ARE WE THERE YET???

If President Obama were a corporate CEO selling and negotiating a deal for his company, he'd be laughed out of the board room about now. But he's not, and nobody's laughing. John Boehner, speaker of the House, may in fact, be weeping. Not only did Obama turn down the Republican's recent proposal, he called it not even "serious" enough to consider discussing. The proposal actually seemed quite serious---it offered 800 billion in tax revenue to be gained through loopholes by the rich. And it proposed another 600 billion in cuts to federal  health programs. It was made in good faith, and turned down flat by a president who is evidently going to accept nothing less than his way, which is that negotiations can only begin, it at all, by demanding that anyone making $250.000.00,( $200,000.00 for individuals) and over must pay "their fair share". Period. End of discussion. This is not compromising--it's bullying, and stunning in its nakedness. Even the Dems must be at least slightly embarrased at this man's arrogance and refusal to grant a reply and modicum of respect to the Republican leader.

But that's where we presently are, and the Republicans,  maybe not serious enough for the president, are so not amused.  Either they agree to Obama's insistence on taxing those making over 250 thou a year, or face the prospect of everybody's taxes going up and huge cuts to the military and domestic programs, i.e., over the cliff. There seems to be no middle ground. It's a lose, lose proposition because the president holds the winning hand, and he's not about to fold it. It's all about taxing the rich, if you can call $ 250,000 rich, and unless that demand is met, he is willing to let us all go under, or over in this  case   This would  make sense, if taxing the top money makers were really the magic bullet that would solve our problems---but it isn't, as it will only make a small contribution to the revenue. Obama has to know this, he has surely done the math--- but it's both his hubris and his driving ambition to accomplish his greatest idealogical goal---to "spread the wealth", and the key to that is to hold high the banner of class warfare, no matter the cost to the country. It matters not to him that the rich can't save us from excessive over spending and ever increasing debt---only that we must blame them and change the national mode of operandus from one of making it, to that of taking it. That's the plan, the vision, the transformation of America, and he's sticking to it---got that John Boehner? You are between a rock and a hard place-- the prez doesn't want to negotiate with you, because he thinks he doesn't have to, and humiliating you is much more fun.

At this point in time, Boehner must be pulling his hair out, but he has presented yet two more proposals to the White House---and to the chagrin of his more conservative party members, is starting to fold on the tax issue, but holding out for at least some semblance of compromise, otherwise known as cuts in spending. Speaking of cuts, we don't know what cuts, if any, Obama would approve, even if he gets his way on the taxes.  Everybody knows that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the elephants in the room, but are rarely mentioned anymore, at least not publically, and especially not from the Obama camp. Revenue is the goal, not cuts. That's the grand bargain. What he wants  is an extra 1.5 trillion, which is twice what he had originally requested from Boehner last summer and didn't get.  Spite may not be Obama's game, but hard ball is. Don't expect much in the wayof substantial cuts--that would be compromising. 

 Like Charlie Sheen once said, he is "winning", and there's no reason to bend.  Charlie Sheen, however, finally saw, if not the error of his ways, that the public was not behind him. He lost his job, and his fan base. Now, we know that Obama is certainly no Charlie Sheen, but he might want to consider that there is more to winning than getting your own way in a so called democracy, without something called balance--- a nice concept he likes to talk about, but for which he shows little regard, even asking for congress to grant him control over the debt ceiling without congressional approval!! His contempt for anything other than his way is palatable, and his march towards transforming this country is relentless.  It seems all road blocks are disappearing like dominoes. Welcome to the outskirts of Obamaville---where once upon a time a country gave its self to a man they barely knew, and trusted him to lead them out of the wilderness. Only he really didn't know the way back--only forward to a different kind of America.

The Republicans and the conservative philosophy believe that true revenue comes not from more and more taxation, but from a healthy, thriving economy, where jobs are plentiful, reasonable taxes flow from that income, and the sky's the limit to fulfilling one's potential, leaving behind the idea that we must rely on others for our well being, and that we can indeed pursue our own happiness.  The social responsiblities multiply too, because the revenue from more of those who can work provide for a larger safety net, instead of soaking the "wealthiest among us".

 But sadly, the Republicans are not even talking about that now---they are retreating, caving, because they have not been able to sell this once attractive idea----they need a better marketing scheme, and much better sales people. John Boehner  looks like a light weight compared to Obama, the Tyson of class warfare, and perhaps the best political salesman we've ever seen, except he has no class. He fights dirty, keeps changing his demands, and upping the ante.

But here's the thing, the really paradigm changing thing---what he's selling, i.e. big daddy government, more benefits for all, and stick it to the rich seems to be the latest, hippest, trend. It sells like Jeans and t-shirts---some really can't afford anything else,  but many more just want to look that way, because it's cool and progressive.  Republicans seem almost old fashioned with their message of jobs, prosperity, and dreaming big---and may be losing the battle. Are we witnessing the demise of the two party system?
    
One has to wonder---is that what Obama and company want? To destroy? To deny common courtesy and dignity to the Republicans by calling their offers and any conversations of cuts not serious enough to consider,so that the Republican brand is seen as over, out dated, no longer worthy of  even a discussion? Is that fair and balanced, and is Obamaville, like Obamacare, going to ultimately engender more resentment than acceptance, as we realize we had very little to say about it?  But isn't that what elections are all about, and didn't we---?  Yes, we did--- some of us.

 Time and history have a way of sorting things out, and sometimes the best way to get through trouble is simply to walk through it no matter the hazards or the price.  The Republicans, led by John Boehner and his constituents must decide. whether to stand down, or stand up to their principles. They must also start searching for future leaders of their party--someone who can inspire and sell the party's vision of an America that is much more than a welfare state, and still capable of being the land of opportunity and dreams, where anything is possible.  Is anybody listening? Or do those who believe in such things number only in the minority? If that be the case, then again, welcome to "Obamaville"---the land of over-sized government, smaller lives, fewer liberties, and no big dreams. We're almost there---send in the clowns. The Republicans died along the way.

It's too  bad the American public can't be privvy to the private conversations going on behind closed doors between Boehner and Obama---they might very well see what we're instinctively perceiving---that often the best pitch man isn't necessarily selling the best idea. He just holds the bigger stick.      

FORWARD, MARCH----

If  by some chance you didn't notice, the election is over and we move----"forward". Is everybody happy?  I have a friend who says she is going to "expunge"  the word  "forward" from her vocabulary. Another friend when asked how he felt two days after the election said simply,"Sad".Others just shook their heads in despair, as if much more than the election had been lost.  Of course, these were all folks from the conservative persuasion.  There must have been joy and jubilation elsewhere, even smug satisfaction.  But it wasn't obvious---even Obama had the good sense not to gloat in his acceptance speech. After all, he had not exactly received a standing ovation, or even close to a mandate. The people seemed to have given him their permission to continue, to keep trying till he gets it right, but certainly not their ringing endorsement. The congress remained filled with those who disagree vehemently,boding future gridlock.

 And as Romney, the man who could have been president, and perhaps should have been, given the evidence at hand, walked off the world stage, one could not help but wonder---what had happened here?  This was a man who seemingly had everything going for him---against an encumbent who had very little. The latter, with few exceptions, had only a worried, stressed country who had drifted even further into a recession after he took office, despite his efforts and policies. Nothing seemed to have worked enough to pull us out at a normal rate of recovery. Though there are faint signs, a slight uptick in employment, a sputtering housing re-start, some new manufacturing, but we still seem to be on life support. Nevertheless, a majority of the American people, voted once again for Obama and not for the man who could have given us a fresh start, new hope, and a different vision. But why didn't we take what he had to offer?

