The Positive Influence of Rush Limbaugh

On the heels of Barack Obama’s “Inauguration Speech from Hell”, MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz proclaimed the end of the Conservative era in American politics over the last 20 years.  To drive this point home, Schulz took a copy of Rush Limbaugh’s first book, “The Way Things Ought To Be”, and emphatically slammed it into a wastebasket on camera.

This illustration hit quite close to home for me, and I’m sure for others who came of age politically in the early 1990’s (and I suspect this was Schultz’ intent).  With Ed’s joyous proclamation of the supposed end of Limbaugh’s style of political thought and influence, I thought it would be appropriate to review the positive way that the influence of Limbaugh helped positively shape the politics of my generation.

When “The Way Things Ought To Be” was first released, in 1992, I was a fresh-faced high school graduate just starting the process of venturing out into the “real world”.  I was just starting to notice—on the most rudimentary of levels—politics in America, as well as just beginning to shape my political identity.  Despite being raised in a very Conservative, very Republican, and very rural area, I couldn’t have told you the difference between Republicans and Democrats, or the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism at that point in my young political life.  I knew that most people around me voted Republican, but I largely didn’t know why they did so (with the exception of their opposition to abortion, which even at that early point in my political development, seemed to be the most obvious and moral of all political positions to take).  To be sure, my focus was at that point in life was on my upcoming Freshman year of college, and the consideration of just how many pretty girls would be roaming around the campus of the University of Missouri.  But as far as politics went, I was essentially a blank slate at that point in life—as I suspect most 18-year old young men are.

Enter Limbaugh.  I had been vaguely aware of Rush during my Senior year of High School—his short-lived (but well-done) television show had aired in our market.  I watched the show every night, enjoyed the humor, and noticed that his explanation of the state of American politics at the time seemed quite sensible.  However, I didn’t initially place any more importance on Rush other than as an interesting half-hour television show that was a welcome break from the torturous boredom that was “Wheel of Fortune” (which competed in Rush’s timeslot in Springfield, MO.  Or maybe Rush replaced “Wheel”?…my memories of the specifics are hazy some 20 years later).  But then I began my college matriculation in the fall of 1992—and once in a while, here and there, I would hear the occasional person mention Limbaugh, perhaps speaking of an on-air joke or maybe his take on a current political or cultural event.  Sometimes I would hear my fellow students who worked with me in the dorm cafeteria mention something Rush had said on the air that day.  Or maybe I’d go to the small barber shop across the street from campus where I would get my hair cut-a barber shop that always seemed to have Limbaugh’s show playing on the radio when I would go in (and, I’m pleased to report, a barber shop that is still around today, as I discovered on a recent trip back to the Mizzou campus).  It seemed that Limbaugh was a topical part of the political environment, though I wasn’t specifically seeking him out myself.

Granted, not every mention I heard of Limbaugh I heard was a positive one.  It seemed every TV network and talk show of the day was going out of their way—tripping over each other, even—to do a show on Limbaugh and his “shocking” brand of radio.  And I noticed that nearly every mention of Rush on network television was quite negative in nature.  But I noticed something else—nearly every mention of Limbaugh from people that I knew and interacted with each and every day (many of which actually listened to his radio show) was quite positive.  And to be sure, the Mizzou campus in 1992 was no hotbed of Conservatism (as few college campuses are, even in the best of times).  But amid the rapturous feelings that permeated the campus for Bill Clinton, and amid much of the general rebelliousness against “establishment society” that young people in their late teens and early twenties invariably grasp onto at any university, and amid the countless college professors who were doing their dead-level best to convince me and other Freshman that the America we grew up in was the cause of many of humanity’s problems instead of the solution, there still seemed to be quite a few folks who heard Limbaugh’s message and gravitated towards it, even among the prevailing political and cultural tides on campus.  I suppose I noticed, though perhaps I didn’t initially realize it.

