovereign states.

The outcome of the Civil War made clear, after all, that sovereignty for states was not to be equated with independence.  And the 17^th Amendment of 1913, requiring the direct election of U.S. Senators, eliminated the role of state legislatures as a local electoral college of sorts.

My point is not that states’ rights or federalism should be jettisoned as Constitutional precepts.  Rather, we should recognize that a vote for a national office should be treated equally with every other regardless of the state within which it is cast. 

Why are we absorbed with “swing state” polls?  Because the votes of undecided voters matter there matter much more than those cast in California or Kansas.  As a practical matter, a Romney vote in the former is as worthless as an Obama ballot in the latter. 

That’s simply not right.  More than fairness is involved.  The national unity, such as it is, will be subjected to further assault.  Although I surely approved of the outcome, Gore’s capture of the popular vote, but the Electoral College loss to Bush, understandably infuriated the Democrat’s supporters.  And it is highly likely that the bitterness that ensued contributed mightily to the hostility that they felt toward the Bush Administration.

As a partisan, I want Mitt Romney to win on Tuesday, popular vote or not.  But as a citizen, I won’t be happy with a popular vote loss.  That won’t be a fair and square victory.  I fear such a result will be bad for the country even considering that President Obama’s defeat in the Electoral College would also be very good for the country.

Is America Becoming Isolationist?

Maybe so.  Certainly both candidates have made clear their intentions to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan (they’re already out of Iraq) and to steer clear of Syrian involvement.

President Obama’s reluctance to get the US more involved in foreign affairs is well known.  (Think of “leading from the rear” in Libya.) 

But Governor Romney’s debate statements were a bit puzzling.  While the GOP nominee is not known as a foreign policy authority, he, nonetheless, has previously voiced support for a stronger military presence on the international scene than has his foe.

Of course, Gov. Romney may have simply adopted the attitude that would have the most appeal to undecided voters. 

But there may be more to it than that. 

Polls make clear that Americans across party lines are tired of our Middle East involvement.  Our efforts to help are seemingly received not only with ingratitude, but actual hostility.  And the fact that “allies” are killing our troops (“green on blue”) makes us understandably furious. 

Yet, as appealing as the urge to remove our forces from various outposts may be, it is best resisted. 

We will be less – not more – safe if we stand behind the walls of Fortress America.  That might have been a sound policy in 1912, with World War I looming.  Certainly, Woodrow Wilson’s plan to wage war (“to make the world safe for democracy’) didn’t exactly work out as planned. 

But in 2012, can we remove ourselves from such hot spots as Afghanistan and escape consequences? 

It is a cliché and undeniably true that nature abhors a vacuum.  We can expect our enemies to fill any space from which we depart. 

But the isolationist instinct is plainly embedded in our national character.  Europeans and others came to settle in America because they wanted to leave their world behind them. 

And so, after World War I was over, we retreated from world affairs.  And, of course, when it came time for World War II, we paid a severe price due to our lack of preparation. 

Evidently, here we go again.  Who will be our 1930s “Winston Churchill” warning us of the calamity ahead?

Comments on Debate #2

Yes, President Obama did much better in the second debate and Romney did less well.  But that was more a factor of the difference in the Democrat’s performance.  Romney remained solid but he suffered because he was not so much better than his opponent this time around.

*****

Who thought up the idea of uncommitted voters asking candidates questions?  Perhaps this is unfair, but it would seem that any voter undecided at this stage of the presidential campaign is suffering from self-imposed ignorance.  And the viewing public is supposed to expect intelligent questions from this group?

                                                       *****

The President’s strongest moment came when he took exception to Romney’s suggestion that the Administration had misled the American people as to the cause of the Benghazi attack which resulted in the deaths of our Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans.  His expression hardening and his eyes flashing anger, Obama said he found that claim “offensive”.

But why?  The Administration took two weeks to acknowledge that, indeed, the attack was by terrorists and was not generated by a YouTube Video mocking “the Prophet Mohammed”.  And yet, there had been clear evidence shortly after the 9/11 attack – intelligence to which the Administration clearly had access -  that undercut its public view.  (Remember that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice devoted the following Sunday – five days after the attack – to talk show appearances repeating “the video caused it " line.

An easy answer is that the Obama team believed that concealing the truth would be in the best interests of the President’s re-election bid.  It would not be helpful, after all, to admit that our terrorist enemies were resurgent.  Wasn’t the death of Bin Laden supposed to signal the end of Al-Qaeda?