Never presume the American mind, much less his/her vote.. The afore mentioned evidence may have been considered, but in the end, what mattered more was their gut instinct based not necessarily on the evidence, but on well, ---that's still up for conjecture and the subject for endless analysis by the pundits and especially the Republicans. But let's give it a try in a moment. Regardless the reasons, this was a major blow for the grand old party---and very possibly reason enough for deep soul searching and a major over haul to their party platforms. But was it really a vote against Romney that caused Obama to win?  Or were there other factors at play here??  First, there was Obama, himself--- not so much the president, but the candidate,  and one who knows how to win-----nobody does it better.

Obama was never one to sit back and allow the election process to take care of itself---he was a campaigning machine, covering mega miles and raising more money than any other Dem candidate. This was his turf,and he determined to keep it. It was also his forte, what he does best---sell the people not on his failures, but on him---the guy they love to love.  He charmed, he entertained, he showed up everywhere where he thought it counted, even snubbing a United Nations meeting, for a larger venue , a TV talk show,"The View."  He played it nice, he played it dirty, and he played it Chicago smart---tough. His strategy was not one of proud accomplishments, but one of attack---the only card left for him to play. And he did it brilliantly, using the latest data technology, to target the moving polls, and somehow turning Romney, the squeaky clean man with no dirty laundry into an unsavory business tycoon, with no heart, no conscience, and no chance against the relentless negative ads. For those of you who think negative ads don't work---observe that they did work very well. David Axelrod, Obama's main campaign manager, should also be given dubious credit for designing a very crafty campaign to deconstruct what was, indeed, a formidable opponent. in Mr. Romney. They took no prisoners, and no heed against those who preached against negativity.This was war, and they intended to win---mission accomplished.
  
Now, let's look at Mitt Romney---he may have been his own worst enemy. Try as he might, he just didn't seem to have the guts for politics---he refused or didn't know how to fight back hard enough, to rebuke the character smearing, the twisted charges leveled against him. Contrary to spin, he  wasn't so much a "flip flopper" as a man who changed with the times and the people he governed. He certainly was not a greedy business destroyer, but a savvy entrepenuer who knew how to rescue businesses, thereby saving many jobs. The nail in the coffin was his remark, taken out of context, about the 47% who he said were not worth going after---he meant that no matter what he did, he would not win their hearts or their vote. He was exactly right---but he did not mean, as spun by the media and Obama, that he had no compassion for them.  His life and past history are testament of a person who cares for  others. He was and is a good and capable man, but this was not his time. nor his country to lead. Perhaps he never was, as the Republican establishment supposedly never fully supported him---word was he was too moderate, not right enough. Three million registered Republicans chose not to vote for him---how bizarre, as though the answer would have been a more right wing candidate. What world are they living in?  More " right" wasn't what they needed. What they needed was more fight, light, and a distress call against what was happening---the country was failing under Obama's leadership, or lack thereof. And let's be honest, what the Republicans also lacked was a more inclusive tone, one that spoke more directly to the Black and Hispanic communities, and to the minorities in general. The Womens' vote may have also been an issue, but was mostly a hyped up last ditch effort by the Obama campaign---many of us women maintain that we are far more interested in larger issues, than free condums  and abortion laws, which are already pretty much set in stone, and not likely to be challenged; and it was somewhat unsettling to be used as a campaign booster. Perhaps like Sesame Street and Big Bird, we should have protested.

And finally there was us, the American people, perhaps so traumatized by our failing economy and concern over the future, that we found ourselves coming a bit undone and not at all sure of who or what we wanted.  We are no longer united with similar values and sense of pride in our country.  We are polarized to the point of paralysis, and our once great confidence is changing to doubt and fear of the future. The election was a tug of war between economic concerns and social issues----and that was at the core of Obama's tactical win. He had built his own army by inducing and encouraging class warfare; and Romney and his campaign could not fight the battle of social issues and responsibility with only a recipe for a healthier economy. Never mind that a healthier economy could have been the one thing, perhaps the only antidote, that could bolster and even save our social safety nets---the people didn't see it that way, at least not enough of them.

Mr. Romney tried his best to tell us that, but he was drowned out by mis-charaterization and ridicule---except for one exceptional night, during the first presidential debate, when we saw two men, one very strong, knowledgeable, in control, sure footed and presidential. Obama, on the other hand, was strangely off balance, cut loose from his teleprompter comfort zone,  out of his depth, not on his game.  Who was the real leader? But we would not see this glimpse of either man again. Obama came back strong, and Romney seemed to lose his mojo and grow weary of the whole impossible thing of  fighting an opponent who had what he would never have--- cool charisma, and the emotionally charged, but still effective weapon of Robin Hood---the blame the rich bomb. Romney needed to get angry and fight back, to contest that the rich are not the problem--but that wasn't in his DNA---he was a fix- it guy, not a warrior.

There is talk that we may have seen the demise of the Republican party---that it is out dated, and that it no longer appeals to the majority of  the country.  We are changing, and it remains to be seen to what---minorities and their needs are growing, the middle class feels weakened, and the wealthy threatened by a rising tide of resentment.  Unless the Republicans and their conservative approach to government can convince enough people that their way of thinking, that is, that smaller government is better for everybody, than big government., that the road to more prosperity is not through more taxation, but through a robust economy where everyone is employed , and that dependence on the nipple of government is ultimately a surrender to finding our own strengths and a sacrifice of our freedoms---if they fail to do that, they may  have, indeed, lost more than an election.

 And one wonders if the  vast majority realizes that---or do they no longer care? Are they less interested in what they can do, and more in what can be done for them?  Are the social issues so touted during the campaign more important  than anything else? It would appear that many thought so, and Obama banked on it. Romney gambled on the promise of jobs, pay checks, self esteem, liberties,  independence, a stronger military and country. Yes, important also are better health care, education opportunities for  more, higher wages, infrastructure, research investment, a brighter future for our children---all good things, and certainly not limited to the bucket lists of liberals. But that was the way it was presented by Obama and crew, and Romney failed to tell it like it is---that it all costs money, and at the moment we're broke, and need to fix our engine first above all else. It is true that we cannot be truly a great nation without compassion and duty to the less fortunate among us. And perhaps we are only as good as our deeds to correct the imbalance of poor vs. rich. But what isn't true, what obliterates better solutions, is that the rich are the culprits ---and that they must be chastised, demonized, and made to feel guilty. We are a mixed bag, even within our parties, of social vs. economic ideals, and neither party owns nor has all the answers---but we are not the enemy of each other.

 That's the big lie, and one the Republicans have to expose and then re-tailor their message . Because, though it was and is the economy," stupid", it's not completely all about the economy. News flash---most all of us care for others and value our social safety nets  ---the difference is that the conservative philosophy believes that the best way to offer and sustain helpful programs  is to have an economy that can actually afford and support them. It is a pragmatic approach, however, and pragmatism doesn't sell as well as emotionalism. Getting that message across is difficult when the other side insists it is the grandmother being pushed off the cliff by the evil conservative who only cares for himself.  It would be funny, if it weren't so patently absurd---would you call your doctor, the one who advises giving you life saving medicine, evil? Or would you, instead, answer the call of those who choose to ignore the warning signs, and continue on the same path? Like I said, negative ads sell. Get used to it---also get used to the fact that money and large contributions  are part of the election process. Not going to change, unless free speech is removed from the campaigns.