And then, one day during my Freshman year, I saw a copy of “The Way Things Ought To Be” on the shelf in the campus bookstore.  I purchased the book and quickly read it cover to cover—the first political book I can remember reading of my own volition, rather than reading for a class assignment or coursework.  And I was stunned.  There it was, in plain English…a down-to-earth, common-sense, humorous at times, explanation of American Politics—including all of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Instead of speaking in high-minded theoretical platitudes like my professors did (or like I’d noticed the evening news anchors or pontificators on the Sunday talk shows of the period did), Rush wrote in very real terms of America’s problems, it’s challenges, it’s history, and it’s future.  In written form, the book illustrated why voting Republican and standing for Conservative values was the most sensible path to take in America.  And there was something else significant—the confidence and pride that Limbaugh wrote with when discussing America and Conservatism. 

This confidence and pride was the exact opposite of the people I’d known through the years who seemed to share a Conservative worldview (a worldview that, instinctive as it was, I was still learning the finer points of).   Many of the adults I’d grown up around—most of which shared the political attitudes of Limbaugh and other Conservatives, whether they necessarily realized it or not—were nevertheless of a generation where speaking publicly about politics or political viewpoints was frowned upon.  “Not wanting to rock the boat” seemed to be a cultural motif of that generation (not only in politics, but in their approach to life in general).  In spite of having political and cultural viewpoints in common with Limbaugh or other Conservatives, it was like pulling teeth to get those adults to talk about or explain their viewpoints or publicly advocate for them. 

Perhaps they were too polite.  Or perhaps they thought of politics as something deeply personal that really wasn’t the stuff of polite discussion in mixed company.  But whatever the reason, this generation—though devout in their political viewpoints—were verbally silent during my youth and adolescence.  All while their political opposites where preaching Liberalism from every news broadcast, movie, pop song, sitcom, and textbook that my generation was exposed to.  While the previous generation of Conservatives did their talking at the ballot box (but few other places), the Liberals of that generation shouted their message from every mountaintop they could find…and the result was an acceptance (or perhaps even resignation) to Liberal ideas about culture, wealth, and crime that was the polar opposite of what my generation, deep down, knew to be “right and wrong”—but we felt that it was perhaps rude or out of line to question these things.  After all, our parents and grandparents knew differently, but yet they weren’t vocal about these differences.   Hence, much of my generation was “politically confused” when we need not be.

But no teeth-pulling was required with Rush—he was eager to explain to us, a generation that was ready and willing to become politically educated—the virtues of Conservatism.  Just as Liberals of the previous 40 years or so hadn’t been afraid to “rock the boat” and preach their gospel from every platform that they could get their hands on, Limbaugh wasn’t afraid to confidently and passionately express a differing viewpoint.  Rush was fighting fire with fire, in a way that people of my generation had never seen Conservatives attempt to do so before.  No longer did people—the majority of Americans, in fact—have to feel as though they could only speak in hushed tones about things like traditional values, hard work, and personal responsibility.  We would no longer allow ourselves to be confined by Liberals to the isolated corner of the room insomuch as the cocktail party of American political discussion was concerned.  Sure, people would get offended merely by Conservatives speaking openly about our viewpoints (just as I suspect our parents and grandparents feared), but Rush showed that maybe those people needed to be offended.  Perhaps their ideas, at last, needed to be publicly questioned by those of us who always doubted them, but were hesitant to speak out publicly in earlier times.

Rush took a lot of bullets publicly for advocating his political beliefs, just as Conservatives have always taken bullets privately for doing so.  But Limbaugh proved that you could take those bullets, and emerge stronger, more powerful, with a smile on your face and a trademark sense of humor, and continue to press on.

It was damn near an inspiration for the rest of us…and Conservatives are not often a group of people who naturally seek “inspiration” from anybody.

“The Way Things Ought To Be” proved in written form—just as Limbaugh’s show proved in verbal form—that common sense and traditional ideas had a place at the table in American political thought.  And the mere fact that we had finally wedged a seat up to that table—after having been relegated to the “kiddie table” for so many generations—was then and is now too much for the Left to take.  Rush—and countless others that followed in his footsteps, both publicly and privately—forced the Left to debate issues and questions that they thought had been put to bed for evermore.  Such debate was and is literally the last thing the modern Left wants to see in American politics, the biggest threat (in their minds) to their vision of what America should one day become.