I think, however, that Obama was genuinely offended.  He believes what he says.  He’s not Bill Clinton.  As a committed ideologue and a great man in his own mind, he cannot admit to himself that any posture he takes is less than virtuous.  So if he does something, in his eyes it must be right.  Wouldn’t you be offended, too, if you had that self-appraisal and someone questioned the purity of your motive?  Looking back on the President’s statement “taking offense”,  it seem as if he was more offended at the idea of someone questioning his integrity than he was by the attack on our Consulate!

*****

The recent poll numbers have given increasing confidence to the view that Mitt Romney will be our next president.  But if such is not to be, I offer the following thought as solace:  Just think of 2013 and the mess Obama will be in as the result of the policies of his first term - it’ll be even bigger than the one he inherited four years ago!. 

 

 

 

 

 

A Canard Worth Refuting

President Obama, in the first debate and elsewhere, is fond of reciting a line with variations that go something like this:

          Gov. Romney, if elected, would return the country to the policies that got us into the mess we’re in.

          This position, blaming George W. Bush for the poor state of the economy since 2008 – and thus it is not Obama’s fault or responsibility – has well served the President’s political standing.

According to a recent poll, over three and a half years since President Bush left office, a majority of Americans blame him, not the incumbent – for our nation’s economic woes. 

But the majority is wrong – as any fair observer of the 2008 economic debacle would agree.

Sub-prime mortgages going bad in huge numbers (which were held by major financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers and Goldman-Sachs) started a domino effect which brought our economy to its knees.  But what were sub-prime mortgages and who sponsored them? 

Reckless Endangerment, a 2011 book written by a New York Times business reporter explains and points its finger directly at leading Democrats.  It is both an illuminating and depressing read.

Liberal Democratic representative Barney Frank was the leading Congressional catalyst for expanding home ownership in the U.S.  How would that be done?  People who met traditional – and time tested – lending standards could already get loans while those with financial situations that fell short of such requirements could not. 

So what to do?  Simple  Mandate that standards for prospective borrowers be lowered.  With both carrots and sticks, Congress and the Federal National Mortgage Insurance Company (Fannie Mae) brought life to the sub-prime mortgage industry.

Noteworthy is that major sub-prime players such as Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs (all grossing billions in fees from such loans) were big contributors to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. 

So why are we letting the Democrats get away with deflecting the blame for the nation’s economic woes from themselves and onto Bush? 

Poor George W.  He disappointed conservatives in many ways, but he doesn’t deserve this.

There is a far broader concern, too.  Governor Romney is placed on the defensive by the false allegations that Bush – a fellow Republican – helped cause the Great Recession.  It’s a lie.  Turn the tables.  Assign the blame where it properly belongs – on the Left.   That was the source for irresponsible economic policies that indeed put us in the mess we’re in.

Thoughts on the First Debate

Romney’s performance was impressive, stylistically. But to say he “won” the debate in a formal sense is probably not accurate.

An actual debate is a contest of opposing views or positions. Lawyers arguing before a judge or jury are debating. The winner is the side that prevails because it persuades the decision maker that its view is better or more correct than the opposition’s.

But political disputations are rarely like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of the late 1850s, nor was the joint appearance of President Obama and Mitt Romney last week.

To the extent that persuasion entered into any evaluation of Romney’s performance, it was in the sense that most viewers were convinced that he was self-assured, knowledgeable and enthusiastic, and certainly not the haughty, uncaring rich guy pictured in Obama’s commercials.

On policy, as distinct from character, matters, Romney was less impressive and more inoffensive. He refused to be drawn into the subtleties of his plans for Social Security and Medicare, for instance.

Although claiming, as he did, that these programs would not suffer under his watch is a politically understandable position, it does clash with the fiscal reality already upon us.

His Five Point Plan for improving the economy was appropriately general and, thus, attractive with no specificity to attack.

In sum, the GOP nominee did a good job, which for now is good enough.

                                                                        * * *

There is a consensus that Barack Obama is a fine, even great, public speaker. In a set-piece, teleprompter-aided presentation, I agree.

But he’s not particularly able or quick-witted when required to think on his feet. Listen to him carefully. He fumbles and fills pauses with sound (“uh” and “ah“). Polished speakers don’t do that; nervous and/or inexperienced speakers do.