Elections, second chances, and dire circumstances sometimes have a cathartic, wake- up effect. May it be so for the leaders of our land to pull  and  work together. May it also be so that we, all of us, begin to understand that we are all in this together. The alternative is staring us in the face----it's the crack up of a once strong, respected, and united America. The election may be over, but the differences are still there---and they threaten to destroy us---or make us better if we can learn to empathize, balance, and reconcile.

Recovery  starts with a  President, a congress and a people who are willing to find common ground, to blend, to weave a fabric strong enough to hold   all of us, and to do more than that---to encourage all of us to fly high, to succeed without punishment, to show others how, and to provide jobs once again.  Can we?? How can we afford not to? Forward, march---but watch your step, pack a parachute, a compass, and a good book--this could take a while.

Keep the faith---the American mind may be unpredictable, but its spirit is resilient, and its will to survive, its inventiveness, not to mention its history, may in the end may be more powerful than our bleak circumstances, and even the politicians and leaders who seek, but cannot/will not find the answers. We have them, they are written deep in our collective souls, and freedom is the password---we are bigger than our problems, stronger than our weaknesses, wiser than our mistakes,  and we must not fail.  Just don't fence us in-----

CLOSING THE SALE----

A seasoned sales person once said, "A sale is made every time"--- meaning that either the customer buys the presented product from you, or someone else----or perhaps not at all. Either way, a sale, a decision, is made every time. In less than a week, the biggest sale in the country will be made--ka-ching, and presto, with millions of clicks in voting booths all over the country. At least half of us will buy with our votes the next president of the USA.

 So, who's the better salesman, President Obama, or Governor Romney?  Both have spent millions, untold hours, and not just a little sweat on the campaign trail, trying to sell us on their way, their vision, their ability to lead and protect this nation into the next four years. It's a tough sale and we're a tough crowd  this time around, with both men still running neck and neck, and passions on both sides at a boiling point. Don't think so? Try bringing up either Obama or Romney's name anywhere, anytime, then watch the red warning lights flash across the eyes of those present---this social taboo could be called the 11th commandment:  Thou shalt not discuss politics---in fact, we dare not mention thy name. It is the holiest of grails in polite conversation, and this election is pregnant with potential for explosiveness and less than cordial conversation. Speak at your own risk, or stay safely silent---- but forever wonder if you should have spoken your truth, and removed the mask of nuetrality and harmless bystander.

The differences are stark, so the choice should be easy, but it isn't simply and only a question of who, but which---which kind of governance do we want?  Is bigger better? Or is less more? Obama represents the former, and Romney the latter---but there's much more to consider, and within the mix and the decision we must make, lay the seeds of our polarization, the dichotomy of two kinds of America. Will we raise taxes on a few for the many, hoping that that's the fix, or will we cut back on spending, re-structure, and subscribe to the philosophy of jobs creating revenue, rather than vice versa?  Conservatives might say, we must decide to buy either the farm, or the farmer---the farm will feed folks for a while, but the farmer will keep things growing for a long time. The Liberal will claim the farmer can't grow at all without a proper and fair farm. You decide.

 Whatever, the  "cliff" is looming soon if we don't come up with a sustainable budget and how we plan to improve our financial situation---or become another broken country, a la Greece or Spain. It's budget decision time, but none will be made until after the election----we're on hold, and one would be more than naive not to suspect that getting elected is the only real priority. We're watching ourselves burn, as the politicians play politics, then laugh among themselves, like old pals at a recent annual bi-partisan party held at the Waldorf Astoria in New York.  How dare they? We're not even smiling---and some of us consider their attempted display of playfulness inappropriate and disingenuous---as though all their words of passionate persuasion and claims to be "fighting" for us, are just a game called politics, and we are the captive audience to their play acting. Will the real leader please stand up and refuse the next party and/or talk show invitation?? And will we learn to bridge our differences before we self destruct?

Aiding and abetting the final attempts to close the sale are unpredictable world and weather events. We didn't even have to wait for the famous "November Surprise". First, in October, we had the hot little mess in Libya, where four of our people, including our ambassador, who had previously pleaded for and was denied  more protection, were killed during "an act of terror", not terrorism, mind you, according to Obama--and an incredible back story  in which help was requested numerous times. Stunningly, each time the reply and order came back from Washington "to stand down"! This strains the imagination, not to mention credibility, not to further mention faith in our leaders. So much so, that an official investigation is underway, but nobody seems to know from whom the order came---not even the president who likes to say the buck stops with him. Really??  Well, excuse me, but where's the buck, and what the Sam Hill is going on? If that doesn't shake your confidence, then you have already been sold. Obama is your guy, and you feel he must have had his reasons. Perhaps so, ---we can't know everything, but his silence on this matter is mind boggling. Likewise, the polls were reflecting badly for Obama after this incident. Romney was quick to criticize Obama's handling of the situation, and perhaps make political hay, but his numbers were surging. A done deal? Introducing President Romney?  Not so fast---.

For, now we have a possible game changer, the predicted November surprise.  It's called "Sandy", the horrifically damaging  hurricane, and she may well become Obama's newest, best friend. We are now watching a very caring, supposedly prepared, and leaderly president step up to the plate, promising help and money to a very deserving and suffering east coast, but wouldn't any president do the same?  Still it was a great photo opp. for Obama, and one he used to his advantage, showing us that he knows well how to do such things, at least here at home. Even Chris Christy, Gov of New Jersey was seen arm in arm with Obama, and praising his help and generosity, proving that Republicans and Democrats really can get along if absolutely necessary---and that presidents can rise to the occasion, on occasion.

At this posting, we have three more days to go, before the election.   It's not a done deal yet, and anything could still happen, but what we have learned so far is that while there may be such a thing as the "perfect storm", there is no perfection to be found in presidents or candidates for the highest office in the land--both are flawed in one way or another. Both have fallen short and deserve our scrutiny, ---and perhaps a little forgiveness.  What we need now is our collective wisdom and radar perceptiveness to see through the political dialogue, sales tricks and gimmicks--- and discern finally who can best serve our needs at this critical time in our history. There are those who feel our very survival as a viable country rides on this election. The unrest and undertow of fear and discontent is unlike any we've seen in modern times.

 It's been a hard fought campaign season for both men and parties---down and dirty, filled with lies, secrets and scandals, enough to have some people opt for choice number 3---no sale, no vote, sitting this one out. That's bailing, wrong, and  a cop out, leaving others to to row the boat we're all in.  Love it or leave it, it is our process, the way we do things, and through it all we learn a lot about our choices and even ourselves.

Vote on November 6th, exercise your right as an engaged citizen, and help close perhaps the biggest deal in our lifetime. May the best man win, and may he, whoever he is, remember that it is we whom he serves, all of us, not his own ambitions or extreme agendas. Soon we will know who and what we have bought----a sale will have been struck. Ka-ching and good luck. Too bad there isn't a warranty that comes with the deal---and the promises.