So when Schultz threw “The Way Things Ought To Be” in the wastebasket—both literally and figuratively—I suspect it was with the hope that Liberals could turn the clock back to the 1960’s and 1970’s—when their ideology and demands went virtually unchallenged and unquestioned in American society.  Having to defend their ideas in the public square is something that rarely works to Liberal’s advantage in the long-term…sure, for short periods of time Liberalism can sound appealing to the masses (and we may be going through such a brief period in American history now), but over the long haul, Americans want to make their own decisions, live their own lives, and take advantage of the Liberty that is endowed to us not by any government, but by our Creator.  Deep down, Liberals know this, and that’s why they proclaim—and hope—that the era of Rush Limbaugh…and the era of robust political debate…is over for good.

How to Save CNN

Recently, Jim Walton, the President of CNN, resigned siting that the vaunted cable network “needs new thinking”.  A quick look at the numbers would seem to bear this statement out—CNN is showing it’s lowest ratings since the 1990’s, and during the second quarter of this year, some of their shows lost as much as 41% of their viewership.  In terms of comparison, CNN is consistently placing third (sometimes a distant third) behind competitors Fox News and MSNBC.    (Source:   http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/cnns-jim-walton-resigns_b79823 )

So if CNN is doing this poorly (at least comparatively) and is in need of some "new thinking"--then specifically what kind of new thinking or new strategies are needed in order to turn the network around?

In my estimation, CNN's main problem is that they are neither "Fish nor Fowl".  They certainly aren’t a “Conservative” network, but by the same token, MSNBC is the more blatantly Liberal network (CNN’s Liberalism seems to be more subtle).  They try to play the “middle of the road” angle (not that they actually are middle of the road—just look at their pro-control programming right after the Colorado of “convincing “ people that they are middle of the road).

 While many people claim to like the idea that journalism should be “middle of the road” or “unbiased” (as laughable as the idea of any sort of journalism actually being unbiased might be), the numbers (and distant 3^rd place finishes) would indicate otherwise.  We are in a politically contentious environment, and the American people are chomping at the bit to “choose sides”.  CNN is largely failing at convincing people to identify with them as a result.  In practice, it would appear that a comparatively low number of Americans (or, at the very least, a low number of the potential Cable news audience) actually want the middle-of-the-road, supposedly “unbiased”, approach to journalism that many people claim they want.

So, if CNN is to “pick a side” with their future hanging in the balance, does it make more sense for them to go more Liberal, or to go more Conservative.  Well, let’s look at where the opportunity is—On the left you have not only MSNBC, but all three major networks, most of the entertainment and music industry, and most of the newspaper industry.  Pretty hard to carve out a niche for yourself with that much competition!  But on the Right, you have only Fox News, Talk Radio, and a good section of the internet (think Drudge Report and Breitbart).  So, comparing the two, it would appear on the surface that there’s more room for competition and acquiring market share on the Right side of America’s political spectrum.

You read that right—in order to survive, CNN must swing hard to the Right.

But can you “outfox” Fox?   Is it possible to move even further to the Right than Fox and pick up market share?   Potentially, yes—look at the primetime lineup, the only rip-roarin’ Conservative among ‘em is Sean Hannity.  Bill O’Reilly (for all the people who bash him as a right-wing ideologue)  is downright Centrist some nights.  Greta Van Sustren doesn’t wear her politics on her sleeve, and the strength of her show is more on the interviews anyway.  Throw in Glenn Beck being gone, and you start to see that there is room to swing even to the right of Fox!

For all the talk from the Left of Fox News’ “Right Wing Extremism”, there is still a segment of the population that desires programming, news, and analysis that goes even further to the Right than Fox News does.  And it’s in this area where there is a bit of a void in the Cable news marketplace.  Perhaps this is an area that CNN could potentially challenge in.

It boils down to simple mathematics and simple business—unless either the Left-wing demand for programming or the Right-wing demand programming is significantly larger than the other (and presently, there is no indication that either are),  then trying to take a piece of the pie that already has a multitude of fingers in it is a sure path to starvation.  The Liberal “pie” already has many networks, newspapers, and other businesses trying to carve out their piece of that pie.  But the Conservative pie has far fewer fingers in it, despite the fact that it might indeed be growing.  If CNN would challenge for a piece of that pie, they could end up with a much larger and filling meal than they ever could otherwise!