Considering that the President is not inexperienced, his performance is surprising. He needs a speech coach.

                                                                        * * *

The near unanimity of the media in praising Romney’s performance was also surprising. So give them their due. They undoubtedly would have preferred a different outcome, but the liberal press, either from fear of embarrassment or even the presence of some integrity, did not deny the obvious.

Why Are Some Conservatives Dumping on Mitt Romney?

You may have noticed that not only the Left was attacking Mitt Romney for his remarks in May that 47% of the population will support President Obama.  He stated that this is because they are dependent on the government.  Certain prominent conservatives attacked Romney as well for what he said. 

I was taken by surprise.  As discussed last Sunday, there are elements of Romney’s comments that are open to criticism.  And I recognize that the conservative credentials of the former Massachusetts governor are suspect.  But we’re in the midst of a hotly-contested campaign.  The top priority should be to defeat Obama, so Romney, for now, is our guy.  Conservatives should not be undercutting the Republican nominee in any way shape or form.  So how can the following conservatives justify these comments?

                   *** William Kristol, editor of the highly respected Weekly Standard magazine:  “Romney’s comments… are stupid and arrogant.  Indeed, has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country?”  [Huh?]  Is he referring to a man who promoted successful companies such a Staples and is generally credited for having saved the Salt Lake City Olympics?

                   *** Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal columnist and frequent guest on Meet the Press:  “This is not how big leaders talk.  It’s how shallow political operatives talk.”

                   *** David Brooks, New York Times columnist and former National Review and Wall Street Journal writer:  “The 47% comment suggests  “that he doesn’t really know much about the country he inhabits… and knows nothing about ambition and motivation.”  [Of course, if Mitt Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation, one has to wonder how he was able to join the notorious 1%.]

How does one explain these silly and overheated remarks?  Is it political immaturity and a dislike for Romney personally?  Or have they been watching too many of Obama’s negative ads? 

Do you remember such a cascade of criticism from the Left in 2008 when candidate Obama was secretly taped saying:  “You go into some small towns (where the economy is difficult)… they get bitter.  They cling to guns and religion.”?

No, you don’t.  Unlike some conservatives, the liberals rallied around their man and came to his defense.

Obviously there are some lessons to be learned from the Left.  (But, I’ll concede, not many).

 

Romney and the “47%”

A video of Mitt Romney, recorded surreptitiously in May, has him saying "there are 47% of the people who will vote for the President no matter what". Alas, this number is roughly correct, though polls would suggest that 45% is a more likely base figure.

Romney went on to say that this is so because the 47% are dependent upon government, believe it has a responsibility to care for them and consider themselves victims.

Given the response from the media (both liberal and conservative) you'd think that the GOP nominee had truly gone off the deep end.

Those on the left were appalled by the slander of the 47%, while those on the right were offended by the sloppy arithmetic and, as one prominent conservative pundit put it, Romney's "arrogant and stupid" remarks.

Indeed, Mitt Romney's reference to Obama's supporters as being dependent on government benefits was overstated.  But it is highly likely that the 48 million Americans on Medicaid, for instance, are mostly Obama backers.  [The Democratic Party has long had a lock on the poor population. Some cynics might suggest that the food stamp rolls have risen by 15 million during the Obama administration in part due to political calculations.]

But liberal activists and ideologues, or people who vote for Democrats because they always have, or the millionaires and billionaires in Hollywood and New York City who fund liberal causes are also part of the Obama core. Of course, they are not necessarily or usually on the government dole. So it is fair to say that Romney's analysis of opposition voters was indeed sloppy.

But the main point of his comments is valid, indeed.

A person receiving government benefits wants them to continue. Therefore, he's inclined to support candidates who will maintain and increase them. Of course, this is a generalization to which there are undoubted exceptions. But doesn't common sense and human nature tell you that it's basically true, whether the recipient is on Medicare or Medicaid?  And the more dependent a person is on government aid, the closer his allegiance and likely support is given to politicians who support increased spending.

And so it is dead on to say that such voters will be likely Obama supporters.  The fact that such voters are increasing in number – see dramatic rise in food stamp recipients noted above  -- spells big trouble.

Everyone agrees that the America's fiscal condition is horrible. Our national debt has risen from 10 to 16 trillion in four years. We spend money we don't have.

But where is the political will to halt this insanity? Of course, polls suggest that people do want government spending brought under control, just as long as their benefits aren't cut.