God bless us all---especially those affected by "Sandy", who instructs that we and our differences, political and otherwise, are tiny in comparison to the power and strength of apocalypic events that render us helpless and in desperate need of each other, no matter our differences---is someone trying to tell us something?? And does it have nothing at all to do with politics, large or small government, farms or farmers---but a much bigger picture, one that begs for a people to search inwardly for things other than those which continue to divide us? The greatest salesman whoever lived once said---"love ye one another"---are we buying?    

SHOW TIME IN TAMPA---STARRING MITT ROMNEY ( AND HURRICANE ISAAC)

If I were Mitt Romney this weekend, I would be raising my hands to the sky and pleading, "What   next??!!"

The Republican convention in Tampa, Florida is what. It was scheduled to begin Monday night---right about the time Hurricane Isaac is poised to hit close to Tampa.  Is this another  cruel irony for the Republicans?? Talk about your parade being rained upon. At this point in time, the convention has now been delayed until Tuesday, with plans to compact and shorten  appearances and speeches,  but it's not looking so good for Florida or the Republicans. The latter is still trying to clean up  the verbal mess left  by the congressman from Missouri last week, who at best, misspoke about his views on abortion. Never mind that Joe Biden "misspeaks" every other week, most recently casting Romney as a racial chain master.  The man is a loose cannon, a slick pol of the worst kind, posing as a blue collar sympathizer, guffawing and grinning his way through lies and innuendos----and for the most part getting away with it, because he's just old Joe at it again. Whether Americans are buying his schtick of the avuncular, jocular, means- no- harm sidekick to Obama, or see him as the slick politician with a careless tongue stuck on stupid, is anyone's guess at this point, but it's curious that Obama keeps him around.  Maybe it's because Biden makes Obama look good----dumb cop, smart cop.

But regardless, Obama and company seem to be on a roll, and may once again run away with the prize. Amazing really. Here you have a man, the president, who has virtually done nothing to help us get out of this recession, and many argue that he has done great damage, not only domestically, but internationally. But he remains extremely popular because of his personality which seems to speak to the common man in a hip, cool, they versus us, Robin Hood sort of way. Which is odd, because Obama isn't common at all, but is more of an elitist, academia kind of persona in reality, not known to be warm, affable, or approachable. Just the other day, he had the temerity to suggest that he is usually the 5th or 6th most interesting man in the room, but not that particular occasion. How very humble.  He is not humble. Arrogance shows in the slight skyward lift of his head, and the words he uses to disparage anyone who disagrees with him. But still, he charms with his winning smile and a swagger borne from an enviable inner confidence. He knows how to win, even if he plays dirty, while whining that others do---because he has that "it" factor, otherwise known as panache or charisma---he's the homecoming king, even if he doesn't deserve to be.

Enter Mitt Romney, the man who would be president if only he had more-----uh, what do we want him to have??  Look at him----really look at him, beyond his rather reserved, unshowy personality.  He is handsome in a clean cut, wholesome kind of way.  He is  smart, articulate, successful, and a good family man. He's not cool, he doesn't swagger, and one gets the feeling that it's almost painful for him to indulge in the underbelly of politics. He's a gentleman with manners and morals. He may be just what we need now---a good money manager, a proven commodity in the business world, an x-governor, and a man obviously capable of great leadership. What more could we ask? Our problem, the one that's sinking us, keeping us awake at night, is economics, pure and simple. And Romney has much better credentials and experience in that regard. than Obama. Slam dunk.

 So, what's the problem??  Is it simply that the media has once again done a number on this Republican that isn't even known to be a right leaning conservative, but is, regardless, not one of their own?  Or is it the Dems who have painted Romney's success as somehow undeserving and even underhanded?? Never mind that he saved many a company from bankruptcy and did what it took to do so, salvaging many jobs in the process. Unable to find any personal baggage with which to smear him, the Dems have savagely attacked his business accomplishments , resorted to name calling, and even accused him of indirect murder!  Incredible, really, and proof that there is no accounting for taste, opinion, or how we vote these days----it's not even all about image, but more about connectability. Obama connects, he clicks, he's the king of popularity. Romney is the  straight man to Obama's star quality dazzle. At least that's what we're being told by the media---it's more important to "connect", the new media buzz word,  than to actually fill  the need, more important for the suit to look good, than to fit properly.

Well, what can Romney do to change this, to connect with the American people? The media has the answer, as always--- he cannot change his personality, become what he's  not, but he can get very clear about who and what he is. Tell us his vision and how it will make us better.  Then tell us how he plans to get there. This is what we're told---Romney just doesn't have "it".

 But here's the kicker--- hello??  He's  already done that, in his own quiet way.  The media, and perhaps we as well, just aren't paying enough attention to a mild mannered man, who may very well have the answers to our problems, but isn't oozing "connectability". He has told us clearly that he plans to repeal Obamacare, begin to restore our budget,  and stop our bleeding Medicare and Medicaid programs. He is a man who  believes  in the "American Dream", the old fashioned way---with a government  that is there to help, not hinder progress.  He is the polar opposite of Obama in terms of ideology, but he is not radical within his own party, given to extreme partisanship. I believe he will put country before faith, but that his faith will inform his charity to others.  He is a straight man, not a rock star.  But can he shine at least enough to win?  The polls show the two men in almost a dead heat.

 And now perhaps there will be the perfectly timed storm to deny Romney and the Republicans the bright lights and bounce they need.  But maybe it will supply the electricity the Romney campaign needs ---Mother Nature will do what Romney can't---CONNECT!  In any case,  it ain't over till the fat lady sings, and there's still the simmering pots of Syria,  Israel threatening war against Iran, and the economy. There's still time for the American people to mull, compare, consider their choice. There is, however, no time to get sidetracked by silly sideshows and issues blown out of proportion for political expediency.

 Is it a horse race, or a popularity contest?  No,  it's much more--- the biggest election in years. Buckle your seat belts and get ready for the last laps around the arena of  media hype, vicious ads, public perception, and the winds of war and weather.  Keep an eye out for the winner---he'll be coming around the mountain soon.  Let's hope he's wearing the serious mantle of a leader, not the sparkly crown of a king.   

       

THE SUPREMES' STUPENDOUS DECISION

He looked  elegantly relaxed and supremely confident as he walked  through the majestic White House hallway to the podium to proffer his remarks after the Supreme court had made their historical decision regarding the Affordable Healthcare law. No doubt wisely counseled, Obama did not gloat, preach, nor look smug, as he delivered his comments which said, in effect, that the highest court in the land had not struck down this controversial law, but had put their stamp of approval on it. Well, that may have been a stretch, but the law had been upheld,  even though the judges had to revise it, reword it to make it so. Chalk one up for Obama---he desperately needed a win, and he got it---but was it a victory or fuel for his adversaries. And what did we lose in the process?

It was a hugely significant moment in time, and one which will mark a distinct turning point in our nation's history. This country, which was born from a passionate desire to be free of oppression and over reaching tax dictates by the British monarchy---had just been told that we weren't so free after all.  Against all odds, political arm twisting and chicanery, backroom deals, many law suits, and 35% of the voting population, Obamacare struck at the heart of our hard fought legacy,  and will force everyone to purchase health insurance--or pay a fine.