Mitt Romney's Rich...So What???

Second verse…same as the first…a little bit louder…and a whole lot worse!

Some of our more loyal readers may remember that, last December, I made quite the criticism of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry when they began attacking Mitt Romney’s wealth in the primary.  (Original post here:  http://www.americasevilgenius.blogspot.com/2011/12/should-we-really-criticize-10000-bet.html )  Now, if you’ll recall, I was no fan of Romney in the primaries.  He was my last choice of last choices among the field (ok…maybe I would have backed him ahead of Jon “May I become a Democrat, Please?” Huntsman, but that’s about it!).  But despite my intense dislike…Hell, my hatred of Mitt Romney, I still believed that attacking him for his wealth was senseless.  There are many reasons to dislike or doubt Mitt Romney, I always used to say…but his wealth is not among them.

And so it has come to pass (or run, if you’re Georgia Tech) that seven months later, with the GOP primary a distant (if not fond) memory, that Obama and his minions are picking up those same “anti-wealth” arguments right where Gingrich, Perry, and the rest left them.  The last several weeks have been filled with talk of Swiss Bank Accounts (legal fiscal maneuver, last time I checked), people who lost their jobs when their companies were acquired by Bain Capital (although the alternative in most of those cases—for Bain not to buy those companies and allow them to die on the vine, costing even more jobs—would seem to be far worse), and general accusations that Romney’s wealth has somehow made him “out of touch” with regular Americans.

And seven months later, I ask the Democrats—just as I asked Gingrich, Perry, et al back in December—“As a voter, why should any of this dissuade me from voting for Mitt Romney?”  Should I consider it a character flaw that someone may legally place their money in a Swiss Bank Account as to avoid an unfair and arduous tax code?  Because I don’t.  Should I consider it an indictment of Mitt’s leadership skills that he consistently made decisions at Bain Capital that resulted in the company turning a profit (in other words, he successfully did his job)?  Because I don’t.  Should I worry that Mitt doesn’t always “relate” to that group of Americans who sits on their couches, watches Maury Povich while eating junk food purchased with their EBT cards and ironically bitching that the wealthy aren’t “doing enough” for them?  Because I don’t.

Now, if the subject is Romney’s lack of Social Conservatism, Romney’s own version of Health Care (aka “Obamacare v 1.0”), or Romney’s flip-flopping on nearly every issue during his political career, or Romney’s lack of chutzpah in going after Obama (where is the nut-cutting Mitt we saw in the primaries, anyhow?), then I’ll criticize Romney until the proverbial cows come home.  But on the subject of Romney’s wealth and how he attained it, I simply can’t see any reason to criticize him.  And I’m a guy who loves criticizing Romney whenever I get the chance!

To put it simply, I don’t want a President who can “identify” with society’s parasites.  Instead, I want a President who identifies with society’s producers.  And in this election, there’s only one clear choice in terms of which candidate stands with the producers, and which candidate stands with the parasites.  Obama is hell-bent on appealing to America’s “victims”…

…well I’m no victim, and I don’t believe that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be “victims” either, regardless of what socioeconomic class they might currently reside in.  Romney probably doesn’t identify with the “victims”.

And in 2012, neither does the rest of America.

Illegal Immigration & the Hispanic Vote

Recently, Barack Obama ruffled some feathers with a recent ruling that we would not deport young Illegal Aliens who were brought over by their parents.  While it’s extremely questionable whether or not Obama actually has the authority to declare such a fiat, the bigger point is that he unequivocally endorsed what amounts to amnesty for a large group of Illegal Aliens.  Unfortunately, Mitt Romney did not strike against Obama when he made this treasonous decision—instead he took the position that he’s become so used to taking as of late--the position of taking no position at all, and sitting on the fence.