As more people receive governmental support, the less inclined the public will be to vote for people who will attack the problem. 

That is what Romney was talking about.

The Coarsening of America

It is hardly a revelation that standards of taste and civility in America have been in decline for decades.  Visual sex, oral vulgarity, and, of course, the written varieties have become commonplace and, in that sense, unremarkable.

But despite these depressing trends, as viewed by the morel socially conservative (some political liberals included) members of the community, standards of decency and probity have had strong defenders.

So it was not comforting to those battling for old fashioned values to learn that staid national public radio (NPR) was broadcasting lurid details of the recently concluded Sandusky pedophilia trial. 

Those who ask what can one expect from liberal NPR are overlooking the fact that it is also pretentiously highbrow.  Salacious National Enquirer-type stories used to be ignored (conservative viewpoints still are).

NPR did display a certain sensitivity about the subject found in few other outlets:  “Listeners may want to turn down the volume if they don’t want to hear the latest raw details from the Sandusky trial in Pennsylvania”.

Alas, that warning probably prompted many in the audience to turn it up.

How has it come to pass that so many of us now relish wallowing in – or at least viewing – the dark side of human behavior?  Where have all the inhibitions gone? 

A Contrast of Presidents: Bill Clinton v. Barack Obama

The recently concluded Democratic Party convention featured three Presidents as speakers – two former, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and one current, Barack Obama.

Carter’s non-prime time talk was nondescript.  But Clinton and Obama both gave well-crafted and well received speeches.  Give the devils their due.  But don’t credit either with an accurate portrayal of reality.

Clinton’s falsehoods were obvious no matter how palatably delivered.

***President Obama, his predecessor asserted, offered the country a debt reduction plan that would cut spending significantly more than taxes would be raised.  Not True.

 

***The Administration is responsible for the fact that health care costs have risen only four percent in each of the past two years.  Not True.

***The President has sponsored a jobs creation that, absent GOP opposition, would have meant one million new jobs.  Not True.

 

            [source:  WashingtonPost.com/factchecker]

 

President Obama’s time at the podium was more oriented toward expressions of hope and promises than in factual claims (it worked in 08, do it again).  But his speech was hardly a model for truth-telling. 

 

“Around the world we’ve strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.”  (Has anyone told the Iranians?)

 

The GOP ticket wants to “take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.”  (Is the President referring to the era of Ronald Reagan who stared down the Soviets?)

 

Romney will “gut” education.  (By reining in teachers’ unions and promoting school choice?)

 

Or how about this beauty?  Republicans believe that “if a company releases toxic pollutants into the air our children breathe, that’s the price of progress.”  (Of course, Mitt Romney is a throwback to the Robber Barons of the 19^th century, isn’t he?)

 

One senses that Barack Obama really believes this nonsense.  He is plainly arrogant and self-righteous.  The President, no doubt, views himself as an upstanding, moral individual who is merely trying to do the best for America.  And he knows what that is.  Those who disagree (dastardly Republicans), therefore, must not have the country’s best interest at heart.  For, after all, he wouldn’t say negative things about them if they weren’t true. 

It’s as if Barack Obama lives in a world constructed not as it is, but as he’d like it to be.

Bill Clinton is of a different sort.  His long political – and personal – history makes clear that his association with truth is an occasional thing.  The charming knave is nothing if not calculating, so what he says, whether true or false, is done for effect.  But, to his credit, unlike the incumbent president, he seems to know the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Are Liberals Dumping on Clint Eastwood?

 

A cynic might suggest it’s because he’s supporting a Republican for President.  Hollywood actors aren’t supposed to do that.

To be sure, the monologue was an unusual convention offering, and the two references to self-inflicted acts were tasteless.  But he was also funny.  Who would have thought that Dirty Harry had a comedic side?

However, there is a more substantive explanation.  Gov. Romney gave a forceful, impressive speech last Thursday night.  But Friday morning network shows (with the unsurprising exception of Fox News) chose to emphasize Eastwood’s twelve minute performance.  Unfavorably, of course. 

If lambasting the popular actor hadn’t been an option, the focus would have unavoidably been on the GOP nominee.  Given his performance, it would have been very difficult for media foes to avoid being complimentary.  Aside from MSNBC, the networks cling to the myth that there is no political bias in their coverage.  Failing to give credit where it was so plainly due would be too blatant.

So they were grateful indeed that Clint Eastwood gave them a palatable excuse to talk about something else.