  The Supreme Court,in a confounding, convoluted decision, which will keep analysts guessing for a long time, declared the health care law a tax---a term Obama, himself had vociferously denied while pushing it through congress---most obviously, because  he had promised no new taxes on the middle class, and this law will surely cost the middle class, if nothing else,  in terms of implementation.  But it apparently was the only way the judges could curiously uphold this very revolutionary, cobbled together law, which seems antithetical to our basic principles of freedom. They could not allow it to be part of  our commerce laws, which would mean we were being, uh, forced to buy a product---so they would simply call this mandated purchase, a " tax", thereby recusing themselves from this sticky wicket---what? Yes, for you see, a tax by any other name in this case a "fine", would be unconstitutional, according to the judges. Brilliant, said some.  Mind boggling said others. Parsing of words was what it was---

 But, isn't that taxation without representation? Well, not really. This law did pass, albeit a very partisan, legal congress.  As one of the judges cryptically wrote, they could not be responsible for our political  choices, or try to undo what has already been done.  It was as though they were saying, "you made your bed, now you must lie in it, and all we can do is try to make the sheets fit the bed."

 Still, it was a surprising decision---and a close one. The vote came down 5-4 with Judge John Roberts, appointed and known as a conservative judge, showing up as the swing "decider", and  who disappointed many a conservative with his vote to uphold this controversial law.  What was he thinking? Was it some clever move to set up a future repeal, should the Republicans win in November? Or an even more sinister ploy to draw  more ire and dis-satisfaction against Obama? Or did he fold under pressure and possible intimidation by the administration?  Perhaps he was still smarting from the verbal spanking he received by Obama in front of the entire congress regarding the Corporate Financing Campaign law, which Roberts had greatly influenced on another 5-4 decision. Had the public chastisement humbled him into submission? We will never know, but his vote this time was a stunning betrayal of conservative values, and played a major role in determing this country's future ideological path. We turned left in a big way, and Roberts helped twist the wheel. A Judge or a Judas?

And so, we move on---one step closer to a welfare/entitlement state, and one step further from the America we used to be, when insurance for the indidual was an individual choice, and healthcare was not another government run program. President Obama had his day in court, and it was a good one ---for him. This one man had indeed changed the way we choose to manage our private lives, by taking one of our very personal choices away.  It was and is a striking accomplishment, and testament to the power of a few over many.

 All of us want good things for this country, but many instinctively know that there is a price for freedom---and all things cannot be free.  Someone has to pay either in dollars, quality of goods rendered, or services performed. Our healthcare is still considered the best in the world.  Whether it remains so, remains to be seen. If Obama is a praying man, one wonders if he murmers into his pillow at night---dear God, I hope this works. We hope so, too.  For while Obama and followers may believe that his version of a required health insurance for all is the only way to go,  this particular bill, now law, was fraught with flaws , unacceptable financial burdens, and loss of quality care, from which we may never recover--- employers who will close or never open, because they cannot afford employee insurance, higher premiums resulting in thousands of dollars per household,  a predicted shortage of doctors, and a lowered standard of care, due to an inevitable connection not to what the doctor thinks best, but to what can actually be afforded under the new Affordable Healthcare law. There will still be those who cannot afford any insurance, but many more of us will be covered---to an extent, and at what cost and sacrifice?

The Supreme Court has spoken, but law or not, the jury of public opinion has not reached a final verdict ----that court convenes in November. Now is the time for us, the many, to decide which few we will choose to make our future decisions. 


It is noteworthy to remember that  236 years ago, this very month of July,  a group of very bright, passionate and articulate men met in Boston and wept after signing a document forever known as the "Declaration of Independence". They knew and appreciated the precious value of freedom of choice---may we think carefully before we dismantle piece by piece any more of it. Or like the Supreme Court's recent action, attempt to revise and re-do words to fit a few in power.


 As Obama stood basking in the light of victory,  and the country was slowly learning the momentous, history making news, there was no celebration in the streets or  sounds of  triumph and joy anywhere.  All was quiet--except perhaps for a few tears.  Breaking up is hard to do-----     

ARE WE BEING "SLOW JAMMED"??

If nothing else, President Obama will go down in history as the coolest president ever, or as Jimmy Fallon called him the "Preezy of rhe United Steezy"---on a recent appearance by Obama on the late night show.  Oh yeah, there he was, our very hip leader of the free world "slow jamming" with Fallon and the band, saying words set to music but fit for a campaign speech. The music was hot, Fallon was funny, and Obama was cleverly and on sync spouting his talking points across to those who like their President served cool with slow jam and a rap beat. It was mesmerizing and awkwardly entertaining. There was something disturbingly wrong with this picture---a bad mix of presidential dignity and the ha-ha party time setting.  It was a disconnect moment for our president to be showing off  his talk show chops, while much of the country is still wondering how to pay the bills. Probably the majority of people watching at that time of night were those out of work, and they could have used a bit more than a tune and a rap from  the eager to be funny "preezy". He needed background singers doing, " Show me the money, honey. Get me a job, Jack. Pump us some oil,  Mr.O."

 But Obama may think it's the only way to reach  the masses, the "folks", the ones who may just dig the prez with the gig---never mind that the country needs less flash and more cash. To be fair, Republican politicians have also been seen on late night talk shows, but they don't seem to be trying so hard to be entertaining.  Maybe it's because they don't find much to laugh at these days, and when you're running against an incumbent, it's very important to stay on message, and less on beat.

And let's face it, Republicans aren't known to be particularly hip or comedic. Somebody really should tell them to loosen up, and learn a little rap---it's what sells, baby---not Santorum's religious morals, and certainly not Gingrich's intellectual prowess and creative ideas. Romney? Jury's still out---but cool, he's not. Yet, media bias aside, I think he's pretty hot. He's an ex-governor, savvy, successful business man, bright, well mannered, articulate, tested and tried under unbelievable pressure. He believes in a much different America than Barack Obama---he's not extreme right, but he sounds right enough to me. I can't visualize him yukking it up with Letterman or Leno, but I can see him leading us out of the mire we're in. Too rich for your blood?  Please---rich doesn't equal bad.  We could use a little know-how in that direction.

In  this very visual age, it's not uncommon to see a president or wannabe as a featured guest on late night  shows, talking points in hand ,well edited , and anything but spontaneous.  But watching them trying to wow the audience with their "let me entertain you" shtick, be it Clinton's sax number, or Obama's rapping seems ---well, just this opposite side of presidential. Or do we now require a resume talent category for those wishing to run for president? Please check off, rock star, comic, a song and dance man?  Has entertainment become the commonest denominator, the one avenue to our attention span? Pretty sad, if that's the case, but I hear that the Leno or Letterman show is precisely where many people get their news. After all, who wants to listen to Charlie Rose explore great minds, after a hard day at work, or  A.C. Anderson of CNN trying to ply the news  by his "keeping them honest" segment ---is he kidding?  Who can we really believe is being honest these days? Most all of the major news channels are liberally slanted. Standing pretty much alone is  Fox news, supposedly fair and balanced, but is conservatively owned and operated. So, why bother?

 No,  the talk shows are the place to be---but wait---Letterman is unabashedly liberal, as is Jimmy Fallon. Leno at least plays it down the middle most of the time, but the Republicans are so much safer  to ridicule, and he does, because that's show biz, folks. But it's double whammy time when Obama is invited on the Letterman show---pity the poor Republican politician who tries to politely explain his views with Letterman, who seems to have  tongue firmly in cheek even while asking a serious question---it's set up time, and guess who's the fall guy. It's not Letterman and it's painful to watch an unsuspecting politician not even realize when he's being baited.  But when Obama makes his royal appearance, it's gush, mush, and 'let me help you campaign', time. Letterman usually looks like a fawninng fan, stroking, grinning and flattering, ad nauseam.