Many who support Obama’s decision (and even some who support Romney’s non-decision) state that it would be unfair to send back Illegal Aliens who did not come here of their own volition but instead because of their parent’s lawbreaking.  While it is completely understandable to feel some sympathy (at least on the surface) for Illegal Aliens in this predicament, I still do not see where such sympathy should then translate to an obligation on our part to use our resources (already stretched to the maximum to begin with) to help them stay here.  While many of these young Illegals did not come here through any fault of their own, the fact remains that they are not here because of any fault on our part, either.  As such, why should we be the ones to take responsibility for the illegal and immoral actions of their parents (actions which many of them took purposefully in order to make sure that their offspring were born as “American Citizens” without going through the proper channels)?  Add to this the gang violence and drug trade that is perpetrated by many (though by no means all) of the young Illegals, and it becomes clear that—sympathetic or not—we simply cannot assist them in the callous breaking of the law which their parents undertook.  In a time of international war and economic issues domestically, this type of assistance would be nothing short of slitting our own throats.

Looking at this from a purely political perspective, one thing is apparent:  Obama is trying to use this stance to court Hispanic voters, and Romney is being very careful not to piss off those same Hispanic voters.  But is this a reasonable reaction from either candidate (particularly Romney)?  Is it a given that all (or even most) Hispanic voters are sympathetic to Illegal Aliens?  I ask that question rhetorically, as I honestly do not know the correct answer at this point in time.  But as I think about it, I would think that logically Hispanic voters should be no more sympathetic to Illegals than we are…indeed, logically speaking, they should be more angry with Illegals, as their actions reflect poorly on legal Hispanics and cause tremendous amounts of anger and distrust toward Hispanics who are here legally—anger and mistrust that would not otherwise be there if the Illegals weren’t such a significant problem.

Now, to be sure, there are many voters (and even large blocks of voters) who do not cast their ballots logically (see the nearly homogenous support for the Democratic party by the African-American community—despite a half-century of policies that have destroyed their families and confined them to near-permanent poverty—for an excellent example).  It is entirely possible that a significant number of Hispanics are sympathizing with Illegals and thereby voting against their own best interests…it certainly wouldn’t be the first time in American politics that such “misguided voting” has happened.  However, it seems to me that the best way to deal with this in the long term for the Republican party (or any party for that matter) would not be to accept the faulty premise put forth by these voters, but to instead better inform and educate them as to why they should turn against Illegal Immigration themselves.  To accept the faulty premise might win you some elections in the short term, but would do irreparable damage to the nation in the long-term (again, see the Democratic Party’s constant efforts to appeal to the lowest common denominator within the African-American community).  But if instead, you clearly and coherently make your case, you have the potential (over the long haul) to change the attitudes of the best and brightest voters within that community and start a generational shift in how that block of voters approaches such issues.

If your goal is simply to win one election, then I’ll admit, it’s a low-percentage play.  But if your goal is to save and improve the nation, it is the only strategy that makes sense.

But maybe there’s another alternative…maybe there are already significant numbers within the Hispanic community which already have the same disdain for Illegals as the majority of other Americans do.  After all, Legal Hispanics are just as much a part of—and just as much invested in—America as all other legal American citizens are.  Perhaps there are a significant number of Legal Hispanics who’s attitudes towards Illegal Immigration are logically correct.  Perhaps there is a group within the community who realizes that they suffer more directly than anybody else in America because of the actions of Illegals.

Those people may be out there (or if not, a significant number could be converted).  But as long as the Democrats appeal directly to the Illegals, and as long as the Republicans are too scared to upset them, we may never know.  And all American Citizens—regardless of ethnicity—will continue to live in massive danger.

Dispelling Obama's Lies on the Bush Economic Policy

In the midst of his re-election campaign, Barack Obama has resorted to telling bold-faced lies to the American people. Namely, he has characterized the economic policies of George W. Bush as “failures” in nearly every speech he has recently made. But a quick look at the facts indicates that Bush’s economic policies weren’t “failures”, but were instead quite successful…and that those policies certainly did not create the current financial mess.

In order to analyze the success (or failure) of Bush’s economic policies, we must first take stock of the environment with which he was working. In 2001, Bush was not only dealing with the burst of the dot com bubble, but also was dealing with the after-effects of the most heinous attack on American soil in our history. Life in America had virtually grinded to a halt—and understandably so—on September 11, 2001…the day that the entire world changed. And our economic habits were a part of that re-assessment of our surroundings, just as everything else was. So there’s no doubt, Bush was dealing with an economy that was dangling on the precipice to begin with.

