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-----
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
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. .
.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. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)