The night that Sara Palin appeared on Saturday Night Live was the pinnacle of embarrassing moments for me---why, oh why, did she allow herself to be mocked, humiliated, and targeted for even more hostility from the liberal crowd at SNL?? Or is TV or movie fame the ultimate ambition for everyone--even politicians? Can they not resist the aphrodisiac of celebrity?  Maybe they should all form their own reality survival show and see who wins by public acclaim based on cool, looks, and talent. Smarts matter, but only if they are accompanied by all the rest. Oh, but---aren't they/we already doing that?  Yes!!  It's Obama, the cool one, vs. Romney, the rich one.  The show down is in November. Should be a doozy of a run-up.

Maybe that's why they call this "the silly season"---anything goes, just beg, borrow or steal those votes any way you can. Personally, I prefer my presidential contenders to stay off the entertainment circuit.  It's like hearing that Alec Baldwin might run for public office. Huh?? Yes, Ronald Reagan did it once upon a time, but there are exceptions to everything. In general, I really have trouble taking anybody running for the most serious office in the land seriously, when the winner is whoever can be the most fun.  So, now that we're down to just two possibilities, let's bring on the debates again.  I'm ready for some pithy back and forths, some challenging questions, and clarifying answers as to how to get this economy purring again.  This is real life, and the show is not about ratings---it's about the election and who can best serve our interests, which are considerable and the consequences of incredible importance to our destiny---or have we all gone mad, and care only for someone who can make us laugh,  thrill to their quick repartee wit, and admire their ability to wail on a sax--- until we no longer remember that often it's the quiet, reserved, some may think unexciting, kid at the back of the room who knows all the answers? Does that sound like Romney, now that Gingrich has finally left the room? Maybe. But please, Mitt---stay off the talk shows. And if you do go on, don't try to be funny---- it doesn't become you,----and no slow jamming.

Hey, you might ask, what does  "slow jamming" mean anyway?  Originally coined to mean slow, romantic rythym and blues music,  it is now a colloquial term too new to be absolutely defined---but seems to imply a sort of spell binding technique, used by those seeking power to lull and charm. It's street talk for " sweet talkin".Barry White, the deceased singer, used to do that very well. Personally,  I'm in no mood---got a major headache, and want my president like my tea and toast. Straight up---skip the cream and definitely no jam. 

OBAMA VS. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

If spring is any indication----we're gonna make it after all.  The world is still spinning, the daffodils blooming, and things seem to be looking up just a little. Unemployment is down, the stock market is up, and one can hope that we are slowly climbing out of the recession.  But not so fast--- there are reasons to believe that happy days are not here again, quite yet. There appears to be no quick fixes.  More people have been and continue to be out of work for a longer period than ever before---six months or more.And many have given up looking---and are not counted among the unemployed.  Our national debt continues to climb to a hefty 16 million and counting. There are attempted answers ---Paul Ryan, head of the congressional budget committee introduced one this past week, a new plan with viable solutions.  It passed the House, but hasn't a chance in this election year to pass the Senate, which is controlled by Dems and will not approve anything with a Republican's name on it---oh, I forgot--it's the Repubs. who are the obstructionists---or so we are told.  After all, to be fair, those pesky Republicans recently declined to pass Obama's long awaited budget, which ironically, even the Senate  turned down, by the way. No budget passing in an election year, gang---that's the deal, and the one thing both parties agree on. This is really getting old.. Where are the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans? Some say that their absence is the cause for the congress's inability to agree or compromise. But perhaps it's simply that we have, indeed, become too polarized as a nation, and that we are going through the contractions of huge change and direction. Where it all ends is anybody's guess, but it bears watching and deep soul searching.
 

A good example of our differences is the infamous Healthcare Act , which while it originally was made into law, is now on life support, as the Supreme Court addresses whether it is or ever was constitutional.  Only 30 % of Americans are in favor of this very controversial bill, which while it may have been an effort to stem the nation's troubling health costs, appears to be more expensive to implement and sustain than what we already live with---soaring costs and 40 million uninsured.   Again, there are no quick answers, and even though it was the centerpiece of Obama's first year in office, it was pushed through too hastily and without bi-partisan support---get it done and damn the consequences seemed to be the word from the Oval office. The consequences were loud outcries from those who felt it was a major assault on our individual liberties and impossible to insure 40 million extra people without someone paying for it somehow. Insurance companies aren't known to give away freebies.  Medicare, the one piggy bank Obama said he'd use to pay for the extra costs, can hardly afford to be stretched any further----so who does that leave?  Contrary to what we were led to believe, turns out, it was us all along---in the form of higher premiums, almost guaranteed higher taxes, and very likely, diminished quality of medical care.

It didn't help that that few people understood or even today, understand what's in it and how it's all supposed to work---- a major breakdown in communication.  Odd, for a president whose communication skills are some of the best. Whether it will stand or fall remains to be heard, but the battle will grind on, regardless.  Never a small thing, this issue of a forced purchase  is not sitting well with most of us---we don't like forced anything. Yes, we understand the necessity of a certain amount of taxes, but not this---this is over the top, government over reach, and a direct assault on our sense of freedom.

Who told Obama he and a one sided Senate could institute this new law and get away with it, anyway? Obviously, his inner circle---but really? What planet were they living on to think there would not be resistance,  heavy criticism, and scrutiny? Or did they think all of us were willing to accept anything at all that gets passed by the President and a partisan Senate? Is it possible that they didn't care, that they actually felt their opinions were unassailable, and their power absolute? Unbelievable, yet a sign of arrogance by the President and his cronies. Perhaps now, he and they are finally getting the message that we like our laws  fairly created, less sneaky, and if not straight down the middle, not  listing way to the left, so as to drown out the right of a heretofore free country. It's also imperative that they are clearly constitutional, which this one apparently is not.----or it would have not been so questionable as to end up in the highest court of the land.  One can only hope this group of judges will rise above their partisan feelings and uphold our sacred right to choose if and from whom we insure ourselves.

What of those people who choose not to---or cannot afford to?  They and that issue must be dealt with---but  at the forced expense of all  of us and  our freedom to choose?  Perhaps, but at least now, we're getting a good look and an education on what we were told we must buy and never mind the details. Don't be surprised if even the Supreme Court decides to punt on this one---lots of punting going on these days, and the Justices may not be an exception, when they consider the implications of a riled up left wing and the tongue lashing they will receive at the hands of Obama. He is not known to take his losses well and without publicly humiliating his foes. Leaks not withstanding, we may not know the outcome until June, and it is highly likely that this is an issue that will burn far longer, for it lies at our constitutional core and opens the door to further encroachment of a government seemingly intent of taking care of us, rather than allowing us to be strong, independent, and free enough to care for ourselves.