Bush’s primary maneuver to answer this most gargantuan of economic challenges was the (now much-vilified) “Bush Tax Cuts”. And while it’s difficult to trace an upturn or downturn in an economy to any one factor, the fact remains that nearly six million jobs were created between 2001 and 2008 (or perhaps even more jobs were created, depending upon who’s estimates you believe. Stats, BTW, come from the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, as re-printed in the Tampa Bay Times: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-bush-tax-cuts-created-8-million-/ ). Furthermore, tax revenue increased after the tax cuts (just as it normally does when taxes are cut…that’s the pesky little economic fact that Liberals don’t want you to know!) Between 2003 & 2007, tax filers grew by 9.6%, and taxable income grew by 44% (Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/setting-the-tax-record-straight-clinton-hikes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery )

Critics often say that many of the jobs created during the Bush years were later “lost” in the 2008 recession. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that these jobs were created in the first place. Economic conditions and environments change over time, and no job is guaranteed to exist 10 or 20 years down the road—no matter what economic or political philosophies shape the environment in which the job was originally created. I’d be willing to bet that if, today, you walked up to an unemployed man who is presently struggling to feed his family and offered him a job—but with the caveat that “I can’t guarantee that the job will still be around ten years from now”, that man would eagerly take the job (and likely give you a heartfelt “Thank You” on top of it). Created jobs don’t suddenly lose their legitimacy simply because they may not survive different and unforeseen economic circumstances down the road. The bottom line is that Bush’s tax cuts were a significant factor in the economic environment of the early 2000’s—and that was an environment in which jobs were created. Seems like the definition of “successful economic policy” to me…

But what about the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis…that just had to be all Bush’s fault, didn’t it? After all, it happened during his term, so it must have been his fault, right? Why, you’re probably saying to yourself, if he’d just reigned in Wall Street, none of this icky recession stuff would have ever happened!

You couldn’t be more wrong.

It wasn’t George W. Bush—or even Wall Street for that matter—who caused bad loans to be made or unreasonable risks to be taken by the banking industry. Instead, it was the government itself that injected this undue risk into the system—via the Community Re-Investment Act that was implemented back in the late 1970’s. It was this law, followed by continual pressure from the Federal Government, which forced banks to lend to home “owners” who had heretofore been kept out of the housing market (and kept out of it for good reason).

Prior to this act, most banks had far more strict lending standards. Back in the 1970’s and earlier, it wasn’t out of the ordinary to see banks demand down payments of 20% or even more on a home loan, or to charge interest rates in the double-digits. While lending standards and conditions like these certainly make it more difficult for individuals to purchase homes, they also functioned as a roadblock to keep the riskiest investors out of the marketplace entirely—thereby reducing the risk for large-scale disaster. But government involvement in housing brought with it lower interest rates, lower down payment demands, and insistence on much looser and unreasonable lending standards (including the outlawing of the legitimate lending practice of “redlining”—the act of prohibiting home loans to certain zip codes in which homes are statistically unlikely to retain their value). All of this in an effort to attract the worst possible customers into the marketplace. Since banks were no longer allowed to make good investment decisions, they had to do the next best thing—find a way to sell the risk (which the government had forced them to take on in the first place) to some other sucker…er…”investor”…in order to glean some value out of it and mitigate this risk.

And all of these dominoes started falling long before Bush (or even before his father) ever took office. It wasn’t a lack of Wall Street regulation and banking regulation that caused these problems…it was instead the over-regulation of the housing industry which brought upon this financial disaster.

George W. Bush was far from a perfect President. There are many things that even the most ardent Conservatives and Republicans can find to disagree with him on (His gratuitous spending on education, “No Child Left Behind”, dumping money into AIDS prevention in Africa without getting anything in return, Medicare Part D, and a myriad of other issues). But to look at his economic policies and consider them to be failures is to completely ignore the facts and history of the 2000’s. The Bush Tax Cuts did not destroy jobs, and Bush’s economic policies did not cause the housing crisis. And while we’re on the topic, here’s another Liberal charge that we can debunk: “Charging two wars on our Credit Cards” didn’t play any kind of significant role in creating our massive debt. At the height of our military action—2006—Military spending and educational spending combined were less than 20% of our total budget. Entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, and the like) were nearly 2/3 of our overall budget! Blaming our horrendous debt on our wars and military action is like a 350 pound woman saying “this dress makes me look fat”. Honey, it ain’t the dress that makes you look fat…it’s the fat that makes you look fat. It ain’t the wars that have made us broke…it’s the Social Security, Medicare, & Medicade that have made us go broke, and that we’re constantly borrowing money to fund!

So whenever you hear Obama talk about the “failed economic policies” of the last administration, recognize that your President is lying to you. It would be bad enough if Barack Obama were simply an incompetent buffoon who was in over his head—he’d have to be replaced, but you couldn’t really get mad at him for his stupidity. But he’s lying to you on top of simply being incompetent, and the media is backing him up. And lying to the American people—when the facts to the contrary are as obvious as a Hollywood starlet’s boob job—shows not only a severe lack of character, but it calls into question one’s motivations, patriotism, and dedication to American principals as well!

Should we really criticize the "$10,000 bet"?

By now, you have no doubt seen, heard, or otherwise have been made aware of the now-infamous "$10,000 bet" that Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry during the most recent GOP debate. If you missed it, whoomp, here it is:



In the aftermath of this comment, Romney has taken a lot of heat for being "out of touch with "regular Americans". Media members, Democrats, and even a number of Republicans (including Rick Perry) have castigated Romney for this remark.

Now, let me be clear, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney. I couldn't warm up to him if we were cremated together. I think he's a Moderate (something that is practically a four-letter word among modern Conservatives), a flip-flopper, and the epitome of the word "RINO". You probably won't find anyone on the planet who is more eager to find a criticism--any criticism--of Romney and play it to the hilt more than I am. I'm the first guy to look for anything that could possibly derail the Romney campaign and milk it for all it's worth...

...and even I think the this criticism is ridiculous.

Since when has the GOP been the party of leveling criticism at a man merely for having been successful and attaining wealth during his lifetime? Since when has the GOP been the party that characterizes free-spending of private funds as a "character flaw"? The GOP hasn't been that party--at least not during my lifetime--and we never should become that party.

Note to Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have taken some jabs at Romney because of the "bet": Knock it off. You both are sounding like the President and the party that we are trying to remove from power. Placing a $10,000 bet with your own money (or spending $10,000 of your own money on any other thing you wish to spend it on) is nothing to be criticized, is none of your damn business, and is no reason to think less of any man.

Two weeks ago, I was playing poker in a local casino. While I played in my low-buyin No Limit Hold 'em game (a game where, at best, a few hundred dollars was on the line at any given point), the next table over housed a Pot Limit Omaha game. Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the finer points of poker, Pot Limit Omaha is, generally speaking, a "bigger" game than No Limit Hold 'em. Omaha is wilder, more action-packed, and with many more "swings". To make a long story short, it takes a lot more money to play Omaha than it does Hold 'Em...and at the next table over from me was one of the biggest Pot Limit Hold 'Em games ever seen in a Missouri casino.

I'll admit it, I was curious...I glanced over at the Omaha table. I noticed several stacks of chips that ranged from $10,000 up to nearly $20,000 in front of one player. It was far and away more money than I've ever played poker for (and more money than I likely ever will play poker for). And with such a wildness and aggressiveness that typically surrounds your average Pot Limit Omaha game, there's no doubt that many of those $10,000+ stacks were "all in" at various points.

Now ask yourself a question, as I glanced over at the Omaha table, what should I have thought of those players who had $10,000...$15,000...even $20,000 in chips in front of them? Should I have viewed them in a negative light? Should I have considered those $10,000 stacks of chips in front of them to be indicative of some sort of deeper character flaw? Should I have thought that anybody who would have $10,000 in play during a poker game would therefore be "out of touch" with many Americans?