Before closing, I would like to make clear that I, like many Americans, had hopes for this president in spite of our different party affiliations---he has shattered them. Though I did not vote for him, I was proud of him and sincerely hoped that the office would make the man, that he could possibly rise above party politics and lead this country in a new and strengthened direction. He has done neither. In fact, many feel he has worsened our economy , weakened our military, and embarrassed our international status. In spite of my doubts, he had me for a while with his great intellect, cool manner, and his seemingly good will for all, but he lost me along the way. The final straws are his obvious efforts to be re-elected by his followers by incurring class and even racial warfare. I find this distasteful, disturbing, dangerous, and  unacceptable in a leader, who should be above such tactics and self/party centered concerns. It is heavy handed and even bully-ish to use his position  to persuade by pitting one group against the other, be it race, creed, or income.  It reeks of Chicago politics---and this is not the United States of Chicago.

Will this president, his style, and his record survive through the next election? There are pundits who say that win, lose, or draw, Obama's political fortunes will rest on the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding his main accomplishment, the Health Care Act.  But in reality, the court of public opinion will have the last say. On a recent trip to Russia, Obama once again spoke indiscreetly into a "hot mic"This makes twice now---is he trying to mimic Joe Biden, or was this somehow as some have suggested, a  deliberate faux pas and a leak to his party doves?? Speaking to Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev, he whispered that he would have "more flexibility" after the election, referring to the topic of negotiating our defense system.  Really, Mr. President?  That's not only presumptive on your part, but very scary. Write this down---flexibility works both ways. It may be April, but I hear some Novembers hold great opportunity for hope and change---.


 




   

THE EMPEROR WHO WORE NO CLOTHES--- ??

The State of the Union Address was the hottest ticket in Washington town last Tuesday night, and President Obama, staggering under massive problems,  knocked it out of the park ---if only words were deeds,  soaring rhetoric were based on accomplishments, and poor little 'ole secretaries were not exploited as victims of the nasty, rich Republicans. Think about it---how much salary would it take for the secretary of Warren Buffet, who sat like a commoner next to the regal Michelle Obama, to be making enough money to pay less tax than  her boss??  About 150 "thou"--- and not likely. Shame on Warren Buffet for perpetrating this ruse on the American people, and Obama for using it as the center piece for his speech, and the opening shot for his election campaign, which should be called  ' Obama is my name, and class warfare is my game. You might call this the State of the Union---I call it " hard ball", the Chicago way.' It was a great show of bravado in the face of low approval for performance ratings, few noteworthy accomplishments, and an anxious administration wondering how they will fare in the upcoming election." Give 'Em  The Old Razzle Dazzle"  could have been the opening number.

The theatre of the absurd continued during the speech with talk of giving everyone a "fair shot", how well the country is doing, and will be doing,  if only the Republicans would stop obstructing everything. Never mind that they have sent numerous bills to the Senate only to have them completely rebuffed. House majority leader, John Boehner looked like he had been forced into the principle's office and made to sit behind him as he berated all things Republican.. Biden apparently was there just in case Boehner couldn't take it anymore, and tried to walk out, or passed out from the verbal beating his party took.

No mention, of course, was given to the actual state of affairs, which is dismal. Our union hasn't been this troubled and divided in a very long time. Our economy is hardly doing well, with a slight growth rate of 2.8% but there are grave worries about sustainability, with millions of people still out of work, and the housing situation reporting the worst, this past year , of any in recorded history. The budget crisis has never been solved, and is now at 16 plus trillion.  The tax payers' money, to the tune of 130 billion, which funded the president's stimulus programs has largely failed, and continues with poor investments in energy companies like Solyndra,  and yet another bankrupted energy company, called Enter One.  Nothing was mentioned about fixing Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, the real, core problems which must be addressed if ever we are to free ourselves of our drowning financial situation. And interestingly, Obama barely mentioned his very unpopular healthcare program--- presumably because it too, will add only more debt burden to all of us.

But regardless, our president seems to have his mojo back.  He likes a good fight, and he's never better than when he can talk the talk of a man who seems to consider himself almost emperor like, with his swagger, wise, defiant tones of voice, and direct, stern glares into the eyes of the American people.  Will they buy it this time? Or will they finally ask themselves what it is he's selling? Do we really want the kind of America he envisions? Do we even know what he really envisions? One can frighteningly guess by looking at his past history, his associations, and his mentors, which include  Jeremiah Wright, the  angry pastor of Obama's long attended church, and author of the memorable words, "God damn America", Saul Alinsky, the radical  left wing godfather of community organizing, and Bill Ayers, the unapologetic,  x-weatherman underground terrorist.

Obama's words of "fairness" are meant to identify with the occupiers' grievances and garner votes from those who want to believe that somehow if we keep blaming others, and asking those who have much to give more and more to those who have less,  that they and the country will be better off..  It  does not seem to work that way---never has, never will. For even if all the very rich gave all they had, it would only make a dent in our financial woes, and eventually the entitlement state would run out of money. But  Utopia is a dream that plays well to the masses--and so it  lives on. What happens, when we can no longer afford ourselves??  Will that be "fair', or just another failed experiment in governance that finally reached its tipping point and failed as many others have?

Yes, the speech was a home run---if it were baseball.  But it wasn't---it was the beginning of a very contentious and important election season.  Too bad the president of the United States couldn't have used it to, as it was originally intended--- report the actual facts, and try to bring us together in order to make us unitedly strong and focused on reality.  He could have listed his actual accomplishments, along with his failures without appearing a failure. We would have at least respected, instead of suspected the motives of this very charming politician, but less than great or effective president.  But what we saw Tuesday night, as he worked the distinguished room and basked in the applause and admiration of his constituents was a man who still induces and experiences the magic that swept him into office--that undefinable quality that engenders adoration, respect, and a sort of Kennedy-eque worship. But to many, the speech that followed lacked credibility in that it looked like a strut and sounded like a toast---to himself, but without substance.  The facts are that the economy is still extremely fragile, the people have lost confidence, and the future is very cloudy at best. We have not come back yet. We're not sure we ever will. And somewhere along the way, we have lost even our national pride. It was shallow and a cheap shot to ask us to believe that the only reason more hasn't been done in terms of the budget and other matters is that the Republicans have stood in the way, when the Dems had two full years of controlling both the Senate and the House, and accomplished very little.

 Overly long , appallingly boastful,  and celebratory spoken to a country still reeling and suffering from the after shocks of an economic catastrophe, the speech was, if nothing else, a clear view of Obama's ideology.  In trouble or not, lost or sinking, he believes the answers lie in bigger government,  more social entitlements, and a distribution of wealth by the wealthy. To that end, he has now staked his presidency, and thrown down the gauntlet to the Republican challengers, but  the question remains---is that what the majority of Americans want, and is that philosophy in the best interest of a country founded on very different principles?

Judjing from the reception he received on Tuesday night, and other polls which suggest high marks for Obama's personal popularity, not to mention the problematic Republican party, it is conceivable that this president will work his magic once again, in spite of having little to show, in terms of addressing our real problems, for his first four years in office.  Is this some kind of an illusion of greatness bestowed upon Obama by people who see something that so far doesn't seem to exist?

Or, in the final analysis,  is Obama actually exactly what we see----a man dressed not in the traditional garb of America's past, but in those of a very different kind of America---blame, entitlement, and re-distribution of someone else's wealth, used to re-organize us into what Obama referred to as an America "built to last"?  What a strange term for a country, built on independence, capitalistic values, limited government, and liberty for all, and which  has lasted for well over 200 years, but  is now already crumbling under the weight of an opposite ideology, one which exploits a a crowd pleasing platitude of "fairness" which in turn invites resentment and division and  ultimately begets dependence on a government built too big to survive. The election of 2012 waits in the shadows of our future---the choices are stark and without precedent. Consider, and cast your vote carefully-----

REPUBLICAN DEBATE OR DEBACLE??

You gotta love this country---where else can you watch a presidential election season that goes on for two years, and where the participants not only get sent to the cleaners by the media, but by themselves as well?  We Americans do not need others to criticize us---we're masters of self examination and flagellation. We're great at cleaning out closets and finding any lurking skeletons. Yes, before we'll even think about voting for you, we'll  send you to hell and back, publicly air all your dirty laundry, and hang you out to dry. If you're still standing, we'll treat you to more.  But what great theatre it is---if you like to watch people embarrass themselves and humiliate others. Watching the  Republican debate last Saturday night was like watching a game of cat and mouse---even though there were only 3 cats, and 5 mice. The cats, the mainstream media known as Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos, and Josh McElveen, seemed to be doing their best to trap the mice, otherwise known as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and John Huntsman, the remaining Republican presidential candidates.

.George S., asking questions of little relevance to the forthcoming election, was a prime example of baiting, instead of debating.  Mr. Stephanopoulos, who was a senior advisor under the Clinton administration and is still of the liberal persuasion appeared much  like a college student trying to get the best of a much smarter professor as he went after Romney with a completely irrelevant and out of left field question---"would you approve of a state banning contraceptives?" Excuse me?  What?? Romney, who is at all times respectful, Mr. Nice Guy, even had a hard time remaining so, as he stared at George increduously, trying to decide how to answer in such a way as to not completely dismiss or discredit George or the question.  He replied that he didn't know of any state that was banning contraceptives, so what's the problem?  In other words, what does that have to do with anything? But George continued to badger Romney, until the audience began showing their disapproval by booing Stephanopoulos and then applauding Romney when he finally broke down after six attempts by George  to bully him into an answer, and called the question "silly". "Stupid", wouldn't have been too strong a word for anyone other than Romney. At the very least, the question was inappropriate and out of context, and it very much appeared that George was trying to paint the governor from Mass. as a  religious fanatic, morally dangerous to our increasingly secular society. Giving him some benefit of the doubt, his question probably had roots in the infamous "Roe vs. Wade" ruling, which proceeded the "right to privacy" ruling.  But it was such an obvious stretch and attempt to cast Romney in a negative light that it sunk under the weight of Stephonoupolos's attack mode. Would he pose such a loaded question to Obama---"Tell me, President  Obama--- how would you feel if all the Christians gathered and insisted on prayer in the schools?  And by the way, if all the Republican congressmen were suddenly sitting in your living room, would you serve them tea or contempt?"

The debates are usually lead by the liberal media, who in turn treat the Republican candidates as suspects, rather than viable, qualified men seeking the presidency. They should be asked tough, relevant questions, but not of the sort nor in the manner of G.S. The issues of importance today are of the economy, jobs, international affairs, and which direction philosophically, this country wishes to go.  Diane Sawyer also disappointed with her strangely framed question of gays and how the candidates might speak to them were they seated with them in a living room setting. Really?? It is doubtful that any one of the current top Republican contenders would dramatically change any of the existing laws having to do with contraceptives or gay rights. Most of them believe in leaving those sorts of issues up to the individual states, not the  federal government. Yes, they can appoint conservative judges, but not of the extreme variety without being scrutinized and vetted by the senate and the ever watching American public.

It is not at all unusual for the presidential debates to be held within the framework of the mostly liberal press--but this was a grand and obvious display of bias and attempt to color the candidates socially narrow minded and unfit to be the president of the United States, because of their personal opinions and faiths . It would seem this is doing the country a dis-service, as the real issues of concern this time, are not so much social issues, but hard core financial problems. We want to know how these men would put the country back to work , what they would do to fix our broken budget, and how they would approach the growing middle east problems, especially the nuclear threats coming out of Iran.

At one point, Newt Gingrich gave the debate a refreshing twist when he turned the tables on the interviewing panel by asking them why the media never questions the government for their increasing bias against Christian institutions and values. It was a defining moment for Gingrich and gave rise to the thought that perhaps the candidates ought to stop allowing themselves to appear as trapped mice in a shooting gallery, and change the format to one in which they could actually debate each other and the issues of importance.

 There will be plenty of time in the coming months for dissection of the chosen Republican candidate's opinions on everything from soup to nuts ,abortions to the nuclear threat, as he goes toe to toe against Obama and his Democrat party machine. But for now, the Republicans need to show a united front against the current administration, exhibit how and why theirs would be a better approach to saving this country from financial destruction, and refuse to be victimized and belittled by news reporters who present themselves as fair and balanced, but who, in fact are at times so slanted that their so called debate slide into a debacle.  It's proof that life isn't fair, and neither is this process of the mostly liberal media trying to play "got'cha" with the candidates.  Only this time, the one who got caught red handed, was George Stephanopoulos  like a planted  rookie, trying to play ball with the big boys. Dial it down, George---you looked,--- well,silly.

But as if the candidates themselves aren't happy to let the debates and the likes of G.S. vet or get them---they, themselves seem to feel its necessary to weed out each other---it's a tough game,  politics. One minute you're up, the next down---and sometimes snookered by your own team mates..Newt Gingrich, who suffered a big loss in Iowa, unwisely decided to go after Mitt Romney on the eve of the New Hampshire primary held on Tuesday of this week.  It was payback time for Newt who was still smarting from his loss in the Iowa primary, for which he blamed negative ads put out by a conservative political action group, Super Pac,  and not disputed by Romney. Rick Perry joined in the fray, criticizing Romney for his past history of dismantling, firing, and rebuilding  companies in trouble. They accused Romney of "vulture capitalism". By the way, is that anything like taking over the auto companies?? Tsk, tsk, and sour grapes to you both. Obama and company must be taking notes---and smiling like Cheshire cats who's cream has just been handed them.

Meanwhile, Romney won  in New Hampshire, with Ron Paul, the Jack- in- the- box surprise element of the campaign season, coming in second, and John Huntsman showing up third. But is anyone truly winning yet?? Ron Paul is a wild card that's looking strangely playable lately. What's up with that? The man is gathering steam,and there are those who say it's time to listen to his brand of libertarian conservatism vs. moderate conservatism.  But, unless he can take the scare out of his isolationist policy, he's running just for the exercise.  No one seems to know exactly what the Republicans are looking for, but they'd best find it soon, or Obama may win by default. Note to Repubs.---it's time to circle the wagons, or leave Dodge City to the Dems---
  
The bloodied candidates will have another chance with yet another debate next Monday night. Let's hope the format is more fair, and that the candidates themselves will stop trying to destroy each other, as this uniquely American process continues. Soon, the ultimate debates will begin----the  Republican challenger vs. President Obama, and the well equipped Democrat machine.  We can dream that the media moderators will at least keep their bias down to a low roar, and that they allow the American people to decide, based on fair and pertinent questions.

Debate, debacle, or disgusting---it's show time in America. The whole world is watching---and one thing they can't say about us---we don't coddle our own, or hide our flaws.  Like one big noisy family, we let it all hang out---may the best man win, and may we have the wisdom to choose correctly. The prize is our future.   .