To me, the answer is an obvious, "No!" The only thing I know about any of those players is the stack of chips they had in front of them--hardly enough information to make any type of reasonable judgement about any of them, character-wise. For all I know, they could have all been wonderful, church-going, family men. Or, for all I know, they could have been criminals. Or they could have been charitably-active, civic-minded individuals. Or they could have been wife-beaters. The bottom line is that I have no idea the character of any of those individuals at that table, and the amount of money that any of them had in play could do absolutely nothing to lead me towards any sort of character judgement about any of them.

There's a ton of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney (Romneycare for one. His inconsistent positions on, well, everything, for another. His lack of Social Conservatism for yet another...), but I don't see where his ability or willingness to place a bet of $10,000 with his own money should be listed among those reasons. Is Romney "out of touch" with the poor? How should I know? Heck, I have a lot less money than Mitt Romney, and I'd say that I'm "out of touch" with the poor. And given the criminal behavior, the constant "gaming of the system", and the lack of family structure that we see out of large swaths of the poor, I hope I remain "out of touch" with those people.

Perry, Gingrich, and the rest should focus their criticism of Romney on the important issues (and there's plenty of red meat there with which to combat Mitt). The discussion and criticism of how wealthy someone is--or what they choose to spend that wealth on--should have no place in a Republican primary season.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do a couple of shots of Pepto Bismal...all this defending of Mitt Romney makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach...

My initial thoughts on Herman Cain's "Sexual Harrasment"

So the Democrats...or other jealous GOP candidates...or the media...or somebody...decided to drop the dime on Herman Cain today with claims of sexual harrasment against him. I've been a pretty voiceferous supporter of Cain up to this point, so will these accusations affect my view of him? Well, unless there's something much deeper to these allegations than what has come out to this point (what I've heard so far--while perhaps fitting the legal definition of "sexual harrasment"--seem to be little more than "normal behavior of a healthy male"), I can't say that it will. The allegations as I understand them at this point (some sexually suggestive--but unclear--conversation and physical gestures) make this seem as though this is, at best, a misunderstanding (or, at worst, perhaps an attempt at "gold digging" by a female co-worker...something we see all to often by "professional harrasment victims" that populate much of the modern workplace environment). Unless there's a much more pervasive (or perverted) pattern of behavior here, I don't see how this would dissuade me from the reasons that I have supported Cain up to this point.

Below is a post I made on the topic over at stltoday.com which further expounds on my thoughts regarding this matter (please note that within this thread, several Liberals were attempting to compare Cain's allegations with Bill Clinton's behavior while in office):

From what I've seen so far, the allegations are little more than the following (quoted from the Politico piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html )

"conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" and "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."

Um...that's it? I'd say that, if most of us men are brutally honest about it, we probably engage in similar behavior multiple times a day. Now, I'm sure that most of us (myself included) do what we can to keep our natural behavioral instincts from coming into play in a professional environment, but nevertheless, sometimes things like that happen, and they get misinterpreted (particularly if the accuser in question is a gold digger who is *looking* for a harrasment settlement. Of course, we don't know that this is the case with Cain's accuser yet, but it happens so often in the workplace these days that one certainly can't discount the possibility out of hand).

Would such behavior cross the line of the "legal" definition of sexual harrasment? Probably...but only becuase the current legal definition of sexual harrasment in the workplace is one of the more ridiculous and backwards definitions of anything that we have on the law books (and a debate over what the proper definition of sexual harrasment should be would likely be an interesting topic on it's own). Essentially, if a wealthy or unattractive male makes a female uncomfortable in the workplace for any reason, ever, it's considered harrasment.

The bottom line is that, as a Cain supporter, if nothing more comes of this than the allegations we've seen (even if those allegations end up having some truth to them), I would still support Cain as the behavior alleged here would be pretty "minor" in nature as far as I'm concerned. Now, if more comes out and it turns out he was stalking some of these girls or forced himself on them, then certainly I would turn away from him. But at this point, the allegations seem to be little more than "a guy being a guy".

No trysts in the Oval Office, no Blue Dresses, no cigars, no lying under oath, no participation in the worst scandal ever undertaken by an American President (and yes, I'm including Watergate in that definition). The allegations against Cain as they stand now--even if there turns out to be some level of truth to them--aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to what "Slick Willie" did in the Oval Office.